26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Shared Leadership - the Assistant Principal´s Role in Swedish Schools
Carina Adolfsson Nordström
University of Umeå, Sweden
Presenting Author: Adolfsson Nordström, Carina
The task of principals in schools and preschools is complex and far reaching and thus hard to handle by one single person. Yet, in Sweden the law states that the principle is solely responsible for leading and coordinating the activities at schools and preschools (SFS 2010:800). However, to strengthen the school leadership and support the principal many Swedish schools have hired assistant principals. In fact, the number of assistant principals in Swedish schools have increased fourfold in the last ten years (skolverket 2022). These developments can be understood through the developing research field of shared leadership (Döös & Wilhelmson, 2021). In shared leadership research the understanding of leadership practice goes beyond traditional, singular ways of organising leadership functions. Instead, leadership is seen as a collective endeavour including multiple individuals with different forms and functions.
In the international literature there is an expanding acknowledgement that issues surrounding schools and education in general is becoming increasingly complex (Yada & Jäppinen, 2022). This, in turn, have spurred the question of whether principals can, or should, tackle diverse organisational problems alone (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Indeed, many researchers suggest that school leadership is better understood as a shared phenomenon that requires collective actions to address and manage issues at hand (Hallinger & Heck, 2011; Harris, 2003).
In this study, I take my point of departure in shared leadership research and apply it to the Swedish case. I find the Swedish case of particular interest to investigate shared leadership for two reasons. First, the increase of assistant principals in recent years indicate an increased focus on shared leadership in Sweden. Second, the mission of the principal is clearly elaborated in the education act and other relevant steering documents, but the mission of the assistant principal is less defined. This means that the role and function of the assistant principal can differ greatly between school contexts. In addition, the role of the assistant principal as well as the relationship between the principal and the assistant principal is contested and up for negotiation since the Swedish education act and other steering documents provide none or limited guidance to these issues.
To further investigate how leadership in schools work, other leader functions than primary leaders such as principals needs to be investigated. In this paper assistant principals in the Swedish school system are investigated to further develop the understandings of how shared leadership can be understood in a Swedish context. The questions for this study are; What perceptions do assistant principals have about their role and responsibility in the cross-municipal management organization? What perceptions do assistant principals have about their role and responsibility in the school-specific management organization?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe selection in this study was six assistant principals who participated in the principal training program in Sweden. The assistant principals who participated in the study work at schools located in five different municipalities in different parts of Sweden. The size of the municipalities varied greatly in both area and number of inhabitants. All of the schools are public schools and consist of leisure center, preschool classes, grades 1-9 and compulsory school for pupils with intellectual disabilities. All of the participants had before becoming assistant principals’ a background in school as licensed teachers and had participated in various management functions such as first teachers, work team leaders, process leaders or other special development assignments. For two of the assistant principals in this study, this was their second assistant principal job, for the other four assistant principals’ it was the first time they had the role of assistant principal. One of the participants in the study has acted as an assistant principal for 11 years, but the majority of the participants in the study have acted as assistant principals for 4-6 years. For 5 of the schools, the number of students and staff was similar, from 340 students to 470 students, and the schools have about 70 employees. One of the schools is significantly larger and has 660 students and 80 employees. The respondents in the study are a relatively homogeneous group based on professional background, number of years as assistant principal, and size of school.
Six assistant principals were interviewed from the end of January to the beginning of February 2022. The material was analyzed using thematic analysis because the purpose of the study was to make visible the assistant principals' perceptions of roles and responsibilities (Bryman 2018). The material was categorized based on Döös, Wilhelmsson, and Backström's (2013) three perspectives on shared leadership: organisational structure, task and responsibilities and manager´s experience. In the organisational perspective, the question is answered about what perceptions assistant principals have about their roles and responsibilities in the cross-municipal management organization. In the perspective task and responsibility, the question is answered about what perceptions assistant principals have about their roles and responsibilities in the school-specific management organization. The perspective manager´s experience includes the important components that assistant principals believe should be present for good collaboration in the school's management group are described.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAll the participants in the study were introduced to their new job as assistant principals by the administration. The administration didn´t take into account the needs of the respective school’s management organization or the context in which the schools’ management organizations are located. The study also shows that most assistant principals have an unclear role in both the cross-municipal management organization and the school-specific management organization. In the cross-municipal management organization, the assistant principal is not included and their competence in the operational work is not utilized. Decisions are made in the cross-municipal management group on operational issues without the assistant principal having the opportunity to contribute with their operational competence. This leads to frustration among the assistant principals.
