26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Decentralizations’ Impact on Municipal Educational Leadership in Iceland: A Study of Changing Roles and Responsibilities
Sigríður Margrét Sigurðardóttir
University of Akureyri, Iceland
Presenting Author: Sigurðardóttir, Sigríður Margrét
Over the last 30 years, educational policies and governance at national levels in Europe have been increasingly influenced by global trends such as neoliberalism and New Public Management (Ball, 2017; Moos, 2017). This shift has led to decentralization of educational systems, introducing accountability systems and marketization. This has influenced governance structures within countries and heightened the educational responsibilities at local levels, particularly at district or municipal levels, necessitating a focus on leadership practices (Fullan & Quinn, 2016).
Research has drawn to attention the significant role of effective local-level leadership in contributing to professional development and student learning at the school level (Leithwood & McCullough, 2021; Louis, 2015). It is suggested that this leadership should adopt a proactive, distributed, and shared approach, centring on supporting principals and schools to enhance student learning and professional competence (Louis et al., 2010; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2020). Research by Leithwood et al. (2008, 2020) and Louis et al. (2010) indicates that municipal leaders must set directions, develop people, and refine organizational structures. The effectiveness of such leadership is often linked to its ability to foster a supportive environment for principals and teachers (Louis et al., 2010). Conversely, a lack of leadership capacity and understanding at the municipal level has been associated with challenges in sustaining improvements at the school level (Lambert et al., 2016; Louis et al., 2010).
In the context of global decentralization trends, Iceland’s transfer of compulsory schooling from state to municipal control in 1996 presents a unique case. This shift resulted in municipalities undertaking new responsibilities, such as setting educational policies and providing school support services, often without substantial state-level guidance (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2020). It has been documented that these changes significantly transformed the roles of municipal councils, school governing boards, and principals (Ásmundsson et al., 2008; Hansen & Lárusdóttir, 2018; Hansen & Jóhannsson, 2010). While the broader impacts of such decentralization shifts and the changing role of the local level have been documented in various European and global contexts (Moos et al., 2016; Leithwood & McCullough, 2021), the specific ramifications for Iceland remained less explored, especially in terms of leadership.
This paper seeks to understand how municipalities in Iceland have navigated their educational leadership responsibilities post-decentralization. The primary research question it addresses is: What implications has the decentralization of Iceland's educational system had for municipal educational leadership? Furthermore, what are the features of this leadership and its implication for school practice?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe methodological framework of the study this paper builds on is grounded in social constructionist epistemology, viewing knowledge as constructed through social processes. The research employs an embedded single-case study design, with municipal educational leadership in Iceland as the central case. This approach allows for an in-depth exploration of the specific nuances and complexities of the subject matter within its real-life context.
The case study is broken into four research themes or units of analysis, each with sub-questions that feed into the research question in different ways. It applies mixed methods to provide a rich and holistic understanding of the topic. Each method was applied in alignment with the corresponding unit of analysis, providing a layered and comprehensive understanding of the subject. Units 1 and 2 constructed a basic knowledge of educational governance and the policy environment at the municipal level and helped to situate municipal educational leadership within the Icelandic context. In Unit 1, document analysis was applied (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2020), and in Unit 2, content analysis on educational legislation (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2018). In Unit 3, a closer look was taken at the municipal level leadership nationwide, based on survey responses from both municipal and school leaders (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2022). In Unit 4, an attempt was made to deeply understand this leadership by examining seven municipalities in more detail (Sigurðardóttir, 2023). This was done by interviewing superintendents and department heads at school offices and principals and examining the municipalities' websites and policy documents concerning school support services. This paper is based on findings from all the units. The varied data collection ensures a holistic understanding of the topic, capturing the nuances of the changes and characteristics in educational leadership at the municipal level.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings reveal a significant reshaping of leadership practices at the municipal level in Iceland following the decentralization of compulsory schooling. The study identifies a lack of strategic planning and policy guidance at national and municipal levels, leading to an overdependence on individual leaders' capabilities. This situation has resulted in fragmented educational leadership, impacting the ability of schools to function as professional institutions and provide inclusive education.
