| 1. |
- Adolfsson, Carl-Henrik, Fil doktor, 1976-, et al.
(författare)
-
Data Analysis for School Improvement within Coupled Local School Systems : Which Data and with what Purposes?
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Leadership and Policy in Schools. - : Taylor & Francis Group. - 1570-0763 .- 1744-5043. ; 22:3, s. 714-727
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- From a new institutional theoretical perspective, this article explores school actors’ sense making linked to data-based decision making (DBDM) policy in general and processes of data analysis in particular. The study revealed how actors’ interpretation of and response to DBDM requirements pointed to strong and weak couplings between and within the local school system’s different organizational levels. While teachers primarily emphasized informal, daily analyses, the LEA and principals placed importance on formal, district and school-based analyses. In the same way teachers to a greater extent think that too much resources is spent on collecting and analyzing data rather than on innovation and school improvement.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Adolfsson, Carl-Henrik, Fil doktor, 1976-, et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluating School Improvement Efforts : Pupils as Silent Result Suppliers, or Audible Improvement Resources?
- 2018
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. - Flacq : Society for Research and Knowledge Management. - 1694-2493 .- 1694-2116. ; 17:6, s. 34-50
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article contributes to a perspective of school development, where pupils‟ experiences of the teaching they encounter are regarded as a result of improvement work. In a three-year research collaboration with four nine-year compulsory schools in a large Swedish municipality, researchers have continuously conducted group interviews with different actors, collected relevant documentation and reported their preliminary analyses to the schools. In the light of previous research, the results show that the development areas that have been in focus in the schools have in some cases had an impact on the teaching. However, no homogenous change is evident. Rather, the variation between classrooms, teachers and subjects is great, especially if the pupils‟ perspectives are taken into consideration. The pupils‟ experiences and voices on how the improvement work materialises in the classroom contribute to explaining the connections, or lack of them, between the school and classroom levels.
|
|
| 4. |
- Adolfsson, Carl-Henrik, Fil doktor, 1976-, et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluating teacher and school development by learning capital : a conceptual contribution to a fundamental problem
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Improving Schools. - : Sage Publications. - 1365-4802 .- 1475-7583. ; 22:2, s. 130-143
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In light of an international policy movement to increase focus on students’ academic achievement, the question of how to improve schools has become an important issue at all levels in the school system. Substantial resources have been invested in reforms to improve conditions for pupils’ learning. Great expectations and responsibility are often placed on teachers in terms of their professional development (PD), the aim being to improve their teaching practices. Consequently, the question of how to evaluate the results of school improvement programmes, including teachers’ PD, has arisen. However, there is a lack of theoretical concepts that can capture the outcomes of such development in a qualified way. Taking inspiration from the research on teachers’ PD and theories relating to teachers’ knowledge and capabilities, the aim of this study is to outline a conceptual framework that can serve as an analytical tool when evaluating both school improvement initiatives in general and school actors’ learning in particular. Four types of learning capital that are intended to reflect the central aspects of teachers’ and school organisations’ learning and the capabilities linked to teaching practice and its development are outlined. This conceptual framework is applied and exemplified based on the results of a three-year research project evaluating a school improvement programme in a Swedish municipality. Finally, some conclusions are drawn regarding the different types of analysis possible with the current conceptual framework related to the evaluation of school improvement efforts.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Adolfsson, Carl-Henrik, Fil doktor, 1976-, et al.
(författare)
-
Mötet mellan den statliga och kommunala kvalitetsstyrningen inom ramen för Samverkan för bästa skola
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige. - : Linnaeus University. - 1401-6788 .- 2001-3345. ; 26:1, s. 15-41
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Inom ramen för det svenska decentraliserade skolsystemet har ansvaret för att bygga upp, utveckla och bedriva ett systematiskt kvalitetsarbete i första hand varit en fråga för huvudmän och skolor att hantera. I ljuset av en ökad re-centralisering av skolan har uppbyggandet av olika kvalitetssystem för uppföljning och kontroll av skolornas resultat också kommit att utgöra ett viktigt sätt för huvudmannen att styra skolan på. I studien benämns detta i termer av kvalitetsstyrning. I och med Samverkan för bästa skola har dessa gränsdragningar mellan det lokala och det nationella kommit att utmanas. Studien bygger på intervjudata inhämtad på fyra skolor som deltar i Samverkan för bästa skola, från skolförvaltningen i samma kommun samt genom intervju med en representant från Skolverket. Utifrån begreppen löst kopplade system och organisatoriska rutiner studeras vad som karaktäriserar den nationella respektive den kommunala kvalitetsstyrningen samt vad som sker i mötet dem emellan på skolor som genomgår insatser inom ramen för Samverkan för bästa skola, samt med vilka konsekvenser. Resultatet av studien visar bland annat på att idéer och metoder om databaserad skolutveckling utgör viktiga legitimitetsgrunder för såväl den kommunala som den nationella kvalitetsstyrningen. Den nationella kvalitetsstyrningen via Samverkan för bästa skola är dock betydligt mer intensifierad och når längre in i skolornas organisation.