The work as an assistant principle at different schools can include widely different assignments, ranging from shared leadership to working with delegated individual tasks. The roles were unclear for the participants in the management groups at most schools, which leads to a high workload because several people can be involved in the same matter without knowing about each other. The success factors that can be seen in the study are the local management organizations where the assistant principal’s role complements the principal. They can utilize that there is a good mix of experiences where often the principal stands for long experience and the assistant principal has good operational competence. The assistant principal can work closely with the teachers and support them in their teaching-related work. For this to be possible, the principal needs to take responsibility for clarifying the roles of the principal and assistant principal. Cross-municipal delegation orders and job descriptions exist for assistant principals, which are not used school-specifically as they do not reflect what the assistant principal does in practice.
ReferencesBryman, A. (2018) Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder [Social science methods] (3:e uppl.). Malmö: Liber
Döös, M., Wilhelmsson, L., Backström, T. (2013). Delat ledarskap. Om chefer i samarbete [Shared leadership. Managers in collaboration] (2 rev.uppl.). Stockholm: Liber
Döös, M., & Wilhelmson, L. (2021). Fifty-five years of managerial shared leadership research: A review of an empirical field. Leadership, 17(6), 715–746.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Collaborative Leadership and School Improvement: Understanding the Impact on School Capacity and Student Learning. I T. Townsend & J. MacBeath (Red.), International Handbook of Leadership for Learning (s. 469–485). Springer Netherlands.
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher Leadership as Distributed Leadership: Heresy, fantasy or possibility? School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 313–324.
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529–561.
SFS 2010:800. The education act
Skolverket (2022). https://www.skolverket.se/skolutveckling/statistik. (20221003)
Yada, T., & Jäppinen, A.-K. (2022). Principals’ perceptions about collective competences in shared leadership contexts. Teaching and Teacher Education: Leadership and Professional Development, 1, 100012.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Construction of Collective Agency in the Implementation of educational Innovations: A Case Study in Different Innovative Contexts
Helma Oolbekkink-Marchand1, Linor Hadar2, Madeleine Hulsen1, Marijke Kral1, Martijn Peters1, Haneen Vasel3
1HAN, University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands, The; 2Department of Learning and Instructional Sciences, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Israel; 3Beit Berel College, Israel
Presenting Author: Oolbekkink-Marchand, Helma;
Hadar, Linor
Objective and Research Question
In this paper we explore the construction of collective agency in the context of educational innovations employing a dual case study approach. Specifically our research question was: How is collective agency constructed when implementing top-down and bottom-up educational innovations in schools? We build on the literature regarding agency and construction of agency as a theoretical foundation for our study.
Theoretical framework
Agency refers to teachers’ conscious ability to influence their work through their actions (Imants & Van der Wal, 2020), resulting in impact on both the school context and/or their professional identity (Etelapelto et al., 2013). Teacher agency is increasingly recognized as a crucial capacity in the context of educational innovations and educational quality (Vähäsantanen, 2015). Educational innovations are integral to every school and thus a part of teachers’ professional lives. Society and policymakers require schools to address aspects such as equal opportunities for students and educational quality by introducing innovations that improve their practices.
Although the significance of teacher agency in the context of educational innovations is acknowledged, it concurrently faces threats from policies emphasizing school and teacher accountability, resulting in the perceived lack of space and perceived agency (Oolbekkink-Marchand et al., 2017). This pressure of policies can lead to weak or bounded teacher agency (Vahasantanen, 2015; Oolbekkink et al. 2022). In such instances, teachers perceive themselves as passive rather than active subjects, lacking influence on their work conditions in schools and in the policy decisions being made. To foster a strong or extensive sense of agency among teachers and enable them to utilize this agency in the context of innovations, a stimulating interplay of personal and social resources is essential. Support from a school leader and a strong commitment to their work can empower teachers to experience a robust sense of agency and drive changes in their professional practice (Oolbekkink et al., 2022).
In the context of schoolwide educational innovations, the need for not only individual agency but also collective agency becomes paramount, Collective agency “is manifested when a group of people share and pursue a common interest in order to improve their own lives and to affect larger contexts, for example by transforming structures and cultures” (Hökkä et al. 2019). Collective agency can be manifested when a group of teachers collaboratively develops new professional practices, or reaches a shared understanding of what is important in school and their classes, defining who they want to be as teachers in this context. Despite this importance, little is known about the construction of collective agency in the professional practice of teachers and school leaders in the context of educational innovations. We assume that the ‘type of innovation’ (top-down or bottom-up) may influence the construction of collective agency in schools. Top-down innovation is initiated by school leaders sometimes in response to districts or nationwide policies, while bottom-up innovation originates from teachers often in response to perceived needs in classrooms or their subject matter department. The literature indicates that neither top-down nor bottom-up innovations are inherently superior; however, fostering interaction between bottom-up and top-down processes is crucial. This requires actors and activities that integrate these processes to establish collective agency for collaborative educational innovations aimed at improving educational quality (Fullan, 1994; Saari et al., 2015).