The research underscores the need for a structured and strategic approach to leadership at the municipal level. It highlights the importance of coherent policy and governance structures that support and guide educational leaders. The findings suggest that strengthening leadership capacity, particularly in remote municipalities, is crucial for improving the quality of education and ensuring equity across the educational system.
The study contributes to the discourse on educational leadership and governance in Iceland and globally. It provides valuable insights into how local adaptations to global educational trends can influence the effectiveness of educational systems and local leadership practices. The Icelandic case offers a unique perspective on the challenges and opportunities of developing local educational leadership while decentralizing educational governance, providing lessons for other countries navigating similar reforms.
ReferencesÁsmundsson, G. Ó., Hansen, B., & Jóhannsson Ó. H. (2008). Stjórnskipulag grunnskóla: Hugmyndir skólanefnda um völd sín og áhrif. Netla – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. https://vefsafn.is/is/20201017174451/https:/netla.hi.is/greinar/2008/010/index.htm
Ball, S. J. (2017). The education debate (3rd ed.). Policy Press.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Corwin.
Hansen, B., & Jóhannsson, Ó., H. (2010). Allt í öllu: Hlutverk fræðslustjóra 1975–1996. University of Iceland Press.
Hansen, B., & Lárusdóttir, S. H. (2018). Grunnskólar á öndverðri 21. öld: Hlutverk og gildi. Icelandic Journal of Education, 27(2), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.24270/tuuom.2018.27.6
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2020). Leading from the middle: Its nature, origins and importance. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 5(1), 92–114.
Lambert, L., Zimmerman, D. P., & Gardner, M. E. (2016). Liberating leadership capacity: Pathways to educational wisdom. Teachers Collage Press.
Leithwood, K., & McCullough, C. (2021). "Leading School Districts for Improved Student Success". In S. Brown, & P. Duignan (Eds.), Leading Education Systems (pp. 133–156). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80071-130-320211006
Louis, K. S. (2015). Linking leadership to learning: State, district and local effects, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(3), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.30321
Moos, L. (2017). Neo-liberal governance leads education and educational leadership astray. In M. Uljens, & R. M. Ylimaki (Eds.), Bridging educational leadership, curriculum theory and didaktik: Non-affirmative theory of education (pp. 151–180). Springer.
Moos, L, Nihlfors, E., & Paulsen, J. M. (2016). Nordic superintendents: Agents in a broken chain. Springer.
Sigurðardóttir, S. M. (2023). Educational leadership at the municipal level in Iceland: What shapes it, its characteristics and what it means for school practices [Ph.D thesis]. University of Iceland. https://skolathraedir.is/2022/11/17/laesiskennsla-i-byrjendalaesisskolum-og-odrum-skolum/
Sigurðardóttir, S. M., Hansen, B., Sigurðardóttir, A. K., & Geijsel, F. (2020). Challenges in educational governance in Iceland: The establishment and role of the national agency in education. In Helen Ärlestig og Olaf Johansson, Educational authorities and the schools: Organisation and impact in 20 states (bls. 55–73). Springer.