|
|
| 8. |
- Adolfsson, Carl-Henrik, Fil doktor, 1976-, et al.
(författare)
-
The Local Education Authority’s Implementation of a Capacity-building model for school improvement – obstacles and possibilities
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Presented at ECER 2019.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- General description on research questions, objectives and theoretical framework (600 words)In school systems around the world, there is an increasing focus on pupils’ academic achievements and school results. This has resulted in an intensified control of pupils’ levels of achievement (cf. PISA) and increasing demands for school actors and decision-makers to improve schools. In this respect, Sweden is no exception. Ages of declining student achievement, decreased equality between schools have spurred an intensive critique against the Swedish school system and triggered a more state-regulated governing of the school system in terms of several national reforms, which altogether aim to take control over the schools’ outcome (Wahlström & Sundberg, 2017; Adolfsson, 2018). In light of such a policy movement the Local Education Authorities (LEA) and schools’ responsibility for pupils’ achievement and equality have been highlighted and strengthened in Swedish policy. In addition, to ensure the quality of the teaching and the professionalism of the teachers, a revision of the Swedish Education Act was carried out in 2010. This revision stipulated, among other things, that all schools and local school authorities must conduct a systematic improvement work. This had led to a discussion of how school on a local basis can build capacity to improve themselves. In this context, LEA, in the Swedish municipalities, have become important policy actors (Wahlström & Sundberg, 2017b). To strengthen the schools own capacity for improvement, but also to increase the control over the schools’ processes and outcomes, the construction and implementation of different quality systems has been an important strategy for the local education authorities (Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2017; Håkansson & Sundberg, 2016).In this paper, we will put this ‘meso-level’, i.e. the relationship between LEA and the schools, in focus. We mean that this is an important, but many times overlooked, relationship when it comes to understand processes and outcomes related to the implementation of local quality systems and school improvement initiatives (Rorrer, Skrla & Scheurich, 2008). Based on an ongoing three-year research project in a major municipality in Sweden, the overall aim is to investigate a LEA: s attempt to implement a new quality system at the schools in the municipality, as a way to control and strengthen the schools’ improvement work. The following research questions are addressed in the paper:1. How and which central aspects of the schools’ improvement work tries LEA control and strengthened through the implementation of a new quality system?2. In what w ay do school actors respond to LES’s attempt to implement the quality system?3. Which different factors can be distinguished as notably important for the outcome of the implementation process?The relationship between the LED and the current schools are understood and analysed from a neo-institutional theoretical perspective (Scott, 2008). From this perspective, three dimensions can be highlighted regarding how institutions (in this case the LED and the current schools) seek to control and affect other institutions, respond to external pressure and seek legitimacy: regulative (rules and sanctions), normative (prevalent norms, expectations and ideals ), and cognitive-cultural/discursive (shared conceptions and frames of meaning-making). This perspective enable us to elucidate the character of the different strategies and actions that LED undertake in the implementation of the new quality model. To understand the implementation processes that occurred at the different schools, theoretical inspiration is acquired from implementation theory (Fixen et al. 2005; Lundquist, 1987; Lipsky, 1980). This theory put analytical focus on central implementation factors such as clarity, school actors knowledge, legitimacy, time, leadership, organisation, school culture etc, which thus help us to understand the result of the implementation processes of the different schools. Methods/methodology (400 words)The overall research project, which this specific study is conducted within, has a mixed-method inspired design. The aim with such an approach is to deepening the understanding of the current research questions being addressed through obtaining different, but complementary data on the phenomenon that stand in focus for the study (Cresswell, 2010; Cresswell and Clark, 2007). In this specific sub-study, we have followed the education authority’s implementation process at six different schools in the current municipality. The current schools are located in areas with differences in socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds and each school was followed for a school year, which made it possible to contextually place and understand the implementation process within the structure, organization and culture of the schools.In line with the theoretical points of departure and the general aim to elucidate patterns of the local school authority’s implementation of the new quality system and school actors’ understanding and response of the quality system, following methods and empirical data have been used. i) content analysis of central policy documents ii) observations (n=xx) iii) 24 semi-structured interviews with key actors at the different schools (n=50). Accordingly, an extensive empirical material have been collected. To conduct a contextual understanding of each school, central documents regarding the local schools’ organisation, policy and vision, leading and management structure, pupils’ achievement, school improvement strategies were at a first step analysed. This contextual understanding was important for the next step, when data related to