Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries: Making Sense of School Leadership, Policy, and Practice (Educational Governance Research, 21) 303133194X, 9783031331947

Citation preview

Educational Governance Research 21

Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen Helene Ärlestig Merete Storgaard   Editors

Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries Making Sense of School Leadership, Policy, and Practice

Educational Governance Research Volume 21 Series Editors Lejf Moos , Aarhus University, Copenhagen, NV, Denmark Stephen Carney , Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Editorial Board Members Stephen J. Ball, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK Lucas Cone, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark Neil Dempster, Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, QLD, Australia Maren Elfert , King’s College London, Sch of Education, London, UK Olof Johansson, Centre for Principal Development, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden Klaus Kasper Kofod, Department of Education, Aarhus University, Copenhagen NV, Denmark John B. Krejsler , Danish School of Education (DPU), Aarhus University, Copenhagen, Denmark Cathryn Magno, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland Romuald Normand, Research Unit CNRS SAGE, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France Marcelo Parreira do Amaral, Institute of Education, Universität Münster, Münster, Germany Jan Merok Paulsen, Teacher Education, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway Nelli Piattoeva, Faculty of Education & Culture, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland Barbara Schulte, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria James P. Spillane, School of Education & Social Policy, Northwestern University, Evanston, USA Gita Steiner-Khamsi, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA Daniel Tröhler, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Michael Uljens , Faculty of Education, Åbo Akademi University, Vaasa, Finland Antoni Verger, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Florian Waldow, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

This series presents recent insights in educational governance gained from research that focuses on the interplay between educational institutions and societies and markets. Education is not an isolated sector. Educational institutions at all levels are embedded in and connected to international, national and local societies and markets. One needs to understand governance relations and the changes that occur if one is to understand the frameworks, expectations, practice, room for manoeuvre, and the relations between professionals, public, policy makers and market place actors. The aim of this series is to address issues related to structures and discourses by which authority is exercised in an accessible manner. It will present findings on a variety of types of educational governance: public, political and administrative, as well as private, market place and self-governance. International and multidisciplinary in scope, the series will cover the subject area from both a worldwide and local perspective and will describe educational governance as it is practised in all parts of the world and in all sectors: state, market, and NGOs. The series: –– –– –– ––

Covers a broad range of topics and power domains Positions itself in a field between politics and management / leadership Provides a platform for the vivid field of educational governance research Looks into ways in which authority is transformed within chains of educational governance –– Uncovers relations between state, private sector and market place influences on education, professionals and students. Indexing: This series is indexed in Scopus. Please contact Astrid Noordermeer at [email protected] if you wish to discuss a book proposal.

Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen  •  Helene Ärlestig Merete Storgaard Editors

Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries Making Sense of School Leadership, Policy, and Practice

Editors Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen Department of Teacher Education and School Research University of Oslo Oslo, Norway

Helene Ärlestig Centre for Principal Development, Department of Political Science Umea University Umea, Sweden

Merete Storgaard Municipality of Svendborg Svendborg, Denmark

ISSN 2365-9548     ISSN 2365-9556 (electronic) Educational Governance Research ISBN 978-3-031-33194-7    ISBN 978-3-031-33195-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword by Jorunn Møller

This book aims is to examine perspectives of contemporary Nordic school leadership practices and thinking and to address principals’ working conditions within the Nordic democratic welfare states. Moreover, the aim is to look deeper into how the context, the expectations, and the principal’s role and work may be related. The authors situate educational leadership within the broader political environments that often go unaccounted for in studies of leadership. The ambition is to show how the national and local context together with position, role, and individual identities create unique combinations. At the outset, the editors raise questions about our understanding of the “welfare state” concept in Nordic educational leadership. Concepts like the school governance, power, autonomy, pedagogical leadership, and micropolitical sensemaking serve as analytical lenses, and the different chapters entail discussions about state policies as well as the ways in which school leaders make sense and enact policy locally in a globalized economy and a changing world. The edition provides a stimulating opening for a reflective dialogue about Nordic educational leadership in a governance context where mechanisms such as competition, choice, and managerial accountability have been introduced in Nordic education during the last decades in response to global competition. Historically, education has been (and still is) an important part of the Nordic welfare system, and public comprehensive education has been regarded as a crucial instrument for promoting social justice and equal access to education regardless of social class, abilities, gender, and geographic location. The origin of the Nordic model of education emerged after Second World War, and researchers often characterize the period from 1945 until about 1970 as the golden era of social democracy (Telhaug et al., 2006). The Nordic model of education has involved a political economy based on ideas of a publicly regulated market economy, universal solidarity, equality, and trust. The cornerstones were citizens’ equal rights and a welfare state covering a broad spectrum of social services for all citizens (Lundahl, 2016; Prøitz & Aasen, 2018). At the same time, there are some gaps in this model. In the past, cultural rights of ethnic minorities were not included in the model. This was, for example, the case for the Sami people and the Kvens.

v

vi

Foreword by Jorunn Møller

As demonstrated in this book, neoliberal policies have to a varying degree influenced education reforms in the Nordic countries during the last decades. In this process, OECD has been a powerful organization (Karseth et al., 2022). On the one hand, the chapters in this book reveal how performance-based dimensions to school quality are increasing. There are new modes of accountability, intensifying expectations regarding academic outcomes and examples of more hierarchical controls. In many respects, the reforms introduced in the 1990s and after the new millennium, influenced by new public management ideas, are echoing policies elsewhere in Anglo-Saxon countries even though the scope of these reforms, in particular with regard to choice and privatization, varies across the Nordic countries. On the other hand, the analysis in the present book does not illuminate significant differences in leadership practices regarding autonomy and room for professional maneuver and there is a lack of ‘high stakes’ attached to accountability measures. The authors describe and reflect about how Nordic educational leadership can be understood, and highlight both similarities and variations. It is evident in all the chapters that the historical development of a strong welfare state has shaped a filter into which neoliberal ideas have been transformed. Democratic values and strive to inclusion and ‘bildung’ are still prominent in the purposes of national curricula, and the state plays a vital role in processes of policymaking. At the same time, the overall policy direction seems to promote the idea of education as an individualized or private good. The analysis in this book shows tensions and dilemmas between working for a common education for all and working in an environment of increasing marketization and/or privatization as it has, for instance, developed more recently in Sweden and Denmark. Complexity in work tasks seems to increase. Such characteristics are not typical for Nordic school leadership. For example, based on research within the network ‘Leading Democratic Schools’ (LE@DS), it is clear that new public management reforms have distracted attention away from issues of solidarity, and school principals in many European countries are experiencing a trend toward developing a culture of performativity and work overload (Gunter et al., 2016). It is timely to ask if we can speak of a Nordic model of educational leadership. Based on the chapters in this book, it might be adequate to speak of a guiding idea of a Nordic model in terms of values like social justice, democracy, and equality. In addition, the discourse of education as public and common good is noticeable and there appears to be a willingness to regulate the market in the Nordic countries (Prøitz & Aasen, 2018). Nevertheless, in the future, Nordic school leaders will probably have to deal with stronger push toward marketization and privatization. Schools are sites of struggle and politics are vital mechanisms of that struggle. In this process, school leaders in collaboration with teachers may play a crucial role in sustaining and renewing the values of democracy and social justice, but it requires a commitment to shared critical reflection informed by theory, action grounded in dialogue and collective critique as well as opportunities of professional development that pay attention to ethical challenges. At the same time, this argument creates new questions. How to create space for critical perspectives and thinking

Foreword by Jorunn Møller

vii

differently in a managerial accountability and testing environment of education? How to enable school leaders and teachers with conceptual tools to unmask the corporate myths promoted by international organizations and “edu-business”? How to handle tensions between internal and external accountability, between autonomy and control, and how to address power structures? Which conditions may sustain education as common good for all? The reported studies in this book provide some nuanced answers to such challenges. The authors exemplify, for instance, how school leaders, as pedagogical and political strategists, may develop a capacity and an opportunity of negotiating among competing interests. Global transformations have undoubtedly affected ways of talking about public education and educational leadership, and these changes seems to undermine the very foundation of the historical model of Nordic education. Maybe it is time to reclaim a language of educational leadership based on solidarity, trust and risk, subjectivity and agency, challenge, and professional responsibility. Whether Nordic countries in the future will uphold its legacy of valuing social justice, solidarity, and the common school for all as a tenet of equal educational opportunities depends on how far national agencies and schools adopt global ideas of education as human capital and an individualistic mission. In addition, as Lundahl (2016, p.  10) has argued, the current situation with many refugees seeking asylum in the Nordic countries may constitute the ultimate test of the old Nordic model of education. As shown in this book, global trends have put school principals in a position in which they have to cope with demanding ethical challenges and increasing complexity. Education and different forms of support are needed to enable principals in collaboration with teachers and parents to defend social justice, democratic values, solidarity, and education as public and common good in times when such values are being contested. Professor Emerita University of Oslo, ILS Oslo, Norway

Jorunn Møller

References Gunter, H. M., Grimaldi, E., Hall, D., & Serpieri, R. (Eds.). (2016). New public management and the reform of education. European lessons for policy and practice. Routledge. Karseth, B., Sivesind, K., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Eds.). (2022). Evidence and expertise in nordic education policy. A comparative network analysis. Palgrave Macmillan. Lundahl, L. (2016). Equality, inclusion and marketization of Nordic education: Introductory notes. Comparative & International Education, 11(1), 3–12. Prøitz, T.  S., & Aasen, P. (2018). Making and Re-making the Nordic model of education. In: P.  Nedergaard, & A.  Wivel (Eds.). The Routledge handbook of Scandinavian politics (pp. 213–228). Routledge. Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, O. A., & Aasen, P. (2006). The Nordic Model in Education: Education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 245–283.

Foreword by Romuald Normand

The book by Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen, Helene Ärlestig and Merete Storgaard echoes comparative studies of educational leadership in Northern Europe over the past decade. These studies characterise important differences with the USA and UK.  Indeed, Nordic education systems have remained very much committed to equality, social justice and welfare, even if school choice and accountability are developing. Moreover, local democracy, participative discussion and citizenship are common and shared values that give a particular sensitivity to the daily work of principals and teachers in schools. At a time when nationalism is rising in Europe, and education is facing moral, social and political crises, this book demonstrates that cultures of trust and responsibility, civic engagement, care and ethics are essential dimensions for maintaining democratic principles in schools. But the book goes far beyond these ideas, providing valuable information and data on challenges faced by school leaders in empowering teaching teams to instructional leadership. Rather than juxtaposing case studies, the authors provide a systematic and continuous comparison by using common categories of analysis, while emphasising similarities and differences between countries. This gives a very clear and comprehensive picture of how Nordic school leaders make sense of different constraints and norms, but also how they use resources, knowledge, and skills as opportunities in their daily work. The "Nordicness" of educational leadership is then revealed throughout chapters. This Nordic model, as it is explained from the beginning of the book, faces several contemporary challenges. The new governance of education systems has increased accountability and market mechanisms, while controlling the national curriculum. Political discourses become more and more normative, testing principals’ judgement and autonomy with less and less "primum inter pares” cooperation. These changes create professional tensions and dilemmas, as they are analysed in various chapters; at the same time, the book reveals that Nordic principals were capable to develop multiple skills during the COVID pandemic. The implementation of accountability systems increases normative constraints and the school leader workload. At the same time, principals have to respect autonomy among teaching teams according to decentralised education systems. Pressure ix