Sigurðardóttir, S. M., Sigurðardóttir, A. K., & Hansen, B. (2018). Educational leadership at municipality level: Defined roles and responsibilities in legislation. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 2(2–3), 56–71. http://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.2760
Sigurðardóttir, S. M., Sigurðardóttir, A. K., Hansen, B., Ólafsson, K., & Sigþórsson, R. (2022). Educational leadership regarding municipal school support services in Iceland. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221076251
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Reflecting on School Results: Organisational Culture and its Alignment with Planned Changes
Iliriana Tahiraj
University of Prishtina, Kosovo
Presenting Author: Tahiraj, Iliriana
The publication of PISA results in 2022 revealed that students in Kosovo scored below a baseline level of performance. These results came despite the fact that Kosovo education has gone through several changes in the last two decades. Given that most of these changes were second-order or deep changes, they require an exploration of the underlying values, norms, assumptions, structures, process and culture of its institutions. Cultural theories suggest that understanding organizational culture is essential to identifying the relevant approaches when initiating, shaping and implementing changes in education. In this regard, school leaders play the key role in supporting the organisation to shape its culture and adapt it to its planned change. Therefore, the objective of this research is to identify the dominant organisational culture types in schools and understand how they are they aligned with the planned changes. The two main research questions that will guide the study are what are the dominant organizational culture types in schools and how do the school leaders align dominant organizational culture with the planned changes.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research will be conducted in a seven main primary and lower secondary public schools in capital of Prishtina (Kosovo) and will select in cooperation with the Municipality Education Department based on the criteria as best performing schools. The study will adapt a mixed methodology. For the quantitative data, the sample will consist of 300 teachers. The data will be collected using a standardized instrument (The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument – OCAI) to assess the dominant organisational culture based on four organisational culture types: clan, hierarchy, adhocracy and market. For the qualitative data, semi-structured interviews with seven school directors, document analysis will be used as a technique for collecting data. The quantitative gathered data will be analyzed using SPSS program. The mean and standard deviation will be used to calculate descriptive data. While for analyzing the inferential data, parametric tests will be used: T-test and One-Way Anova. The qualitative data gathered through seven interviews were fully transcribed and coded accordingly. The interview data will be analyzed and compared with the documents analysis as well as with the quantitative data collected through the OCAI questionnaire.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe research will identify and assess cultures in the primary and lower secondary schools and also find the difference between existing and desired culture. In addition, it will explore the role of the school director in aligning the organisational culture with the planned changes. It will promote awareness of the school organisational culture and stimulate further discussion that will make school leaders think about it and use it to improve the implementation of changes. Given the fact that the same OCAI instrument for assessing school cultures was also used in other countries, the research will be able to compare the obtained results and find out the discrepancies and challenges that were faced in other contexts. In addition, given the difficulties that Kosovo is facing to improve the school results, this research will also be useful for scholars, policy makers and practitioners in Kosovo and will encourage the discussion about the impact of the organizational culture to the change processes since there are no similar research published so far in Kosovo.
ReferencesAlvesson, M. (1987). Organizations, Culture, and Ideology. International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 4-18.
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding Organizational Culture. London, GB: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Anderson, G. & Wenderoth A. (2007) Facilitating change: Reflections on Six Years of Education Development Programming in Challenging Environments. Universalia Management Group, 5252 de Maisonneauve Blvd. W., Suite 310. Montreal, Quebec H4A 2S5
Apple, M. W. (2016). “Challenging the epistemological fog: the roles of the scholar/activist in education“. European Educational Research Journal, 11 May 2016.
Brooks, J. S. & Normore A. H. (2015). Qualitative research and educational leadership. International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 29 Iss 7 pp. 798 – 806.
Cameron, K. S. & Quinn R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Third edition. San Francisko, CA: Jossey – Bass.
Cameron, K. S., Quinn R. E., DeGraff, J. & Thakor, A. V. (2006). Competing Values Leadership: Creating values in organisations. Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Cardno, C. (2018). Policy document analysis: A practical educational leadership tool and a qualitative research method. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 24(4), 623-640.
Cooke, R. A, & Szumal, J. L. (2013). Using the Organisational Culture Inventory to Understand the Operating Cultures of Organisations. Handbook of Organisational Culture & Climate.
Gay, L. R., Mills, E. and Arasian, M. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. Eight edition. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital, Transforming Teaching in Every School. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Jung, T., Scott, T., Davies, H. T. O., Bower, P., Whalley, D., McNally, R., & Mannion, R. (2009). Instruments for exploring organizational culture: A review of the literature. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1087-1096.
Kezar, A. (2014). How Colleges Change: Understanding, Leading and Enacting Change. Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017. Taylor & Francis
Lortie, D. C. (2009). School Principal Managing in Public. The University Chicago Press, Ltd., London.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisko: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 229.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organisational Culture and Leadership. Third Edition. San Francisko: Jossey-Bass.
Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational Culture in Higher Education: Defining the Essentials. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2-21.
Torres, L. L. (2022). School Organisational Culture and Leadership: Theoretical Trends and New Analytical Proposals. Education Sciences, 12.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Implementing an Improvement Science Approach: Refelcting on three years of Leadership, Improvement, and Professional Learning
Frauke Meyer1, Linda Bendikson2
1University of Auckland, New Zealand; 2Schooling Improvement Ltd.
Presenting Author: Meyer, Frauke
School improvement efforts often do not result in sustained change in schools and improvement in equity in outcomes. The implementation and sustained effects of school improvement remain under-researched. This research focuses specifically on school improvement using improvement science approaches. Improvement science has seen a wide uptake in business and public health (e.g., Gawande, 2011; Langley et al., 2009) but also in the education sector (e.g., Bryk et al., 2015; Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2017). An improvement cycle is a systematic approach to achieving continual improvement, emphasising the identification of problem causes, setting goals, and measuring and closely monitoring progress towards goals. Previous studies have documented the initial implementation of improvement science approaches (e.g., Meyers & Hitt, 2018; Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2017). However, studies on sustained implementation and improvement are lacking. Further, some case study research points to general practices supporting improvement efforts using improvement science approaches (e.g., Peterson & Carlile, 2021). However, the specific practices, conditions, and enablers of sustained school improvement remain under-researched. Finally, implementation in schools is often supported through research-practice partnerships, which are time- and cost-intensive. There is no known research examining an online learning approach to support schools.
Addressing these gaps, the current study asked school leaders to reflect on three years in which they engaged in an online professional learning programme (PLD) supporting them in their implementation of a school improvement science approach, namely the School Improvement Cycle (SIC). It had three aims: 1) to investigate whether a new improvement science model results in sustained change and improvement; 2) to examine the specific practices, conditions, and enablers of sustained school improvement in schools; and 3) to test an innovative approach to engage with whole school leadership teams via online learning.
The PLD served a cluster of ten primary and two secondary schools, and about ten professional staff in South Australia. Data collected included interviews with five principals, seven middle leaders, two professional staff, and the school achievement data. Interviews gathered in-depth data on the implementation and effectiveness of the SIC and PLD. Following a theory of action framework, we investigated changes in leaders’ beliefs, how those translated into changed leadership behaviours, and the impact these changes had on school culture, which means on leaders’ and teachers’ ways of working and student learning. We also inquired into the level of implementation, the transferability of the acquired learning to other areas, and the challenges encountered. Finally, we explored leaders’ views on the delivery and impact of the PLD.
Leaders noted a range of changes in their leadership beliefs. They reported greater confidence in leading improvement as they had a clear and rigorous process to follow. This pushed them to formulate and test their theory of improvement, rather than jumping to solutions. They changed their focus changed from a teacher- to a student-centred one. Finally, the roles and responsibilities of middle and senior leaders became clearer, and leadership became more genuinely distributed.
Leaders reported changes in their leadership behaviour. They engaged in more data-driven practice, focussed on creating transparency in decisions and processes, and changed the use of meetings to enable more focused work and create more touch points between leaders and between leaders and teachers. This work led to changes in school culture. Leaders saw strong teacher buy-in, a strong sense of accountability and cohesion, more focussed in-school PLD, and a positive impact on student learning and results.
Finally, leaders reported positively on the content, structure, and online nature of the PLD. The online nature meant reduced travel time while still sharing learning with schools across the region, and time flexibility in booking follow-up meetings.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis research is a retrospective examination of a PLD programme facilitated online supporting school teams over three years in implementing an improvement science approach. For the first year, the PLD consisted of six 1.5 hours long webinars approximately every six weeks. In the webinars, the facilitator stepped school teams through the SIC. The webinars thus aligned with the steps in the SIC: (1) Defining the problem and the goal, (2) Developing quick wins and measures, (3) Developing the theory for improvement, (4) Implementing strategy: Professional learning, (5) Implementing strategy: Organisational, and (6) Sustaining progress over time. For each webinar, school teams had a pre-reading and a follow-up meeting in the same week to discuss progress and next steps. Webinars also included schools sharing strategies or challenges to implement the approach. In the second year, schools met with the facilitator to assess their progress and needs. A further four webinars were provided designed to address schools’ implementation challenges. In the third year, schools were offered up to six follow-up meetings. Most schools had three to four meetings.