LEA implementation of the new quality system at the single schools were collected. This was carried out through participating observations at the different kinds of meetings that occurred amongst LEA and the current schools. Finally, as a way to deepen the understanding of the school actors’ response to the new quality system, semi-structured interviews with central key actors at the single school were carried out. Expected outcomes (300 words)The relationship between the LEA and the schools will finally be discussed and problematized in light of the following preliminary results:- The implementation of the quality system occurred through a number of steps: 1. an introduction meeting between represents from the LEA and key actors from the schools 2. a quality dialogue two months later and 3. a quality seminary arranged by the LEA where the principals from the involving schools were participating. In contrast to a more traditional ‘regulative’ strategy of governing the schools, the LEA’s implementation of the current quality system, in terms of these different activities, was characterized by a more normative and discursive way of controlling the schools’ improvement work (i.e. soft governance).- We could distinguish a variety in the initial stage of the implementation process regarding in what degree the school actors consider the LEA’s quality system as legitimate. The same variety between the schools was notably concerning how they perceived the idea and the purpose behind the new quality system but also how LEA’s system should be incorporated with their own local quality systems.- Factors that may explain these differences in the implementation process is firstly, a notably ‘knowledge-gap’, that existed between the schools. That is, principals and other key actors’ knowledge and competencies about local systematic quality work in terms of, for example, data collection, interpretation and using different methods of analysis, seem to be crucial for the implementation process. A second crucial factor seems to be how the principals organized his or her school improvement work, including delegation of responsibility and how different school actors’ knowledge and competencies were used in an appropriate way.
|
|
| 9. |
- Håkansson, Jan, et al.
(författare)
-
Building School Improvement Capacity and Learning Capital : A Swedish Case Study
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Education and Transition. Contributions from Educational Research. ECER 2015, European Conference on Educational Research, Budapest, September 7-11.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- In school systems around the world there is an increasing focus on students' academic achievement and school result. Sweden is no exception in that respect. Parallel to an intensified control of pupils' level of achievement (cf. PISA), there are increasing demands for school decision makers to gradually improve students' academic performance. The question of how schools are changing and improving thus becomes an important issue for all levels, from policy makers to professionals in schools, but also for researchers. Several decades of research on how school’s improvement efforts ultimately affect student learning highlights the importance of paying attention to the balance between "... individual initiative and school/system change, between internal and external resources and ideas, between pressure for accountability and support for change, and between independence and collaboration "(Hopkins et al., 2014). In this context, the coordination of top-down and bottom-up strategies in schools' improvement work seems to be crucial (Fullan, 1994). At the same time, research shows that the building of schools' development capacity is primarily focused on professional learning and development for principals and teachers, which in turn is expected to improve teaching and student learning (cf. Day, 2012; Stoll 2009). From previous studies of local school improvement work, the results show changes in aspects of principals’ and teachers’ learning, which can be connected to certain improvement strategies (Adolfsson & Håkansson, 2014). This paper will investigate these indications further.The focus of this paper is to explore schools' capacity building for improvement in terms of professional learning as strategies over time change character from top-down to bottom-up, a perspective seemingly little illuminated in past research. Within the framework of an ongoing three-year research project in six Swedish compulsory schools, the intention here is to elucidate the way in which top-down and bottom up strategies affect schools' improvement in general and the schools' capacity for development of different forms of learning capital in particular. The following research questions are addressed in the paper:•In what ways are principals' leadership and learning but also teachers' understanding of their teaching and the improvement work in terms of learning capital, related to changes in school improvement strategies?•What changes in schools overall learning capital and capacity building can be found in relation to changed strategies to initiate and manage local school improvement work?The theoretical foundation of this study is based on curriculum theory (cf. Lundgren, 1989). From school improvement research there are also certain concepts to acknowledge. One crucial concept is the “nested school system”. It consists of a number of nested sub-systems, e.g. the classroom, teachers working teams, school leadership teams, the local authority et cetera (Resnick, 2010). Although these systems are related internally, school improvement work in each system rests on specific rationalities and incentives (i.e. loosely coupled). Another important concept is “capital”, which refers to different learning qualities in the capacity building of school improvement. Shulman and Shulman (2004) distinguish four forms of capital defining different qualities of schools' capacity building in terms of learning: i) moral or cultural capital, ii) curriculum capital, iii) instructional capital, iv) change capital. The moral or cultural capital means ability to engage in school and teacher team collaborative work and learning about teaching, while curriculum capital involves significant dimensions of teachers' assignments, such as knowledge of school subjects, curriculum, syllabuses, teaching strategies, et cetera. Instructional capital is about the ability to translate theoretical knowledge into practical teaching, while change capital contains the step from participation and training in different school improvement activities to the incorporation of (more or less) changed and more effective ways of teaching (ibid.).Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe paper draws on a “classical” theoretical and methodological framework of curriculum theory (i.e. the frame-factor theory), with its different levels of analysis – the societal/ideological level, the curriculum level; and the teaching and classroom level (cf. Lundgren 1989). In order to study and analyse ongoing school development processes and changes in schools’ capital building, different kinds of sources have been used. Throughout the ongoing evaluation project data from the schools’ improvement work have been collected (e.g. local documents, interviews and survey studies with students, teachers, principals, and officials from the local authority), to support analyses of learning capital on different levels.The main type of source used in this study is focus group interviews with principals (n=8) and teachers (n=80). Another is recordings and field notes from planning meetings that continually were held during the project with principals. In the beginning of the project two group interviews with all participating principals where carried out. After two years a second round of interviews followed up these interviews, with the same principals. A semi-structured interview-guide was used and the interviewer was a research assistant who had not met the group before. In addition approximately 20 group interviews with teachers were carried out. The main focus in these principal and teacher interviews was experiences and views on the schools’ improvement work in general and change in schools’ capacity building, principals’ and teachers’ learning in particular.Keeping with the theoretical points of departure, the analysis follows a two-step procedure. In the first step the newly collected empirical data was compared to data from previous interviews and planning meetings. With the capital concept (Shulman & Shulman, 2004), the focus in this step of the analysis was to elucidate patterns of change over time in the school’s capacity building. In connection to the frame-factor theory and in accordance with Fullan (2001), meaning that educational processes must be studied in relation to both their external and their internal conditions, these results were in a second step analysed in relation to a continous shift from top down strategies to bottom up strategies for initiation and implementation of local school improvement work.Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results of the empirical analysis will be presented in terms of changes in schools learning capital and capacity building in relation to changed strategies to initiate and manage local school improvement works. In light of the thesis that different strategies will support different qualities (capital) of the schools’ capacity building in their local improvement work, the results indicate that changes from an emphasis on top-down strategies to an emphasis on bottom-up strategies seems to create conditions for other forms of capital within the scope of the local school improvement work. For example, bottom up (horizontal) strategies seem to in greater extent support the schools’ moral and venture capital building, compared to top down (vertical) strategies. These changes will be discussed in terms of how shifts in school strategies appear in: i) principals' leadership and learning, and ii) teachers' understanding of their teaching and the improvement work.In light of the concept of the “nested school system” it will finally be argued that different aspects of learning capital are necessary for successful and solid school improvement work. Moreover the results indicates that the organization of local school improvement work has to actively engage all the sub-systems of the school system (i.e. re-couple the nested systems). In other words, successful school improvement strategies, where different aspects of the capital building are included, seem to comprise a balance between top down and bottom up strategies (c.f. Hopkins et al, 2014),ReferencesAdolfsson, Carl-Henrik & Håkansson, Jan (2014). Learning schools in Sweden – principals understanding of ongoing school improvement in an era of accountability. Contribution to the ECER-konference in Porto, September 2014.Day, C. (Ed) (2012). The Routledge international handbook of teacher and school development. London: Routledge.Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating Top-Down and Bottom-Up strategies for Educational Reform. In Anson, R.J. Systemic reform. Perspectives on Personalizing Education. Washington: US Department of Education.Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L, & Mackay, T. (2014). School and system improvement: a narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, vol. 25, No 2, 257-281.Lundgren, U.P., (1989). Att organisera omvärlden: en introduktion till läroplansteori. (Organizing the Surrounding World: Introduction to Curriculum Theory; in Swedish). Stockholm: Utbildningsförlaget på uppdrag av Gymnasieutredningen.Resnick, Lauren B. (2010). Nested System for the Thinking Curriculum. Educational Researcher, vol. 39 No. 3 183-197.Shulman, L. S. & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: a shifting perspective. Journal of curriculum studies, vol. 36, No. 2, 257-271.Stoll, L. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for learning? A changing landscape. Journal of Educational Change. 10, 115-127.
|
|
| 10. |
- Håkansson, Jan, et al.