x

Foreword by Romuald Normand

from parents for school choice tends to strengthen school competition and differentiation between schools. These transformations threat the common good shared by local communities and their commitment to social justice and equal opportunities. The pressure of managerial and assessment tasks and duties undermines possibilities to maintain a leadership open to discussion and negotiation and consequently it impacts on teachers’ trust. In addition, school leaders often lack the support and training to ensure teachers’ professional development and to lead change. How do leaders maintain professional ethics and autonomy while limiting the negative effects of New Public Management? How do they pursue democratic goals for education and inclusion while avoiding excessive pressure on teaching teams? How is it possible to maintain the welfarist tradition of the comprehensive school while accepting a new logic of accountability? The book shows that all these dilemmas are common to principals in the different Nordic education systems. Between administration, management and leadership, they must take on new tasks and responsibilities, while implementing reforms and transforming the learning environments of students and teachers. Using digital technologies, welcoming migrant children and special need students, fighting against school bullying, recruiting teachers, negotiating with local authorities and parents, adapting the national curriculum, supporting collaborative practices among teachers, developing assessment methods, etc. There are a lot of challenges faced by these leaders in multi-level education systems. Under these adverse conditions, maintaining collegial professional autonomy, shared leadership and democratic Bildung needs sensemaking, as argued by Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen, Helene Ärlestig and Merete Storgaard. Reducing tensions and dilemmas require to reflect and better understand schools as political places in which the definition of common good arises from local negotiations and arrangements through professional interpretations and judgements. This local understanding of the identity and moral commitment of people, in shared responsibilities, is essential for recognising educational leadership and teacher professionalism. Equity, cultural response and collaborative decision-making are prerequisites to improve teaching and learning conditions. Sensemaking means also better recognising voices from the educational community, building relationships and networking, learning from each other and facilitating a democratic distribution of power. This is the essence of pedagogical, ethical and democratic leadership that balances school tradition and modernisation for the twenty-first-century education. Nowadays, there is enough research evidence to document the negative effects of toxic management. Certainly, bureaucracy was not effective in reducing inequalities in education, and it is futile to praise an idealistic model that never really existed. However, business models and school-based management, widely implemented in Anglo-Saxon countries, have not been able to reduce school exclusion, segregation and poverty among minority and disadvantaged students. The confinement of pedagogy in technicism or what works recipes, or in strict quality assurance procedures, blinds the reality of practice and does not help to solve problems faced by educators. It is time to find solutions capable to place human beings and relationships at the core of school organisations, to emphasise the social, emotional and intercultural

Foreword by Romuald Normand

xi

skills that are essential for living together and preparing the future of education. Otherwise, there is a great risk of increasingly moving to fragmented educational systems, without social and political cohesion, each one being called upon to find, in a cult of individualism, the selfish solution to its own problems. Unless this social and political fracture leads to nationalist claims rejecting the democratic values embodied in public school systems. But, as the character Edgar says in The King Lear, the Shakespeare tragedy: "The worst is not. So long as we can say ‘This is the worst’”. In any case, when it comes to school leadership, this collective book, with rich comparisons and detailed analyses, helps readers to better think about some possible paths to avoid the worst! Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences University of Strasbourg Strasbourg, France

Romuald Normand

Book Abstract

A Nordic model of education has been recognized as well known internationally (Moos, 2013). A Nordic model of educational leadership, however, appears to be less known. In the Nordic research network: ‘Nordlead’, we wanted to gain knowledge about the ‘Nordicness’ of educational leadership and the current differences and similarities in Nordic school leadership practices. The focus of this book is therefore to explore and discuss principals’ prerequisites and work within the Nordic democratic welfare states. Our research group has worked and learned together do be able to understand and nuance the national as well as attempting to reach a mutual understanding of how the prerequisites and work of Nordic educational leaders can contribute to democracy and well-educated citizens. The book combines the country reports with the thematic chapters to compare and discuss how school leaders as sense makers in local schools possess and enact policy in a globalized economy and a changing world.

xiii

Preface

We write this foreword at the beginning of 2023, when the sunlight is returning to the Nordic countries. In the past few years, we have faced unexpected and momentous circumstances, such as the pandemic and a war in Europe. Both have reminded us that large societal change directly affects what we value and how we act. Crisis and change also reveal that how we understand our surroundings is based on history and education. Macro, meso, and micro perspectives are woven together and, in sum, form our current situation and future. We are fortunate to have lived in a part of the world where welfare and democracy provide free schooling to all children. A few years ago, this book’s authors took part as members of the World Education Leadership Symposium (WELS) that Professor Stephan Huber led. The project started as an ambition to study principals’ working conditions in 40 countries. The first step was to write a country report. Since all five Nordic countries were represented, we wanted to take the opportunity to gain additional knowledge and compare our neighboring countries. Using previous books and articles about principals, schooling, governance structures, and school improvement in the Nordic countries as inspiration, we saw that there were more similarities in our region than we could see in other countries around the world. The similarities also triggered discussions on nuances and a desire to obtain a deeper understanding of how we work toward democracy and increase learning during a time when global impact and various national priorities affect the local schools. As a research team, we have had recurrent full-day meetings both virtually and while visiting conferences and each other’s universities. We have used the days to share knowledge and to discuss methods, theories, and previous research to learn more about our respective national governing systems, principals’ roles and work, and how these aspects affect schools, school results, and school improvement. We learned that even if there is much in common, the priorities and how schools were led and governed differed. Despite relatively extensive prior research on the Nordic countries, we saw few examples where there was comparative research on school leaders presented in the same chapter, which was a starting point for this book project. We decided that the country chapter could provide a general and current xv

xvi

Preface

description of schooling and principals’ work for each country. We aimed to capture important structures, cultures, and political priorities because we understand that a national governing dimension with its contextual strengths and challenges directly affects principals’ work. Besides the country chapters, we also wanted to go deeper into a few themes that during our discussion seemed important in all countries and contained variations in how they were valued and executed. We decided to write together with a project colleague from another national context to do cross-country descriptions and reflections. In a fast-changing world, it seems even more important to strive toward continuous and deepening dialogues. We see many benefits of learning with colleagues within the Nordic perspective because each one of us represents a slightly different national education research, policy, and practice context. This book has references that show there is a growing research base about school leadership and governance in all Nordic countries, which indicates that practitioners, agencies, and researchers would benefit from closer Nordic cooperation. Cooperation can create a deeper understanding of what our region has that is unique and how together we can handle the challenges and opportunities globalization and quick changes bring upon our nations. It is also an opportunity to awaken other countries’ interest in the strength and challenges to lead and govern schools in democratic welfare countries. Oslo, Norway Umeå, Sweden Svendborg, Denmark

Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen Helene Ärlestig Merete Storgaard

Contents

1

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen, Merete Storgaard, and Helene Ärlestig

Part I 2

School Leadership in Denmark: Leading Education and Leading a School������������������������������������������������������������������������������   13 Merete Storgaard and Lars Frode Frederiksen

3

Finland: A Structure of Trust ����������������������������������������������������������������   29 Alex Mäkiharju and Ann-Sofie Smeds-Nylund

4

School Leaders within the Icelandic Education System: Complex Roles, Multilevel Relations, and Fragmented Support������������������������������������������������������������������������   45 Sigríður Margrét Sigurðardóttir and Guðrún Ragnarsdóttir

5

School Leadership in Norway: Key Characteristics and Current Challenges��������������������������������������������������������������������������   61 Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen and Guri Skedsmo

6

Sweden – Good Will on All Governance Levels Is Not Enough to Create Sustainable Improvement����������������������������������������   75 Helene Ärlestig and Ulf Leo

Part II 7

Principals’ Autonomy in the Nordic Countries: Governing Positions, Responsibilities, and Expectations ��������������������   91 Ann-Sofie Smeds-Nylund, Lars Frode Frederiksen, and Alex Mäkiharju

xvii

xviii

Contents

8

Principals’ Roles in a Nordic Education Context: Shared Responsibility and Pedagogical Engagement ��������������������������  115 Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen and Ulf Leo

9

Policy Demands, Expectations, and Changed Leadership Roles During the COVID-19 Crisis: Critical Comparative Case Studies from Denmark and Iceland����������������������������������������������  133 Guðrún Ragnarsdóttir and Merete Storgaard

10 Principals’  Preparation and Professional Development in Nordic Countries����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  153 Sigríður Margrét Sigurðardóttir, Guri Skedsmo, and Helene Ärlestig 11 Making  Sense of Nordic School Leadership – Four Perspectives on Similarities and Variations������������������������������������������  173 Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen, Helene Ärlestig, and Merete Storgaard

Chapter 1

Introduction Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen

, Merete Storgaard

, and Helene Ärlestig

A Nordic model of education has been recognized as well known internationally (Moos, 2013). A Nordic model of educational leadership, however, appears to be less known. In the Nordic research network: ‘Nordlead’, we wanted to gain knowledge about the ‘Nordicness’ of educational leadership1 and the current differences and similarities in Nordic school leadership practices. The focus of this book is therefore to explore and discuss principals’ prerequisites and work within the Nordic democratic welfare states. By prerequisites we mean the conditions for school leaders to operate their role and practices. The five Nordic countries have many similarities but also differences which make it interesting to understand more about various ways to strive towards democracy and well-educated citizens. This entails a discussion about what kind of state policy demonstrates autonomy in Nordic schools as well as the ways in which school leaders as sense makers in local schools possess and enact policy in a globalized economy and a changing world.

 School leadership is a concept with various definitions. In this book we have a broad definition where educational leadership and school leadership are interchangeable and include leadership of and in schools as well as leading and managing pedagogical and educational purposes and practices. 1

A. E. Gunnulfsen Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] M. Storgaard (*) Municipality of Svendborg, Svendborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] H. Ärlestig Centre for Principal Development, Department of Political Science, Umea University, Umea, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. E. Gunnulfsen et al. (eds.), Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries, Educational Governance Research 21, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4_1

1

2

A. E. Gunnulfsen et al.

Schools play a vital role in forming societies. Especially, in turbulent times it becomes increasingly important to understand how schools function and in what direction they are changing. During the last decades, globalization, migration and the pandemic have placed schools and their actors in changed and new situations involving renewed expectations. How schools and school actors handle and meet these expectations, while simultaneously upholding their present work, depend on how they are governed and lead. To understand more about what happens in the classrooms and how schools contribute to a single student’s learning, it is necessary to illuminate perspectives on governmentality and sense making in relation to micro policymaking. Schools and their leadership are subject to and dependent on governance from several hierarchal levels. The national level and its governance as well as domestic structure, culture and challenges form the schools and local leadership prerequisites (Ärlestig et  al., 2016). To do so, this book has two parts; one with country chapters that gives an overview of the school system and current issues and reform. This part helps the reader to get a sense of each country and how history and structure affect the current culture and values. In the second part we have thematic chapters where the authors discuss similarities and differences both within and among the Nordic countries. In general, the countries in the Nordic region have strong similarities. With their small and open economies and well-developed welfare states, they have given rise to the term “the Nordic models” (Dølvik, 2013, p.  5). The “Nordic model” has received positive global attention because the Nordic countries have shown good results regarding growth, employment, gender equality, competitiveness, living conditions and equality in relation to other countries (Telhaug et al., 2006). However, the “Nordic model” has faced several contemporary challenges. According to Dølvik (2013), the aftermath of the 1980–1990 financial crisis has led to a stress test of the Nordic countries’ institutions and traditions. The movement of an international and predominant Anglo-Saxon governing model has in various ways challenged school leaders in the Nordic countries and gained relevance as an analytical backdrop for the current conditions of professional responsibility in school leadership practices. The COVID-19 pandemic has also shown that national governing strategies and culture have highly affected school practices and leadership in the Nordic countries. Schools and school quality have become important institutions regarding the brand of renewing a nation and its traditions (Olins, 2002; Kotler & Gerter, 2002). The role of school leaders is part of the stress test on the Nordic model as the model and the leadership roles are challenged, potentially leading education and leadership astray from historical democratic values and purposes (Moos, 2017). Katzenstein (2003) well defined the notion that context matters: “There is a great difference between understanding-a-thing-on-its-own and understanding-a-thing-­ in-context” (p. 9). We ask at the outset how the “welfare state” concept in Nordic school leadership can be understood relative to the general perception that small states have a distinctive predisposition to operate in a socially solid, consensual, open fashion. The use of the term “welfare state” carries the implication of formal governmental institutions delivering social outcomes “top-down,” and a public

1 Introduction

3

sector that is clearly separate from the realm of the private sector. This book, accordingly, focuses on schools as formal institutions that carry out functions the social collective delegates to them (Bertram, 2011). This focus will entail a discussion about what type of state policy demonstrates autonomy in schools as well as the ways in which school leaders in local schools possess policy autonomy in a globalized economy. In the following sections we outline some analytical lenses used in the discussion of the contributions from the country chapters and thematic chapters in the book.