Six out of the twelve schools that took part in the PLD consented to the research, four primary and two secondary schools. Five principals, seven middle leaders, and two professional staff took part in a one-hour-long interview. The semi-structured interviews gathered in-depth data on leadership beliefs and practices, the implementation, enablers, and challenges in schools. A sub-set of questions examined participants’ perceptions of the online PLD. Interviews were conducted online via Zoom, audio-recorded, and transcribed.
NVIVO was used for thematic analysis (Braun et al., 2018), which was informed by a theory of action framework (Argyris, 1974). Theories of action explain how people’s underlying beliefs, values, and understandings, together with the conditions they find themselves in, impact the actions they take to resolve problems. Theories of action further link these actions to intended or unintended consequences. Thus, the first round of coding focused on leadership beliefs, behaviours (actions), and consequences. Within these themes, we engaged in an inductive analysis. Themes and coding were reviewed twice by both authors in an iterative process to ensure trustworthiness in the analysis.
The school cluster provided achievement data from three years prior to when the schools were introduced to the approach (five years in total). The data was analysed to see changes over time for each school as challenges with changes in measures made further statistical analysis unreliable.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis study constituted an in-depth study of school improvement using a novel approach to school improvement and supporting schools. First, leaders reported changes in beliefs, behaviours and school culture, including student outcomes, as a result of implementing the School Improvement Cycle. Improvement science offers a rigorous process for identifying problems, setting goals, identifying and implementing strategies, and closely monitoring the implementation and effects. Schools saw more cohesion, accountability and buy-in as the approach created clearer structures and resulted in positive outcomes for students. Our research attests to the effectiveness of sustained implementation of improvement science approaches (Meyers & Hitt, 2018; Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2017). It however goes further in highlighting specific leadership practices and conditions for school improvement, providing valuable and detailed insights for schools, leaders, district leaders and professional development providers. Given the constant changes in education and the uncertainty that schools grapple with in today’s world, school improvement science enables schools to focus and reflect on the challenges and barriers pertinent to their students and school communities and trial and implement strategies to address these challenges.
While the use of improvement cycles is increasingly lauded as a tool for educators, schools, districts, universities, and communities to work towards sustained and systematic change for improvement, such efforts often benefit or build on partnerships, networked communities, or collaborations with researchers or external facilitators to embed this work (Bryk et al., 2015; Coburn, & Penuel, 2016; Crow et al., 2019). Our research highlights the feasibility of an online PLD approach to supporting this work. The findings will have implications on how improvement science is executed in schools and how this implementation can be supported at scale and for geographically dispersed schools through online learning.
ReferencesArgyris, C., & Schӧn, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Terry, G., & Hayfield, N. (2018). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health and Social Sciences (pp. 843–860). Springer.
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.
Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48-54.
Crow, R., Hinnant-Crawford, B. N., & Spaulding, D. T. (2019). The educational leader’s guide to improvement science: Data, design and cases for reflection. Myers Education Press.
Gawande, A. (2011). The Checklist Manifesto: How to get things right. Profile Books Ltd.
Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Clifford, N. L., & Provost, L. P. (2009). The Improvement Guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance (Second ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Meyers, C. V., & Hitt, D. H. (2018). Planning for school turnaround in the United States: an analysis of the quality of principal-developed quick wins. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(3), 362-382.
Peterson, D. S., & Carlile, S. P. (2021). Improvement science: Promoting equity in schools. Myers Education Press.
Tichnor-Wagner, A., Wachen, J., Cannata, M., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2017). Continuous improvement in the public school context: Understanding how educators respond to plan-do-study-act cycles. Journal of Educational Change, 18, 465-494.
|