(författare)
-
Learning schools in Sweden – principals understanding of on-going school improvement in an era of accountability
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Teachers Matter - But how?.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Learning schools in Sweden – principals understanding of on-going school improvement in an era of accountabilityOver the last two decades there has been a general transnational policy trend towards major emphasis on learning outcomes. In Sweden – like in many other countries – there is an on-going discussion about pupils’ academic achievement, not to mention due to Swedish pupils’ low results in different international knowledge comparisons (cf. Ball et al., 2012; Grek, 2009). The Education Act of 2010 is part of a top-to-bottom curriculum reform in Sweden, which has put further pressure on municipalities and schools to implement new syllabuses, clearer goals and knowledge demands and a new grading system. At the same time there are still high expectations and demands on performance improvements and school-based development work. So what does it mean working with local school-development under such an external pressure?The starting point for this paper is an on-going three-year research project in six Swedish compulsory schools with the general purpose of exploring and developing theoretical, methodological and practical knowledge for school improvement. The purpose is to explore how local school actors (principals in this case) understand and handle the parallel process of, on the one hand, external pressure to improve students achievement and, on the other hand, the local school-based curriculum development. In the light of such a tension, what are the principals understanding of: - The selection of content areas for curriculum development? - Principals own leadership and learning? - The schools’ capital building, for school improvement?The first theoretical starting point in this paper is a “classical” framework of curriculum theory (i.e. the frame-factor theory with its different levels of analysis – the societal/ideological level, the curriculum level and the teaching and classroom level, cf. Lundgren 1989). A second theoretical starting point used in this paper is theories about school actors’ and organizations’ learning (Schulman & Schulman, 2004; Resnick, 2010). The concept capital refers to individuals and organizations resources, in terms of skills and abilities, which can be used to act and make desirable changes. Schulman & Schulman (2004) distinguish between four different aspects of the capital concept: Moral, Curricula, Venture and Technical capital. These distinctions make it possible, in the analysis process, to study and better understand what forms of capital building emerge in schools and which capital building that seems to be the most important, and why? MethodIn order to explore and analyse the on-going school improvement process and changes after one year through principals’ understanding, different qualitative methods have been used. The most important sources are the qualitative group interviews with principals (n=13) at the end of the first year, but also sound recordings and field notes from eight planning meetings with the principals during the first year (from January to December 2013). Furthermore we have also analyzed planning documents from the schools showing local goals, school-based activities and evaluation plans.Expected Outcomes The following aspects of the result will be discussed:- Principals’ autonomy in relation to the local authority: a paradox?- Principals’ learning – an unexpected result from the local school improvement work.- The schools’ strategies focused, in the first hand, on the curriculum and technical capital building. How can this be understood in the light of an increased trend of accountability?- Schools’ selection of content – accountability dependent but also challenged by local curriculum development.(some important) ReferencesBall, Stephen, Maguire, Meg & Braun Annette (2012). How Schools du Policy. Policy enactments in secondary schools. London and New York: Routledge.Fullan, Michael (2001). The new meaning of educational change. 3. ed. New York: Teachers College Press.Grek, Sotiria (2009). Governings by numbers: the PISA effect in Europe. Journal of education policy, 24(1), pp. 23-37.Hargreaves, Andy & Fullan, Michael (2012). Professional capital: transforming teaching in every school. New York: Routledge.Lundgren, Ulf P. (1989). Att organisera omvärlden: en introduktion till läroplansteori. 2. [dvs 4.] uppl. [Organizing the Surrounding World: Introduction to Curriculum Theory; in Swedish] Stockholm: Utbildningsförl.Resnick, Lauren (2010). Nested Learning for the Thinking Curriculum. Educational Researcher. Vol 39 no. 3, pp. 183- 197. Schulman, Lee S & Schulman Judith (2004). How and what teachers lean: a shiftning perspective. Journal of curriculum studies, vol 36, no 2, 257-271.Stoll, Louise (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for learning? A changing landscape. Journal of Educational Change. 10:115–127.
|
|