School Governance The moral purpose of education, such as safeguarding the values of social justice, equity, equal opportunities, inclusion, and democratic participation for all students, applies to the role of school leadership and must be understood and placed in relation to political and ideological transformations that have taken place in recent times (Møller, 2017). New forms of governance have accompanied these macroeconomic ideological transformations since the 1990s, which have challenged the idea and value of public education severely (Gunter et  al., 2016). The main themes addressed in this book are related to Nordic school leadership in a transnational education governance context with especially focus on leadership and democracy, pedagogical leadership, educational engagement, and room to maneuver in everyday work. Governance tools such as accountability, monitoring and control are often framed by several overlapping education policy systems (Maroy, 2012). Within these overlapping systems, actors interact on macro, meso and micro levels. International and national governments are at the macro level, authorities at the municipal level are at the meso level and the schools’ actors are at the micro level. The monitoring and control represent external accountability while also affecting the internal, organizational management locally in schools. Schools, school leaders and teachers are expected to address new government policy intentions and to be monitored from the outside (Gunnulfsen, 2020). “From the outside” must be understood in global, national, and local perspectives. Ball (2003) wrote about the commercialization of education, which is characterized by how education takes place to market principles where manufacturers produce goods or services that are sold to users in a market where supply and demand dominates. The commercialization of education means that education “from the outside” can be understood as an international product where schools, school leaders, teachers and students become important pieces when assessing the products’ quality. Commercialization of education is also referred to as “eduBusiness,” and the principles are based on managing education through results in the form of numbers, standards and tests (Moos et al., 2020; Ydesen et  al., 2013; Ball, 2012). This book addresses school leadership and the micro-level practices in the school as an organization, in the context of the larger international picture drawn above.

4

A. E. Gunnulfsen et al.

To compare education as a commodity, the focus must be on similar goal formulations or standards that can be measured using the same control methods. Comparing education has a preference to thinking in market logics, which has been an underlying foundation to all transformations in societies and educational systems (Moos, 2006). Introducing quality management is an approach to such a standardization of education as a commodity, where comparison, competition and control have become part of the school’s reality, even in the Nordic educational context. Moos and colleagues (2011, 2020) describe how the “sliding” in management contributes to changes in relationships and thought patterns in organizations without the actors involved registering them. Such changes can be described within what Røvik (2011) defines as a translation theory, where the influences slide or are adapted completely unnoticed into an organization and remain undisputed in the fields of both practice and research. In this way, self-governing principles and governmentality can set school actors and their room for maneuver at stake (Storgaard, 2019a, b; Dean, 1999). Hence, investigating Nordic school leaders and their room for maneuver is especially interesting in a policy context that historically has been identified as representing the social democratic confidence in the administrative capacity of the central state, in central planning and in the rational management of society (Telhaug, et al., 2006). Principles of self-governing and governmentality may have given school leaders in the five Nordic countries both challenges and opportunities in their maneuvering of national education policy demands, which also can be called the Nordic school leaders’ micro policymaking of national and intra-national governing demands and discourses.

School Leadership as Micropolitical Sense-Making Within the influential process of international education policy and the sliding into national education policy demands, the school leaders’ talk, the influences, the negotiations, and the discussions of opinion, which can be called micro policy enactment or micro policymaking in schools (Ball et al., 2012; Gunnulfsen, 2020). It is in this context that school actors, such as school principals and middle leaders, shape and enact their local school policies by making sense of the policy situation and organizing the school’s current sociality (Weick, 1995). In these processes, school leaders continuously attend to particular cues, such as policy demands or discursive orders, with interpretation by noticing and bracketing. Furthermore, sense making is grounded in identity formation, and forming a positive self-­ conception primarily drives sense making (Weick, 1995). This includes retrospective and social actions shaped in the interaction with the interpretations and expectations of others, such as students, teachers and families. School leadership and micro policymaking hereby become more than just “accepting” and implementing external policy formulation. It also includes processes of role formation and social identity for the school actors and the local room of leadership agency. The school’s local design of pedagogical practice hereby depends on how school principals discuss policy intentions with middle leaders and teachers, and the type of

1 Introduction

5

effort that is put into reducing any tensions and conflicts that may arise in the school’s internal responsibility. This effort in reducing tensions and seeking clarification and collaborative understanding of the school practice is set up against the external accountability and monitoring mechanisms from the national government or the superintendent at the municipality level. School leaders as micro policy makers through organizing and sense making can be understood as part of a regime where big data is a tool for monitoring, that is, national testing has become a source of comparison (Ozga, 2009). This source of comparison is intended to contribute to the development of quality and efficiency by nations, and schools and teachers have become increasingly observable and hence increasingly accountable. The increasing numbers is part of a political discourse on education and is an ever-increasing part of the talk when the school actors use their professional judgement. The data reduce real autonomy in the field of practice and they affect both individual and collective actions at the micro level (Ball, 2017). It is relevant to set the focus on this new type of control and centrally given intentions for practice in order to compare and gain increased knowledge about how the Nordic schools’ leaders enact the national policy intentions and the moral purpose of schooling, and how international policymaking might affect those intentions, considering school quality and school development. Understanding school leadership as micropolitical sense making is therefore about accepting that the school is a real arena for the use of power, persuasion, negotiation and conflict (Blase & Anderson, 1995). Here, we adopt a perspective of power as both a fundament of democratic transformation in Nordic education institutions and a social, relational construct in school leadership. Power hereby becomes a productive and present energy existing at and between all levels of society and in all social relations, such as the local policy field in schools or between educational institutions and the state (Foucault, 2007). Therefore, it is important that power and influence be taken into consideration when investigating the “Nordicness” in the field of school leadership and governing relations.

(Nordic) School Leadership Expectations – A Historical View According to Moos et  al. (2020, p.  10), the concept of Nordic or Nordic-ness is controversial. The question to be raised is whether the political systems are similar enough to be included in one concept, or whether they are too divers to be compared. In a general historical and political perspective, it is not difficult to find similarities considering the main purpose was to establish the welfare state. Education for all children was also considered the main channel for decreasing social differences in the population. The state had the legitimate responsibility for education as a common good. Structurally, the Nordic model consisted of a public, comprehensive school for all children from the ages of 7–16  years. The overarching values were social justice, equity, equal opportunities, inclusion, nation building and democratic participation for all students, regardless of social and cultural backgrounds

6

A. E. Gunnulfsen et al.

and abilities. The curriculum plans were mainly defined at state level, and schools and teachers were trusted and respected. Some have argued that the Nordic model still exists as the predominant system for most Scandinavian children at a national level, but that several new technologies aimed at increasing the efficiency of teaching and learning are gradually undermining the Nordic model’s main values (Imsen et al., 2017). According to Moos et al. (2020), school leaders face many conflicting expectations and formal requirements focused on the school’s everyday operations. These expectations are time consuming and acquire most of their attention. In Nordic countries  – and in many other educational systems  – educational policy based on OECD demands inspired both reform makers and providers of leadership education (Pont et al., 2008). These demands often focus on viewing school leadership as grounded in the corporate sector, regarding the school “as a small business” and directs attention to how school leaders can use performance data and ready-­ made best practices based on a “what works” agenda (Moos et al., 2020). Schools and school leadership are subject to increasingly varied and complex expectations from society (Moos et al., 2020). The country chapters illuminate how school leader practices differ both collectively and individually in the Nordic countries due to central policy demands regarding i.e. performance indicators, accountability, autonomy, democracy, competition, school development, professional competence development. Very strong tendencies in the UK and the US have emphasized a scientific curriculum and a focus on national aims and measurable outcomes, with much support from transnational agencies such as the OECD and European Commission; whereas the Nordic legislation thus far has focused on comprehensive schooling and the Democratic Bildung – or education for participation and equality. This book builds on previous literature on how the ongoing process of shaping and re-shaping the Nordic school leadership profession can be seen as coherent with a renewed global, eduBusiness education policy (Uljens et al., 2013). The relatively new attention on standards for school quality and measurable outcomes represents contemporary challenges for school leaders in a Nordic education context. The value of understanding and leading education for equity and welfare might be at stake and it generates the need for investigating the “Nordicness” in the field of school leadership and governing relations.

Comparing Nordic School Leadership To challenge the social epistemologies dominating international comparative school leadership and put some “madness” in the field (Gunter, 2013; Thomson, 2017) we investigate “the Nordic” by forming a rich, qualitative and culturally context-­ sensitive comparative analysis. One of the major complications in comparative research is that the analysis contains dissimilar unities because education cannot be understood without considering the national and local context (Rust et al., 2009). At the same time, comparative research and international research networks have

1 Introduction

7

moved research forward. Comparing practice in relation to structural and cultural contexts and prerequisites has helped to unravel the taken-for-granted assumptions and showed alternative ways to organize and handle practice. Alternative ways to compare are important whether there are small or large differences between the studied objects. This means that the individual action or intention must be viewed in a larger setting. Our ambition is not to judge what is most effective or not working; rather, it is to show how the national and local context together with position, role and individual identity create unique combinations (Biesta & Tedder, 2007). As such, this book seeks to follow up on Crossley’s (2000) perspective. [In] common with the post-modern critique, micro-level and qualitative comparative studies of educational phenomena also challenge positivistic assumptions by supporting renewed attention to interpretative traditions and epistemologies. (Crossley, 2000)

There is a need to translate global and national ideas to local understanding and engagement (see e.g., Johansson & Ärlestig, 2021). In turn, this requires knowledge about alternatives, long-term effects and societal changes including updated knowledge about research and evaluations. Modern comparative approaches formed within the policy-borrowing field of education inspire us (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2016, 2017; Carney, 2009, 2016). The study of educational leadership in a Nordic comparative approach will hereby contribute to new insights into contemporary governing relations of power and the policy demands forming Nordic school leadership.

Our Point of Departure The first step was to write a country chapter from each country. Considering researchers from all five Nordic countries were represented, we wanted to take the opportunity to gain additional knowledge and compare by writing together across our neighboring countries. Based on the country chapters, we formed pairs that wrote a thematic chapter. The aim was to nuance the overall picture and look deeper into how context, expectations and the principal’s role and work may be related. During our meetings, larger similarities and differences than we had expected became obvious. Our regular project meetings led to this book and the possibility to rewrite our country chapters. Taken together, the book will show the current state of practice in the Nordic countries covering perspectives related to school leadership and governance that is historically situated and transnationally related, educational leadership and democracy, Nordic school principals as pedagogical leaders in collectively educational engagement, and governance and room to maneuver in everyday work and crises management. Working together as researchers from neighboring countries has made it possible to compare concepts and values in a critical reflective way. The first of the two parts of this book presents country chapters that gives insights into five Nordic school systems and allows the reader to make Nordic comparisons.

8

A. E. Gunnulfsen et al.

In this section, the contemporary reforms and educational issues currently affecting the democratic, social spheres of the schools, is revealed. In the second part the thematic chapters are forming comparative analysis of differences and similarities both within and among the Nordic countries. And last, a summary chapter will discuss the tendencies in education and educational leadership affecting the democracy in the Nordic welfare states with attention points for further research, policy and practice.