This study focuses on examining top-down and bottom-up educational innovations in school practice and the construction of collective agency in these cases.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo explore the construction of collective agency in the context of educational innovations, we utilized a multiple case study approach involving two cases: one in the Netherlands where school-based innovations originated from teacher agency (bottom-up), and the other in Israel where school-based innovation was initiated by the school-leader's agency (top-down).
This methodology involves in-depth examination of multiple cases, providing a multifaceted perspective. Case study analytic techniques facilitate pattern identification and explanation building. It requires examining data both within each case and across cases for comparative purposes (Yin, 2014).
Participants, data collection and analysis
In the Netherlands, participants included 20 teachers and their school-leaders from different schools implementing diverse bottom-up innovations. Data collection methods involved semi-structured interviews for teachers and their school-leaders, with storylines as the basis for teacher interviews focusing on developing agency in the context of educational innovations.
In Israel, participants included 24 teachers and one school-leader implementing a Project-Based Learning initiative (PBL) at a public middle school. The PBL was initiated top-down by the school-leader. Data collection methods included two focus group conversations with 6 teachers each, addressing teachers’ experiences and attitudes toward PBL implementation, and a reflective questionnaire distributed to 24 teachers exploring their implementation and attitudes towards PBL.
Within-case and cross-case analysis
We employed a case study approach to conduct within-case and cross-case analyses (Yin, 2014). Within-case analyses facilitated a detailed examination of collective agency construction within each case, revealing processes and challenges in implementing school innovation. The cross-case analysis compared the two cases and aimed to integrate findings from individual cases and draw conclusions.
In the initial stage, we generated case summaries for each case. Adopting an inductive qualitative content analysis methodology (Hsieh & Shannon, 2015), we conducted open coding for the data of each case separately. To ensure trustworthiness, two researchers independently abstracted categories. Comparing notes, discussing disparities, and revising the coding scheme led to an agreement on the categorization scheme, with each researcher providing examples from the data to support it. This process facilitated the creation of categories illustrating how collective agency is constructed in the implementation of both top-down and bottom-up educational innovations in schools.
In the second stage, for the cross-case analysis, we used the categories abstracted from the within-case analysis as starting points for further analysis. This allowed us to compare and construct the cases, leading to conclusions regarding the construction of collective agency in the context of educational innovation.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary results from both within and cross-case analyses reveal similarities and differences in the ways collective agency is constructed in the two cases. In the top-down case in Israel, the school leader experienced individual agency in introducing the innovation to the school but faced challenges in building collective agency. There appeared to be a deficiency in shared dialogue, and the top-down structure of the innovation overlooked aspects related to teacher autonomy. Teachers involved in the implementation reported inadequate collaborative learning structures, and felt that the innovation was imposed on them, resulting in a lack of ownership and motivation to pursue innovative goals for school development.
In the bottom up case individual teachers experienced individual agency but faced challenges in building collective agency, particularly due to their informal role within the school. The struggle to construct collective agency among fellow teachers was evident. While there was some shared dialogue, it was not always sufficient in order to promote ownership and motivation to collaboratively pursue innovative goals and promote school development. Furthermore, there was a high dependency on support from the school leader, such as appreciation and facilitations of the innovations in schools. In some cases circumstances for teachers changed when school leaders departed and new school leaders arrived with sometimes a different perspective on the innovation.
Overall, these two case studies underscore the significance of constructing collective agency and highlights the challenges faced by both teachers and school-leaders in establishing shared dialogue for collaborative ownership of the innovations. It is possible that there is a deficiency in competencies on the part of both parties to effectively engage in and facilitate this dialogue, suggesting a need for professional development. Implications for the construction of collective agency in future research and in school practice will be discussed.
ReferencesFullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for educational reform. Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing education, 7-24.
Hökkä, P., Rautiainen, M., Silander, T., & Eteläpelto, A. (2019). Collective agency-promoting leadership in Finnish teacher education. International research, policy and practice in teacher education: Insider perspectives, 15-29.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. W., Hadar, L. L., Smith, K., Helleve, I., & Ulvik, M. (2017). Teachers' perceived professional space and their agency. Teaching and teacher education, 62, 37-46.
Oolbekkink-Marchand, H., van der Want, A., Schaap, H., Louws, M., & Meijer, P. (2022). Achieving professional agency for school development in the context of having a PhD scholarship: An intricate interplay. Teaching and Teacher Education, 113, 103684.
Saari, E., Lehtonen, M., & Toivonen, M. (2015). Making bottom-up and top-down processes meet in public innovation. The Service Industries Journal, 35(6), 325-344.
Vähäsantanen, K. (2015). Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers' professional identities. Teaching and teacher education, 47, 1-12.
Yin, R.K., (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods . Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(1), 108-110.
|