References Ärlestig, H., Day, C., & Johansson, O. (2016). International school principal research. In A decade of research on school principals (pp. 1–9). Springer. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. Ball, S.  J. (2012). Global education Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2017). The education debate. Policy Press. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2016). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. Routledge. Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Comparative case studies: An innovative approach. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 1(1), 5–17. Bertram, G. (2011). Assessing the structure of small welfare states (Vol. 4). Commonwealth Secretariat. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. Blase, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment. Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Carney, S. (2009). Negotiating policy in an age of globalization: Exploring educational “policyscapes” in Denmark, Nepal, and China. Comparative Education Review, 53(1), 63–88. Carney, S. (2016). Global education policy and the postmodern challenge. In The handbook of global education policy (p. 504). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118468005.ch28 Crossley, M. (2000). Bridging cultures and traditions in the reconceptualisation of comparative and international education. Comparative Education, 36(3), 319–332. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality. Sage. Dølvik, J. E. (2013). Grunnpilarene i de nordiske modellene. (The ground pillars on the Nordic models. A look back on the development of the work life- and welfare regimes). Et tilbakeblikk på arbeidslivs-og velferdsregimenes utvikling NordMod2030. [report]. Fafo, rapport, 13. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78. Springer. Gunnulfsen, A. E. (2020). Utdanningsledelse som mikropolitisk praksis: forhandling om mening, makt og posisjonering (Educational leadership as micropolitical practice: negotiation of meaning, power, and positioning). Universitetsforlaget. Gunter, H. (2013). On not researching school leadership: The contribution of S.J. Ball. London Review of Education, 11(3), 218–228. Gunter, H., Grimaldi, E., Hall, D., & Serpieri, R. (Eds.). (2016). New public management and the reform of education. European lessons for policy and practice. Routledge.

1 Introduction

9

Imsen, G., Blossing, U., & Moos, L. (2017). Reshaping the Nordic education model in an era of efficiency. Changes in the comprehensive school project in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden since the millennium. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(5), 568–583. Johansson, O., & Ärlestig, H. (2021). Democratic governing ideals and the power of intervening spaces as prerequisite for student learning. Journal of Educational Administration. ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). Katzenstein, P. J. (2003). Small states and small states revisited. New Political Economy, 8(1), 9–30. Kotler, P., & Gerter, D. (2002). Country as brand, product and beyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4), 40–56. Maroy, C. (2012). Towards post-bureaucratic modes of governance: A European perspective. In World yearbook of education 2012 (pp. 82–99). Routledge. Møller, J. (2017). Leading education beyond what works. European Educational Research Journal, 16(4), 375–385. Moos, L. (2006). What kinds of democracy in education are facilitated by supra-and transnational agencies? European Educational Research Journal, 5(3–4), 160–168. Moos, L. (Edt.). (2011). Glidninger ‘Usynlige’ forandringer inden for pædagogik og uddannelser (Sliding – Invisible changes within pedagogy and education). DPU, Aarhus Universitet. Moos, L. (2013). Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership. Springer. Moos, L. (2017). Neo-liberal governance leads education and educational leadership astray. In Bridging educational leadership, curriculum theory and didaktik: Non-affirmative theory of education (pp. 151–180). Springer. Moos, L., Nihlfors, E., & Paulsen, J.  M. (2020). Critical potential of Nordic school leadership research. In Re-centering the critical potential of Nordic school leadership research (pp. 3–33). Springer. Olins, W. (2002). Branding the nation—The historical context. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4), 241–248. Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self‐evaluation, Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149–162. Pont, B., Moorman, H., & Nusche, D. (2008). Improving school leadership (Vol. 1, p. 578). OECD. Røvik, K. A. (2011). From fashion to virus: An alternative theory of organizations’ handling of management ideas. Organization Studies, 32(5), 631–653. Rust, V.  D., Johnstone, B., & Allaf, C. (2009). Reflections on the development of comparative education. International Handbook of Comparative Education, 121–138. Storgaard, M. (2019a). “High stakes” eller [or] “Low stakes”?. In Glidninger ‘Usynlige’ forandringer inden for pædagogik og uddannelser (Sliding – Invisible changes within pedagogy and education) (p. 66). DPU, Aarhus Universitet. Storgaard, M. (2019b). Mening og magt i skoleledelse: konstruktioner af styring i højtpræsterende skoler i et internationalt komparativt perspektiv: Ph. d.-afhandling. DPU-Danmarks Institut for Pædagogik og Uddannelse, Aarhus Universitet. Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, O. A., & Aasen, P. (2006). The Nordic model in education: Education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 245–283. Thomson, P. (2017). A little more madness in our methods? A snapshot of how the educational leadership, management and administration conducts research. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 49(3), 215–230. Uljens, M., Møller, J., Ärlestig, H., & Frederiksen, L. F. (2013). The professionalisation of Nordic school leadership. In Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership (pp. 133–157). Springer. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage. Ydesen, C., Ludvigsen, K., & Lundahl, C. (2013). Creating an educational testing profession in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, 1910–1960. European Educational Research Journal, 12(1), 120–138.

Part I

Chapter 2

School Leadership in Denmark: Leading Education and Leading a School Merete Storgaard

and Lars Frode Frederiksen

Abstract  In this chapter, we elucidate tendencies in and prerequisites for school leadership in Denmark. School leadership is often constructed within a universal and normative-prescriptive framework, and currently greater pressure has been placed on school leaders in the pursuit of political ambitions. The chapter is based analyses of policy documents and research related to leadership and governance reforms in the Danish public-school system in the primary and lower secondary school level, the Folkeskole, and the upper secondary school. The analysis focus on elaborating the policy discourses and tendencies and the governance relations as contextual dimensions related to values and practices in school leadership. The chapter focus on the structural aspects of principal’s functions and roles, e.g., rules and guidelines expressing requirements, responsibility, and expectations towards principals. Among central historical values is that education is free for all, and in a long period there have been an emphasis on broad education and democratic bildung. Values might be challenged, and we derive from the analyses essential current tensions embedded in the framework for school leadership. We illustrate three areas for balancing the tendencies: autonomy and accountability, communality and unilatarism, and democracy and competition respectively. Finally, we expound how leadership education and endeavors towards professionalization develops in these political and practical environments, as well as impressions concerning principal’s interpretations of conditions in their daily practice. Summing up, we show patterns there may be labelled as characteristic for the Danish public educational system. On the other hand, inside the system we may find substantial variations.

M. Storgaard Municipality of Svendborg, Svendborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] L. F. Frederiksen (*) Department of Media, Design, Education and Cognition, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. E. Gunnulfsen et al. (eds.), Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries, Educational Governance Research 21, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4_2

13

14

M. Storgaard and L. F. Frederiksen

Keywords  Governing documents · Educational leadership · Policy analysis · Accountability · Competition · School reform · National education

Introduction Since the Second World War, Danish compulsory and upper secondary schools have been central in building a coherent welfare state based on a social democratic welfare system (Moos, 2016). In these processes, Danish public schools provide education governed by legislation that strongly emphasises democratic bildung and social equality (Børneog Undervisningsministeriet, 2021; Børneog Undervisningsministeriet, 2021a). Following developments in Danish educational institutions since the late 1990s, the changing framework has been guided by pendulum-­like organising processes in school leadership that swing between centralisation and decentralisation. These movements reflect ideas of global education reform and new public governance and marketisation (Storgaard, 2020; Moos et al., 2011, 2017). Nevertheless, in international comparisons, the Danish education system is considered a highly decentralised education system, with emphasis on deliberative, democratic ideals (Moos, 2016). In this chapter, we elucidate tendencies in and prerequisites for school leadership in Denmark. We treat the structural aspects of school principals’ functions and roles – that is, the rules and guidelines expressing the requirements, responsibilities and expectations of principals. Furthermore, we outline how the pressures of external intentions and practice meets an institutional field shaped by values, norms and traditions that have developed for decades. We illustrate some current tensions for schools and school leaders that have arisen – tensions between democracy and competition, autonomy and accountability for a single school, and communality and unilateralism. Finally, we expound how leadership education and endeavours towards professionalisation develop in these political and practical environments. The chapter is based on both historical, elucidating, and critical analysis of both primary and secondary policy documents (Levinson et  al., 2009) and research related to school leadership and governance reforms in the Danish public school system in the folkeskole and upper secondary school (e.g. Moos, 2016; Bøje et al., 2022; Storgaard, 2019). The main focus is on the primary and lower secondary school level, the folkeskole, and the upper secondary school level. These levels represent some differences according to e.g. financing and autonomy, and the political developments of the two areas do not follow the same path. Summing up, we show patterns that may be labelled as characteristic of the school leadership field and the Danish public educational systems. In the following sections, we first illustrate the governance structures that constitute the school leader’s position and responsibility. Subsequently, we describe some important tensions and changes affecting school leadership influenced by competing values and current reforms. Finally, we illuminate tendencies in leadership education.

2  School Leadership in Denmark: Leading Education and Leading a School

15

The Danish Educational System The contemporary processes of change in education mostly originate in neoliberal ideas that have diffused across national borders owing to the dynamics of globalisation (Jarvis, 2007). In these educational reforms, school leadership is often constructed, in terms of theory and policy, primarily within a universal and normative-prescriptive framework (Gunter, 2013; Møller, 2017). Greater pressure has been placed on school leaders in the pursuit of political ambitions and goals in many countries (Gunter et al., 2013; Hansen & Frederiksen, 2017). In spite of this general trend, school leadership can be perceived as a complex social phenomenon appearing in different forms, both socio-culturally and institutionally (Ärlestig et al., 2016). For example, studies have shown that transnational influence and tendencies towards market orientation and accountability have influenced different levels of the public sector in many countries. But the actual influence depends on the policy context the ideas are ‘sliding into’ (Moos, 2019). These tendencies and the (re)positioning of school leadership have also gained traction in the Danish public education sector. Governance ideas have structured Danish education through a focus on decentralisation and, at the same time, a use of variations of accountability and standardisation in recent decades (Moos, 2016).

The Folkeskole The Danish education system consists of 10 years of free, compulsory education for all, with primary and lower secondary school as an integrated part. In Denmark, education is compulsory, not schooling. This allows parents to enrol children in private schools or ‘free schools’ or teach children at home. Compulsory education in the public folkeskole starts after kindergarten with a pre-school year in the year a child turns six years old. Primary and lower secondary education is concluded with a final exam in grade 9 for students of age 15. The folkeskole is regulated by the first act of the school system (Børne og Undervisningsministeriet, 2021), which elucidates the value-based and political intentions of the public school in Danish society. This act states the contemporary and ideological position of the content and the aim of governance, and it frames the societal task of the school system. Since 1976, the dominating ideological text has been related to discourses of democracy and freedom, which also, in a broad sense, constitute the common intentions in the pedagogical formation processes in teaching. At the same time, it is also a national purpose that repeatedly throughout history has been part of political debates and subject to changes in the specific discourses, as well as the underlying ideology (Moos, 2017a). Specifically, in the period from the end of 1990 onward, the first act was changed significantly, which can be seen in the discursive construction of the purpose of the school from 2006.

16

M. Storgaard and L. F. Frederiksen

The folkeskole is governed and financed by municipalities. The current structure and purpose of the folkeskole is framed by the latest major reform in 2013 (Regeringen, 2013a). The 2013 reform introduced a fundamental political and ideological shift with the purpose of improving the academic performance of the elementary school system. Central to the reform of 2013 in basic school was a focus on leadership, with governing by goals and results. This reform was implemented simultaneously with the passing of a law that regulates teachers’ working conditions (Regeringen, 2013b). One of the main points was a shift from centrally negotiated regulations of tasks and working time to the empowerment of the school leader to determine and distribute the working hours of teachers. This law was passed due to a conflict that hindered a new general agreement, but after seven years of political negotiations, the law (409) has recently been replaced by a new agreement (Lærernes Centralorganisation, 2020). Regarding the curricula, the framework is set by the ministry. A school’s plan must fit the national Common Objectives. These Common Objectives were initiated in 2003 as a reaction to the first PISA results and evaluation by OECD (Wiedemann, 2012). The Objectives, adopted by the parliament, describe what students must learn in the school’s subjects and topics at different grade levels. The Common Objectives are described in terms of competences, skills and knowledge (Børne og Undervisningsministeriet, 2020a). Another characteristic for primary and lower secondary schools is that teachers – and school leaders – are educated in university colleges for the specific purpose of becoming a professional Bachelor of Teaching.

Upper Secondary School After lower secondary school, students can choose different forms of further education at the upper secondary level, either within a general, academic stream or through vocational schools (Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet, 2021). Education beyond grade 9 is not compulsory, but more social technologies, such as the formal assessment of a student’s ability to pursue further youth education (Børne og Undervisningsministeriet, 2019), supports the national performance goal of 90% of young students opting for further youth education before they are 25 years old (Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet, 2018). Upper secondary school is regulated by the act of the upper secondary educations (Børne og Undervisningsministeriet, 2021). It is framed by a major reform that was passed in 2005 (Raae, 2021). Central elements of this reform are a greater prioritisation of competences over curriculum and a greater emphasis on cross-­ disciplinary teaching and student-initiated work. In addition, the reform placed a greater focus on school leaders’ tasks and responsibilities. In 2007, this reform was followed by a general structural reform in Denmark, and upper secondary schools were decoupled from their former regions, becoming financially independent. In 2013, a general agreement gave leaders the right to determine the distribution of

2  School Leadership in Denmark: Leading Education and Leading a School

17

teachers’ working hours (a similar manoeuvre in the folkeskole did not reach a solution and was replaced with the government-initiated law 409). In 2017, the reform was subjected to minor changes, such as limitations on variations in schools’ offered programs and restrictions on mandatory cross-disciplinary projects. Teachers – and school leaders – in upper secondary schools are educated in universities in one or two subjects and not necessarily for the purpose of becoming teachers. It is a career decision that is mostly made during or after completing the university degree. Upper secondary schools are self-governed institutions with direct links to the Ministry of Children and Education. The schools now own their own buildings and, as such, financial failure (bankruptcy) is a risk.

State, Municipality and School The Danish Ministry of Education has the legislative responsibility for the folkeskole, and it manages the public schools through the decentralising of governance to municipalities. The chain of accountability structures the relation between the principal and the local political authorities (Andersen et  al., 2017). A change in the governance structure in 1989 introduced locally elected school boards as a strategic, political management body at every school, and with the power to determine local pedagogical management principles for the school. The boards replaced former school committees and created a position for the principal as a civil servant in the school system, where she or he is expected to act in a political, competitive reality through strategic management inspired by the private sector (Klausen, 2004, 2006; Pedersen, 2004). The board consists of representatives of parents (the majority), staff and pupils (Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet, 2022a, b). The school principal is the secretary for the local school board and the link between the local school board and the policymakers at the municipal level. The subsequent amendments to the Folkeskole Act in 2017 (Børne og Undervisningsministeriet, 2021) placed primary responsibility on the principal for the development and pedagogical quality of school practices and ensuring students’ academic achievement and well-being. This fundamentally changed the demands placed on those in leadership positions and seems to have created transitions in school principalship (Moos, 2016; Ärlestig et al., 2016). The latest Danish reform, with its national performance goals, forms a platform for policy enactment in school leadership – and the demands and expectations for school leaders in Denmark. As a twin strategy in the reform of the folkeskole, the traditional relations between school leaders and professionals have also profoundly changed, first through the cancellation of the legally demanded ‘pedagogical council’ that formally secured teachers’ influence on the pedagogical development of the school. Second, the Danish employer–employee model of labour relations (traditionally resulting in a national working agreement between the municipalities and the teacher’s union through the reform period in 2013) was also cancelled and replaced with legislation, law 409 (Regeringen, 2013b). The purpose of this law is to return the power to determine

18

M. Storgaard and L. F. Frederiksen

teacher working hours to the principalship. Since this reform, principals and teachers are the primary negotiators of how teachers should spend their working hours at the school. The principal is, in this position, a manager of the school’s human resources. The board structure for the upper secondary level is somewhat different in that the board is a superior authority. Besides the overall responsibility for the school’s profile and the necessity to act strategically, the board also has the responsibility for the school’s financial situation and the hiring of the principal (Børne og Undervisningsministeriet, 2022b). Regarding the folkeskole, this is a task for the municipality.

A Private Sector A further characteristic of the Danish governance structure is that there are both public and private schools. Public schools account for approximately 80% of Danish pupils in the age range of 5/6 to 15 years, and the share of pupils in private schools or ‘free-schools’ is increasing, presently averaging a little below 20% (Petersen, 2020). In Copenhagen, the share is more than 25%. The private schools receive public support at about around 75% of the average cost per pupil. This division may lead to a competitive and market-oriented environment for municipalities as well as for single schools. The competition is seen between public and private schools, and between public schools as well. The number of students attending private upper secondary schools is rather modest. Among the approximately 200 upper secondary schools, about 20 are private and below average in size (Danmarks Statistik, 2022). This positions upper secondary schools in a less competitive and market-oriented governance context compared to public compulsory schools, although competition in attracting students is also present between the different strands of upper secondary schools (e.g. vocational schools).

Tensions and Balances in Leadership Practice In this section, we will shed light on some of the main tensions and balances affecting school leaders’ conditions and practice influenced by traditions and values in the Danish educational system, as well as current dominant political trends and actual reforms. We illustrate three areas for balancing: autonomy and accountability, communality and unilateralism, and bildung and competition.

2  School Leadership in Denmark: Leading Education and Leading a School

19

Autonomy and Accountability Concerning the balance between autonomy and accountability, most countries have in recent decades experienced a trend between an expressed increased autonomy for schools and a concurrently increased accountability from governing authorities (Bøje et al., 2022; Bjørnholt et al., 2017). The international tendency of competition and test-based accountability has found its way to the Danish folkeskole, resulting in goal-oriented didactics and pedagogies spawned by reforms of the curriculum, as well as quantitative performance goals for the national improvement in mathematics, reading and student well-being (Regeringen, 2013a). Since the beginning of the implementation of the Danish education reform in 2014, there have been minor policy changes. These minor changes manifest in a decrease of the obligatory goals in the national curriculum (Børne og Undervisningsministeriet, 2018). Furthermore, a temporary, voluntary period with a standardised test system in elementary and lower secondary schools (Børne og Undervisningsministeriet, 2020b) was initiated between April 2020 and October 2021. The voluntary period was spawned by a scientific debate about the validity of the system. This debate of the test-based accountability system has finally resulted in changes to the technical test system. The national test system has now been mandatory since November 2021. Similar tensions appear in the upper secondary school. A national testing system is absent, but schools may be compared by several key performance indicators. Among these are pupils’ grades, dropout rates and the share of transition to higher education. Perhaps the most central measure is schools’ ‘academic lifting capacity’, measured by how much students grades are lifted in relation to what is expected, based on the student’s socio-economic background (Børne og Undervisningsministeriet, 2022c). How these measures should be publicly ranked is debated, but their use is influencing many schools and the public debate, and if the indicators turn out to be unsatisfactory, schools may expect supervision from the ministry. To support the use of comprehensive and comparable data, the ministry has created a ‘datawarehouse’ (https://datavarehus.ufm.dk). These systems of development of measurable indicators may lead to an – non explicit – focus on one of the purposes of schooling, i.e. academic performance, in the expense of the bildung dimension. A tendency which is also well supported in more studies from the Danish education context (Moos, 2017, 2019). Furthermore, the contemporary deinstitutionalisation and disruption of central governance ideas in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis (see Chap. 9) have resulted in more policy changes. For example, the revisions have resulted in a plan to implement a special gifted student test and a revised student performance test system by August 2026. The test system is named ‘The National Skills Test’, and it increases the number of compulsory tests (Børne og Undervisningsministeriet, 2021b). So, even though a reformation of the centralised and test-based accountability system forming the folkeskole was initiated under the headline ‘Together around the folkeskole’ in 2021 (Regeringen, 2021b), profound policy changes have not yet been initiated. The overall governance system and the ideological paths and

20

M. Storgaard and L. F. Frederiksen

intentions spawned by the Danish education reform in 2013 still fundamentally organise and govern the Danish elementary schools. How these tensions are seen by leaders in the folkeskole may be illustrated through subsequent evaluations of leaders’ perceived consequences of the changed conditions after the reform and law 409 in 2014 (Bøje et al. 2022). According to the evaluations, one could see some dilemmas. In addition to a perceived increased workload, the relations between school leaders and municipalities changed in various ways. Regarding the perceived room for decentralised leadership, many leaders expressed that it depended on the measurable outputs. If the figures are satisfying, they enjoy a greater degree of autonomy; otherwise, the schools receive inspection visits from municipal and state authorities. Another remarkable difference was leaders’ experienced affiliation to the municipality. Some school leaders perceived themselves as a leader of a school, while others felt they were more a part of the municipality than a single school leader. The solutions turn out to be different between municipalities (Kjer & Jensen, 2018).

Communality and Unilatarism The second tension covered in this section is the balance between communality and unilateralism. This regards competition between schools, and it cannot be separated from the other themes. This tension is connected to a specific and important current political issue: pupils’ (or their parents’) free choice of schools. One of the main arguments for this perspective is that it will provide incentives for schools to develop and create visible, attractive schools. Thus, competition between schools is deliberate in the spirit of new public management, and it creates a pressure for school leaders to act strategically, but it also leads to (potentially unexpected) consequences (Hjort & Raae, 2012). For instance, a changed social distribution of students may lead to a change in a school’s public reputation and changed patterns of school choice may become self-reinforced. In some areas, schools may then be drained of pupils due to weak academic results or an unequal distribution of emigrant students or students with low socio-economic status. For the primary and lower secondary level, this may increase the competition between public and private schools, but also the competition between public schools. It is debated whether a more regulated model should be preferred for the sake of both schools and the local communities (e.g. Petersen, 2020). Concerning the upper secondary level, a current change occurs in the distribution of pupils due to a new political agreement between most parties in the Danish parliament (Regeringen, 2021a). Henceforth, free choice will be combined with regulation due to zones of distance (important for ‘rural’ districts and minor towns) and zones of distribution (important for bigger cities). The distribution will be affected by the parent’s income. Furthermore, a minimum capacity will be established to avoid schools that are too small. The first visible expression of this political change is that six ‘vulnerable’ upper secondary schools with a ‘skewed’ distribution of pupils have been

2  School Leadership in Denmark: Leading Education and Leading a School

21

affected by a temporary stop on admissions of pupils for three years. The intention is to provide a ‘new beginning’ for the affected schools. The purpose is to create another distribution of students than up till the political agreement (Regeringen, 2021a; Mainz, 2023). At the same time, they will receive resources for the ‘absent’ pupils to enhance the possibility of increasing their quality and reputation. One cannot completely predict the future effects, but the principles of free choice versus regulation are debated. The outcome may vary, but the reason for the political struggle may retain. The structure of incentives had led to – non explicit – social consequences. This can lead to a development of schools schools sought by children from well-off families, while other schools are dominated by less well-off children, often of other ethnic origins. In addition to affecting the cohesion of the area, it can also affect the latter schools’ application numbers in the longer term (Kepler, 2019). Perhaps the most crucial question is whether schooling is a common cause or if an enterprise approach is preferable. One cannot predict how attractive the six schools will seem to pupils and their parents (and teachers) and how the transit of pupils between schools will turn out after their admission. This may depend on the actual behaviour of schools and school leaders in a changed competitive environment.

Democracy and Competition The third and, in some ways, overarching tension regards the purpose of education. In this period, the policy intentions changed the framing of the purpose from the formation of democratic ideals and the development of broad personal traits and competencies to focusing more on the development of competencies and skills related to needs in the labour market and demands for further academic education (Moos, 2017). When the social democratic government initiated a comprehensive school reform in 2013 (Regeringen, 2013a), it was inspired by the global education reform movement in parallel with the general tendencies in education governance since the 1980s (Moos, 2016; Pedersen, 2014). The purpose of the folkeskole changed from being connected to understandings related to the public welfare state to being related to Denmark as a competitive state (Moos, 2016; Pedersen, 2014). In line with other nations’ education reforms (Sahlberg, 2016), the government started to implement a political agreement on an academic improvement of the folkeskole (Regeringen, 2013a). The reform agreement is relationally connected to the first act of the folkeskole and the central purpose of democratic citizenship bildung, but the agreement also establishes a discursive and political change of the purpose, which initiates a profound ideological shift. Discursively, the policy text problematises the Danish academic position in relation to OECD’s average levels in reading and mathematics and places a central critique of the ability of the public school to develop the potential of both the best performing students and the academically weakest (Regeringen, 2013a, s. 1). The public school, as an institution in the welfare state aiming its pedagogical initiatives

22

M. Storgaard and L. F. Frederiksen

at widely supporting the academic group of middle performers, is problematised, and the policy discursively constructs this perspective as a negation to the societal need of Denmark to compete globally. The same dilemmas occur at the upper secondary level, and these issues have received similar political attention. As described above, during the beginning of this century, there have been tendencies towards measuring schools’ performance and students’ academic competencies toward further education, such as the mentioned ‘lifting capacity’ and attempts to create league tables. To ensure or signal a counterweight to this development, it is emphasised in the law that education must have a bildung perspective with an emphasis on students’ development of personal authority (Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet, 2021a). Summing up, we may say that school leadership in competitive and marketized, public institutions can be characterized as strategic, self-created and negotiated leadership process in schools as loosely coupled organisations (Pedersen, 2004; Weick, 1995). This positions both teachers and leaders in equal positions because all are co-constructors of the organisational reality. It can be seen as part of a democratisation that embeds a shared or distributed leadership focus in the Danish public school (Moos, 2013). So, the constitutive conditions of modernised public organisations, such as the folkeskole and upper secondary school, allow every organisational member in power to pursue self-leadership and autonomy. This constitutes school leadership practices, values and well-being in a micro-political field (Gunnulfsen, 2020) where the principal is expected to strategically initiate and lead negotiations at both local and municipal level according to the future development of the public, decentralised school as seen in a competitive order. Furthermore, as civil servants, Danish principals are expected to directly implement more central standards spawned by reform initiatives from both the national and municipal governance levels. Thus, emerges from this situation Danish school leadership as constituted within an institutional cross-pressure between leadership with democratic bildung purposes and leadership aiming at academic competition.

Education Towards Professionalisation This final section is devoted to how principals are prepared for the complexity of their current roles and practices. The growing expectations for school leadership and school leaders is often followed by demands for more professionalisation and professional leaders. On the surface, this problem seems already to be solved by Danish school leaders, as their association claims that they are, in fact, a profession and attempts to describe a code of principles (Bøje et al., 2022). But according to traditional approaches in the sociology of professions, it is not so easy to give such an unambiguous answer. The authors prefer to label school leaders as a potential emerging profession, as results from several attempts toward professionalisation. Among the central characteristics of a profession is a formal knowledge base, a formal course of education, a code of ethics, autonomy and a shared identity.

2  School Leadership in Denmark: Leading Education and Leading a School

23

Variations between patterns in the Nordic countries are treated in Ärlestig et  al. (chapter in this volume). As regards creating a knowledge base for an emerging profession, it seems that theoretical and methodological approaches in school leadership are dispersed through and influenced by various interests (Bøje et al. 2022). As mentioned in the introduction, the instrumental and normative approaches are dominant, but other more analytical approaches are challenging the orthodoxy. The folkeskole formal education of Danish school leaders is a national focus (Børne og Undervisningsministeriet, 2017). At minimum, Danish school leaders hold a teaching diploma at the bachelor level and have some years of teaching experience. Having a formal ‘diploma in leadership’ is not a prerequisite for becoming a leader in the folkeskole. Recommendations from KL – Local Government Denmark1 and the Danish government have resulted in new, national initiatives. The National Principal’s Association (Skolelederforeningen, 2017) and the Danish government expressed a need for a formal national school leadership program. The development of specific courses for the educational leadership field as part of the general diploma in leadership were put in place as part of a new national school leadership program in 2018 (UCL, 2020). This program consists of theory related both the administrative and management positions and covering financial allocation, strategic and human resource management tasks, and legal obligations in the school system. It also educates future school leaders within the normative understandings of school leadership as seen in the international positioning of the leading subject related to understandings of school leadership as pertinent to organisational learning and student academic progress. These understandings are related to international tendencies; the program specifically points to Finland, Norway and Ontario as school systems of inspiration, and it is a natural consequence of Danish policy development, which we have discussed in this article. Thus, the recommendations for the program for school leadership are closely related to the changes in understandings of school leadership specifically initiated in the Danish school reform in 2014, and an important skill for school leaders is to actually implement this reform. But, as a Danish specificity in understanding the continuum between a simultaneously centralised and decentralised governance system, completing the national school leadership program is still not a prerequisite for holding a formal leadership position. The formal requirement for the position of principal in the folkeskole remains a professional bachelor’s degree in teaching. Regarding the education of principals in the upper secondary school, there is no formal requirement. However, during recent decades, most principals and middle leaders have possessed a master’s degree awarded by a university. This is less a requirement than a market regulation. There might be several variations between different master programs. They are, compared to the diploma programs to a lesser extent, regulated by the ministry. For a university to offer a master program, it requires accreditation from the ministry, but the programs are not in details regulated.

 KL  – Local Government Denmark (KL) is the association and interest organisation of the 98 Danish municipalities. 1

24

M. Storgaard and L. F. Frederiksen

Concluding remarks The roles of school principals and the relevant expectations placed upon them have been through great changes in Denmark during the last two decades. Aligning with international tendencies of neoliberal policies and accountability demands, recent educational reforms in Denmark have brought more attention to students’ academic performance. These reforms have also placed greater emphasis on the role of school principals in efforts to improve schools and raise student achievement. This has created an environment with new expectations regarding important changes in school principals’ qualifications related to leadership preparation as well as their daily practices related to different aspects of leading schools. In this chapter, we discussed the Danish governance structure and its growing expectations to school leaders. We saw variations between the levels of the folkeskole and the upper secondary school. In the folkeskole, the leadership and governance structures are closely connected to the municipalities and the state. At this level, private actors play a significant role due to the number of free and private schools. The upper secondary level shows other structures. Schools are independent from municipalities, and they appear to be more autonomous. Regulations are governed by the state through independent self-ownership and self-responsibility for financial conditions. Both levels have undergone reforms in recent decades. These reforms have concerned the overall objectives of the purpose of education and the governing relations with higher authorities. At the same time, both levels have been characterized by the leader’s authority to regulate teachers’ working hours as well as to relations to other schools. The development and reforms create tensions that will affect, school leaders’ tasks and roles. These interwoven tensions are firstly the dilemma between the autonomy and accountability within a single school. School leaders are positioned in a strategic room for leadership formed by the marketized, public organisation. In many ways, school leaders are there for ascribed more autonomy concerning the profile and direction for the school. At the same time schools are subject for testing and performance measurement by indicators and potential inspections. Thus, leaders must take the measurement figures into account in decision making about education. Secondly, a dilemma between communality and unilateralism. The free choice of school is dominant in Denmark and may intensify the focus on leading a school as an enterprise, as the financial situation is closely related to the admission of students. The subsequential potential competition between schools may cause social consequences and crisis for some schools. The tendency in both educational levels is potentially that segregation between students according to their financial resources (and etniticity) may be a both a cause and effect for development of the pattern of application for Danish schools. Finally, there is an overarching dilemma between education as preparation for life or work as the paradigm of the competitive state becomes more dominant. This is where school leaders are meeting the pressure from new public management inspired policies and relate them to Danish traditions of schooling. The questions that fruitfully can be empirically investigated in future

2  School Leadership in Denmark: Leading Education and Leading a School

25

policy enactment research are a study of policy enactment in practice. The central question of social changes to the field is if the dominant student academic performance discource over time will form a policy bricolage and simply co-exist with the Nordic value and educational purpose of democratic bildung? Or, if the dominant discourse over time appropriate fundamental, democratic values in Danish Education? And with what social consequences for students, educational leaders and society in general? In the third section, we discussed the formal education system in Denmark to prepare school leaders and how these educations currently represent expectations towards school leaders. Educational requirements and content are different between the two levels, but they are influenced by the discussions concerning how leaders may be prepared to meet these tensions and new challenges. Concerns about adequate and appropriate skills, qualifications, and identity illustrates if they are perceived as e.g. as policy implementors or autonomous leaders.

References Ärlestig, H., Day, C., & Johansson, O. (2016). International school principal research. In H. Ärlestig, C. Day, & O. Johansson (Eds.), A decade of research on school principals (pp. 1–9). Springer. Bjørnholt, B., Mikkelsen, M.  F., & Thranholm, E. (2017). Skoleledernes oplevelser af skolen i folkeskolereformens fjerde år-en kortlægning [The school principals’ experiences of the school in the fourth year of the public school reform](rapport). VIVE. Bøje, J. D., Frederiksen, L. F., Ribers, B., & Wiedemann, F. (2022). Professionalisation of school leadership: Theoretical and analytical perspectives. Routledge. Børne- og Undervisingsministeriet. (2018). 19-11-07-Notat-Uddannelsesmålsætning-2018.pdf. [Note-Education Objective] Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://www.uvm.dk/statistik/tvaergaaende-­statistik/andel-­af-­en-­ungdomsaargang-­der-­forventes-­at-­faa-­en-­uddannelse/ profilmodel-­definition-­og-­metode Børne og Undervisningsministeriet. (2017). Grunduddannelse af skoleledere- fremtidige kompetencebehov af uddannelsestilbud. [Basic education of school leaders  - future competence needs of education offers] Retrieved October 17, 2020, from https://www.uvm.dk/publikationer/folkeskolen/2017-­grunduddannelse-­af-­skoleledere-­fremtidige-­kompetencebehov-­og-­ uddannelsestilbud. Børne og Undervisningsministeriet. (2018). Bekendtgørelse om formål, kompetenceområder, færdigheds- og vidensområder og opmærksomhedspunkter for folkeskolens fag og emner (Fælles Mål).[Act on Purpose, Competence Goals, Skills and Knowledge Areas and Points of Attention for the Folkeskole’s Subjects and Topics (Common Objectives)] LBK 185 af 5/3/2018. Børne og Undervisningsministeriet. (2019). Bekendtgørelse om Uddannelsesparathedsvurdering og procedurer ved valg af ungdomsuddannelse. [Act on educational readiness assessment and procedures for choosing youth education] BEK nr 1016 af 04/10/2019. Børne og Undervisningsministeriet. (2020a). Bekendtgørelse om formål, kompetencemål, færdigheds- og vidensområder og opmærksomhedspunkter for folkeskolens fag og emner (Fælles Mål) [Act on Purpose, Competence Goals, Skills and Knowledge Areas and Points of Attention for the Folkeskole’s Subjects and Topics (Common Objectives)]. BEK nr 1217 af 19/08/2020. Børne og Undervisningsministeriet. (2020b). Politisk aftale om nationale test [Political agreement on national tests]. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://www.uvm.dk/folkeskolen/elevplaner-­nationale-­test%2D%2Dtrivselsmaaling-­og-­sprogproever/nationale-­test/ politisk-­aftale-­om-­nationale-­test-­2020.

26

M. Storgaard and L. F. Frederiksen

Børne og Undervisningsministeriet. (2021). Bekendtgørelse af lov om folkeskolen [Act on Primary and Lower Secondary Schools]. LBK nr 1887 af 01/10/2021. Børne og Undervisningsministeriet. (2022a). Skolebestyrelsen i folkeskolen [Board in the folkeskole]. Retrieved May 4, 2022, from https://www.uvm.dk/folkeskolen/organisering-­og-­ledelse/ skolens-­ledelse/skolebestyrelsen Børne og Undervisningsministeriet. (2022b). Om nationale mål [On national objectives] Retrieved May 6, 2022, from https://www.uvm.dk/folkeskolen/folkeskolens-­maal-­love-­og-­regler/ nationale-­maal/om-­nationale-­maal Børne og Undervisningsministeriet. (2022c). Skolens bestyrelse [The school board]. Retrieved May 7, 2022, from https://www.uvm.dk/gymnasiale-­uddannelser/organisering-­og-­ledelse/ bestyrelsen Børne og Undervisningsministeriet. (2022d). Socioøkonomiske referencer og skolernes løfteevne [Socio-economic references and the schools’ lifting capacity]. Retrieved May 4, 2022. Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet. (2021a). Bekendtgørelse af lov om de gymnasiale uddannelser [Act on upper secondary school]. LBK nr 1375 af 24/06/2021. Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet. (2021b). Aftale om det fremtidige evaluerings- og bedømmelsessystem i folkeskolen [Agreement on the future evaluation and assessment system in the primary school]. Danmarks Statistik. (2022). Statistikbanken, INST11. Retrieved June 12, 2022, from https://www. statistikbanken.dk Gunnulfsen, A. E. (2020). Utdanningsledelse som mikropolitisk praksis: Forhandling om mening, makt og posisjonering  [Educational leadership  as micropolitical practice: Negotiation of meaning, power and positioning]. Universitetsforlaget. Gunter, H. M. (2013). On not researching school leadership: The contribution of SJ ball. London Review of Education, 11(3), 218–228. Gunter, H. M., Hall, D., & Bragg, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: A study in knowledge production. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 555–580. Hansen, D. R., & Frederiksen, L. F. (2017). The ‘crucified’ leader: Cynicism, fantasies and paradoxes in education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 36, 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11217-­016-­9539-­y Hjort, K., & Raae, P. H. (2012). Mellem solospil og solidaritet – om strategisk selvstyre [Between solo play and solidarity – about strategic autonomy]. In K. Hjort, A. Qvortrup, & P. H. Raae (Eds.), Der styres for vildt – Om paradokser i styring af pædagogik [Managing too much – About paradoxes in managing pedagogy] (pp. 179–202). Klim. Jarvis, P. (2007). Globalization, life long learning and the learning society. Routledge. Kepler, T. (2019). Skæv elevfordeling kræver hård styring af gymnasierne [Skewed student distribution requires tough regulation of the upper secondary schools]. Altinget, 10. oktober 2019. Kjer, M. G., & Jensen, V. M. (2018). Styring, autonomi og pædagogisk ledelse af folkeskolerne under reformen [Governance, autonomy and pedagogical leadership of the basic school during the reform]. VIVE – Det Nationale Forsknings- og Analysecenter for Velfærd. Lærernes Centralorganisation. (2020). Aftale om arbejdstid for undervisere i kommunerne [Agreement on working hours for teachers in the municipalities]. Retrieved May 13, 2022, from https://www.dlf.org/media/13740571/a20_aftale_om_arbejdstid_for_undervisere_i_ kommunerne_030920.pdf. Mainz, P. (2023). Gymnasier og elever: Det haster med at rette op på skæv elevfordeling i storbyer [Upper secondary school and students: It is urgent to adjust skewed student distribution in bigger cities], Politiken, 2023-01-24. Møller, J. (2017). Leading education beyond what works. European Educational Research Journal, 16(4), 375–385. Moos, L. (2013). Transnational influences on Values and Practices in Nordic Educational Leadership: Is there a Nordic Model? Springer. Moos, L. (2016). Denmark: Danish school leadership between welfare and competition. In A decade of research on school principals (pp. 13–38). Springer. Moos, L. (2017). Dannelse. Kontekster, visioner, temaer og processer [Bildung. Contexts, visions, themes and processes]. Hans Reitzels Forlag.

2  School Leadership in Denmark: Leading Education and Leading a School

27

Moos, L. (2019). Glidninger–‘Usynlige’ forandringer inden for pædagogik og uddannelser [Slidings–‘Invisible’transformations in education]. DPU ebooks. DPU. Moos, L., Skedsmo, G., Höög, J., Olofsson, A., & Johnson, L. (2011). The hurricane of accountabilities? Comparison of accountability comprehensions and practices. In How school principals sustain success over time (pp. 199–222). Springer. Pedersen, D. (2004). Offentlig ledelse i managementstaten [Public leadership in the management state]. Samfundslitteratur. Pedersen, O. K. (2014). Konkurrencestaten og dens uddannelsespolitik: Baggrund, intentioner og funktionsmåder [The competition state and its education policy: Background, intentions and modes of operation]. In Læring i Konkurrencestaten (pp. 13–33). Samfundslitteratur. Petersen, T.  G. (2020). Sådan sikrer vi en mere balanceret elevfordeling i folkeskolen [ ], Skolemonitor. Retrieved November 9, 2020. Raae, P.  H. (2021). Udviklingsledelse i gymnasiet. Mellemledelse og udvikling (Leadership for development in the upper secondary school). Frydenlund. Regeringen. (2013a). Aftale mellem regeringen (Socialdemokraterne, Radikale Venstre og Socialistisk Folkeparti), Venstre og Dansk Folkeparti om et fagligt løft af folkeskolen [Agreement between the government, Liberals and Danish People’s Party on an upgrade of the primary school]. Retrieved May 13, 2022, from www.uvm.dk Regeringen. (2013b). Lov 409 om forlængelse og fornyelse af kollektive overenskomster of aftaler for visse grupper af ansatte på det offentlige område (Act on prolongation and renoval of collective agreements for some groups of employees on the public sector). Regeringen. (2021a). Aftale mellem regeringen (Socialdemokratiet) og Dansk Folkeparti, Socialistisk Folkeparti, Radikale Venstre, Enhedslisten, Alternativet og Kristendemokraterne om Den Koordinerede Tilmelding til Gymnasiale Ungdomsuddannelser [Agreement between the government (Social Democracy) and the Danish People’s Party, the Socialist People’s Party, the Radical Left, Enhedslisten, the Alternative and the Christian Democrats on the Coordinated Enrollment for Upper secondary schools]. Retrieved May 13, 2022, from www.uvm.dk Regeringen. (2021b). Regeringen og folkeskolens parter går sammen: Folkeskolens udfordringer skal drøftes i fællesskab (The government and stakeholders of the Folkeskole get together: The challenges of the Folkeskole must jointly be discussed). Retrieved June 19, 2022, from www.uvm.dk Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on schooling. The Handbook of Global Education Policy, 12(4), 128–144. Skolelederforeningen. (2017). Anbefalinger til ny skolelederuddannelse [Recomendations for a new school leadership education]. Retrieved October 17, 2020, from https://www.skolelederforeningen.org/nyheder-­medier/nyheder/2017/anbefalinger-­til-­ny-­skolelederuddannelse-­er-­ klar/ Storgaard, M. (2019). Mening og magt i skoleledelse: konstruktioner af styring i højtpræsterende skoler i et internationalt komparativt perspektiv (Sensemaking and Power in School Leadership. Constructions of Governance in High Achieving Schools in an International Comparative Perspective). Doctoral dissertation, Aarhus University, Copenhagen. Storgaard, M. (2020). Local and global? Challenging the social epistemologies of the educational leadership field. In Re-centering the critical potential of Nordic school leadership research (pp. 53–68). Springer. UCL Erhvervs- og professionshøjskole. (2020). Studieordning for diplom i ledelse. Retrieved October 17, 2020, from https://www.ucl.dk/globalassets/01.-­uddannelser/b.-­efter%2D%2Dog-­ videreuddannelser/diplomuddannelser-­o g%2D%2Dmoduler/ledelse/studieordning-­f or-­ diplomuddannelsen-­i -­l edelse-­0 1.01.2019.pdf?nocache=9f66fde5-­3 ea7-­4 94a-­8 937-­2 0 6c1163a858 Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet. (2021). The Danish education system. ufm.dk/en/ publications. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage. Wiedemann. (2012). Styring af styringsværktøjer?  – folkeskolelæreres erfaringer med “Fælles Mål”. [managing management tools? – Primary school teachers’ experiences with “common objectives”]. In K. Hjort, P. H. Raae, & A. Qvortrup (Eds.), Det styrer for vildt. Om paradokser i styring af pædagogik. Klim.

Chapter 3

Finland: A Structure of Trust Alex Mäkiharju and Ann-Sofie Smeds-Nylund

Abstract  The Finnish education system is characterized by a high level of trust. There are no school inspections, textbook controls, or standardized national tests. Instead, quality is assured through practitioners’ high qualifications, knowledge, expertise, commitment, and responsibility. The educational system structure can be understood as a multilevel educational leadership model with influences from the transnational level, national legislation and guidelines, and decentralized municipal leadership responsible for planning, implementing, and self-evaluating education at the local level. The demands on principals in Finland are significant, and their responsibilities and workloads are increasing. Principals are both the administrative and pedagogical leaders of schools. As pedagogical leaders of the school, principals must have insight into teaching theory to understand and analyze the teaching principles included in the national curricular guidelines. As education and curricula are reformed, the demands on and expectations of principals must also change. Consequently, universities have taken action to support the needs of principals and their work through various initiatives. In-service training, education programs, and an increased emphasis on research regarding educational leadership are some of the concrete measures that have been emphasized to support the work of principals.

Introduction During the last few years, a significant amount of research has been conducted regarding the influence of school leadership practices on teacher development, teacher capacity, and professional learning communities (Hallinger et al., 2017; Liu & Hallinger, 2018; Thoonen et al., 2011). School leadership affects student learning A. Mäkiharju · A.-S. Smeds-Nylund (*) Faculty of Education and Welfare Studies, Department of Pedagogical Leadership and Development Work, Åbo Akademi University, Vasa, Finland e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. E. Gunnulfsen et al. (eds.), Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries, Educational Governance Research 21, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4_3

29

30

A. Mäkiharju and A.-S. Smeds-Nylund

because it indirectly shapes the conditions that contribute to teaching quality in schools. School leadership appears to have the greatest potential for improving student achievement when compared to other aspects of school organization (Sebastian et  al., 2016). Therefore, principals play a significant role in supporting teachers’ professional development, as they lead the implementation of national and local guidelines in schools, including the curriculum. The aim of this chapter is to deepen the understanding of Finnish principals by providing an overview of the Finnish education system. This information is crucial because the local and national contexts impact the work of principals. In addition to these contextual factors, this chapter details the roles, assignments, and expectations of principals, as these factors contribute to the perception of principalship in Finland today. This chapter uses information from the Finnish National Agency for Education and various national and international reports and studies. The aim of this chapter is to describe the role of the principal in the Finnish educational system and to explain how principals’ responsibilities for education, curriculum development, and evaluation are executed. In addition, this chapter explores the internal and external relationships of principals, the various expectations of principals, and their daily work activities. The chapter concludes with a discussion of future challenges and opportunities for Finnish principals.

The Finnish Educational System According to the constitution that governs Finnish education, all people must have access to high-quality education, regardless of their ethnicity, age, wealth, or domicile. Comprehensive school education is free in Finland, and local authorities (i.e., municipalities) and other education providers maintain the comprehensive schools. Less than 2% of comprehensive school pupils attend private or state schools. After completing comprehensive school, students must apply for post-comprehensive school education. Compulsory education ends when students reach the age of 18 or when they complete a general upper secondary qualification or vocational qualification (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2022). Nationally, the Ministry of Education and Culture is responsible for developing policies related to education. The Finnish government outlines and provides policies to guide the ministry’s activities. The Finnish National Agency for Education is responsible for implementing educational policies. The agency collaborates with the ministry to develop educational objectives and content, as well as instructional methods for early childhood, pre-primary, basic, upper secondary, and adult education (Ministry of Education and Culture & Finnish National Agency of Education, 2018; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2020). Notably, to increase the emphasis on the pedagogical foundation, early childhood education was transferred from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2013 (Fonsén & Soukainen, 2020). The government allocates funds for basic education, and local authorities (i.e., education

3  Finland: A Structure of Trust

31

providers) determine how to use these resources to comply with the law and implement the national curriculum. The Finnish education system today is decentralized, and the local administration, which usually includes municipalities or joint municipal authorities, has a significant level of authority and responsibility. Local authorities are responsible for organizing basic education, allocating funds, recruiting personnel, and creating a local curriculum based on national guidelines. Local authorities determine the type of autonomy principals can use to lead schools. When principals and educational personnel execute the basic functions determined by the law, they may provide educational services according to the visions and administrative arrangements of the municipal framework (Ministry of Education and Culture & Finnish National Agency of Education, 2018; OECD, 2020). After the Second World War, the Finnish education system gradually developed to ensure equal opportunities for all children, regardless of their backgrounds. In the 1970s, various schools merged into one school, peruskoulu/grundskola, and Finland abandoned the previous belief that everyone could not learn everything. All students, regardless of their domicile, socioeconomic background, or interests, enroll in the same nine-year basic schools governed by local education authorities. These changes later led to the reform of teacher education in 1979, when a new law was implemented that emphasized teacher professionalism and research-based teacher education (Sahlberg, 2018). Today’s Finnish education system has no dead ends, and students can continue with higher education regardless of the choices they made earlier in their academic careers (Ministry of Education and Culture & Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). Private funding is marginal at all levels, with the exception of the pre-primary level, where 9.9% of the funding comes from private sources. Overall, most expenditures come from public sources (97.6% compared to the OECD average of 83.6%; OECD, 2020). Estimates indicate that more than 95% of teachers are members of the Trade Union of Education in Finland, which actively protects the interests of teachers and principals, such as ensuring overtime pay for the performance of additional duties (Webb et al., 2012).

Curriculum The Finnish education system is characterized as multilevel educational leadership with influences from the transnational level to national guidelines and to decentralized municipal leadership with planning and self-evaluation. For quality assurance, the system relies on educational practitioners to possess attributes such as high qualification, knowledge, expertise, commitment, and responsibility (Hargreaves et  al., 2007; Uljens & Nyman, 2015). Since the early 1990s, national authorities have used decentralized curriculum planning, and the national agenda does not include school inspections or textbook controls.

32

A. Mäkiharju and A.-S. Smeds-Nylund

The core curriculum provides national guidelines and general objectives. It is broadly designed to give local education providers the option to develop a curriculum that accentuates the local context (Chong & Graham, 2017; Palsa & Mertala 2019). The degree of freedom to execute curriculum reforms varies widely across the country, as every municipality can construct and interpret its curriculum differently. In other words, Finland does not have a common model, and every municipality considers the local context to develop its curriculum within the national frames. The Finnish curriculum tradition views principals and teachers not only as technicians who transfer knowledge instrumentally but also as autonomous actors (Autio, 2013). A curriculum is always contextual and political (Pietarinen et al., 2017). Some of the contextual and political reasons for education reforms are neoliberal policies (Hardy & Uljens, 2018) and technology shifts (Sivesind & Wahlström, 2016; Uljens & Ylimaki, 2015). Thus, many countries have embraced corporate management approaches (Sahlberg, 2016) to evaluate the quality of and outcomes for schools. However, Finland has not followed the wave of the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM). There are several reasons for this. Many Finnish values and traditions were created and built in the first half of the nineteenth century, when Finland became a semi-independent region as a Grand Duchy of Russia. From the very beginning, the country has focused on creating a Finnish culture and language, built from the inside, with the help of education and Bildung (Uljens & Nyman, 2013). These traditions and values are “tuned towards the ideal of the reflective practitioner, including reflections on the aims and not just effective methods for education and schooling” (Uljens & Nyman, 2013, p. 43). In other words, the Finnish education tradition is not aligned with the accountability ideology of Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). A second reason is the reforms conducted in the 1990s. In the early 1990s, all traditional forms of inspection were abolished. The only control mechanisms that remained at the national level were the minimum number of lessons taught in each subject and a national framework. It was a shared belief that it could not have been possible to make such severe cuts in spending had it not been for the shifting of power from the national level to the municipal level. Although the reason was not purely economic, and the aim was later to recentralize the decision-making power, given the PISA results from 2000, it would not make sense to argue for a recentralization, as practitioners seem to earn the trust they had received (Simola et  al., 2017). PISA, paradoxically, gave Finland an argument for retaining the autonomy of teachers, schools, and municipalities. While a culture of trust can be traced back to the start of the nineteenth century, there is also a structure of trust built into the system, relying on high expertise, commitment, and qualifications, giving educational practitioners the autonomy to do their work in the way they best see fit. Finland connects accountability in education to trust in educational practitioners. Consequently, Finland has not implemented outcome-based accountability in elementary schools (Pietarinen et al., 2017). National evaluations are conducted within the national curricula according to the National Education Evaluation Plan (Finnish Education Evaluation Center [FINEEC], 2021), and the results from the evaluations are used to improve different areas of education.

3  Finland: A Structure of Trust

33

Nonetheless, transnational policies have influenced Finnish education policies, and an NPM light (Uljens et al., 2016, p. 177) is visible. The new core curriculum for basic education, which was implemented in 2016, highlights transversal competencies and multidisciplinary learning, partially moving Finland toward a competence-­oriented curriculum (Palsa & Mertala, 2019; Uljens & Rajakaltio, 2017). Multidisciplinary learning attempts to awaken tentative study interests among students and to implement twenty-first-century skills (Braskén et al., 2019). Globalization and sustainability are two reasons for transitioning from an individual to a collaborative culture. Considering these factors, it is necessary to revise leading, teaching, and learning (Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016).

Evaluation Because the evaluation of education in Finland, to a large degree, is dependent on trust (Pulkkinen et al., 2015), inspections of schools have been abolished, and standardized national tests for basic education do not exist. The first and only standardized national test in Finland is the matriculation examination, which is used in upper secondary schools. This test is similar for all schools throughout the nation and ensures a certain level of instruction for the entire country. The national authorities do not use the results to rank schools (Uljens & Nyman, 2013). The country participates in international evaluations, such as PISA and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which are primarily conducted by the FINEEC. Evaluations are not conducted regularly, and they do not test an entire group. Rather, the tests are sample based. Education providers receive and use the results (Ministry of Education and Culture & Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018) to ensure that they have achieved the objectives of various educational laws. The evaluations also support the development of education and improve learning conditions for students (Law on Basic Education 1296/2013, §21). The evaluations are enhancement-led and focus on self-­evaluation by schools and education providers. The tests are not summative, publicized, or standardized, which helps avoid the disadvantages of test-based accountability (Hautamäki & Kupiainen, 2014). Finland views teachers as competent professional actors, and accountability is based on teachers’ proficiency and self-evaluations (Uljens & Nyman, 2015). This is one of the more important factors for understanding Finnish success (Sahlberg, 2011). Success on international measurements, such as PISA, has not dramatically impacted Finland, but it has provided a national learning experience. However, PISA’s ideology of accountability differs from Finland’s academic policy (Uljens & Nyman, 2015). Principal leadership focuses on the conditions, processes, and goals that produce a culture and environment for high performance (Hargreaves et  al., 2007). Accountability is anchored in trusting educational practitioners to negotiate and fulfill their duties and implement sound practices. This discursive trust, combined

34

A. Mäkiharju and A.-S. Smeds-Nylund

with principals’ educational experience and affiliation with the same union as teachers, results in principals not regarding themselves as CEOs, which is a perception shared by teachers (Pirttilä-Backman et al., 2017).

Principals’ Mission This chapter presents the following information: (1) principals’ mission within the education system, (2) school leaders’ relationship with internal and external actors, and (3) the resources that school leaders must manage. These areas are explored to understand the internal (the school and education system) and external (society, general public, and stakeholders) demands on school leaders.

Mission The Basic Education Act (628/1998, §14) provides the job description for principals. Briefly, principals are responsible for the entire school (Basic Education Decree 628/1998, §37; Saarukka, 2017; Uljens & Nyman, 2015). Before 1978, the Finnish National Board of Education (currently the National Finnish Agency of Education) chose principals primus inter pares (first among equals). Finland first implemented a national decree regarding principal education in 1992, which focused on educational leadership, law, administration, and economy (Uljens & Nyman, 2015). Since 1999, all principals must have a five-year masters’ degree and be qualified teachers with sufficient teaching experience and a national educational leadership certificate worth 25 European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) (Decree on qualification requirements for teaching staff, 1998; Uljens et al., 2013). Depending on the size of the school, principals may be required to teach 4–20 hours each week (Hargreaves et al., 2007; Uljens & Nyman, 2015). The 1999 reform changed the tasks for principals, who were given more autonomy to lead their schools (Saarivirta & Kumpulainen, 2016). Today, principals still have autonomy within certain economic constraints and within the framework established by the municipal school authority. Because national legislation does not detail the job description for principals, and because municipalities use different approaches, principals’ work descriptions vary greatly in terms of administrative duties, pupil welfare, leading staff, network and cooperation, and strategic work (Sydholm, 2022). Principals are also the pedagogical leaders of schools. To lead teachers’ pedagogical work, principals must provide insight into teaching theory to understand and analyze the teaching principles included in the national curricular guidelines. Furthermore, principals must understand the professional development of teachers and offer ideas to support this activity. Thus, one of the objectives for principals is to create and maintain a supportive and positive working environment for teachers (Saarivirta & Kumpulainen, 2016).

3  Finland: A Structure of Trust

35

Relationships Every school is required by law to have a principal responsible for school operations. Education providers develop job descriptions at the local level. Using a model that describes the relationships within the education system and the influence between various actors at different levels is beneficial because it explains how the relationships between actors in the educational system are developed (Fig.  3.1). Uljens and Ylimaki (2017) described educational leadership as mediational, with leadership horizontally distributed among actors and within institutions. Leadership is also vertically distributed throughout the transnational, state, municipal, and school levels. This perspective leads to an educational leadership model that identifies five levels of educational leadership (Uljens, 2018). The first level involves teachers leading the learning activities of students. The second level entails principals leading teachers’ instructional activities. The third level relates to the municipal leadership (e.g., superintendent) that guides the leadership of principals. The fourth level is the national level, which focuses on curriculum development and involves a different type of pedagogical leadership. The fifth level is the transnational level, which influences the national curriculum process. This model is non-­hierarchical, as levels can be bypassed. One objective for principals is to support teachers in their professional development and to act as pedagogical leaders. The principal’s role as a pedagogical leader does not easily align with the autonomy of teachers, especially as the relationship between teachers and principals is rarely hierarchical (Hargreaves et al., 2007). In Finland, distributed leadership is emphasized and preferred as a way of working and is part of the foundation for school culture (Risku & Pulkkinen,

Fig. 3.1  Curriculum leadership as a distributed multilevel process. (Uljens, 2018)

36

A. Mäkiharju and A.-S. Smeds-Nylund

2016). The national curriculum also mentions shared leadership as a method for enhancing school culture (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2014, p. 27). Teachers usually have little influence on administrative decisions, such as class size, schedules, and resource allocation. In contrast, they exert more influence and autonomy with regard to instructional decisions and educational concepts used in the classroom (Paulsrud & Wermke, 2019).

Demands The demands on principals in Finland are significant, and their responsibilities and workloads are increasing. According to the Finnish Principal Association (2020), a study in which more than 600 principals participated (N = 644), working days have become longer, and the risk of burnout has increased. These results align with Vuohijoki’s (2006) study, in which more than 80% of principals indicated they were overstressed, and more than 50% considered switching to another profession. To analyze the impact of stress, tests have been conducted to measure the physiological aspects of principals, such as their heart rates and sleep patterns (Principals’ Barometer 2020). These studies have yielded polarized results, as many principals recover well and are stress-resilient, while others have little time to recover and feel stressed. Principals have also shown a decrease in work dedication and engagement. The solutions and structures developed in the past are, in many cases, no longer applicable, and this has taken a toll on principals. As teachers and principals have a significant amount of autonomy, this can also explain why some principals seem to handle stress better than others. Autonomy can provide innovative principals with opportunities to develop the school as they see fit. However, it can also create a lack of structure and direction, making the work that principals do even more difficult. Because many municipalities and schools are relatively small, they rarely have enough administrative personnel to support principals’ work. In addition to administrative work, principals must manage the development of schools as learning communities. This responsibility has transformed principals into professional educational leaders who manage educational companies (Alava et al., 2012).

Education, Professional Understanding, and Practice The national discussion on whether the required education for principals should be increased is ongoing because they are subject to relatively low formal requirements (25 ECTS) compared to the extensive education requirements for teachers (Uljens & Nyman, 2013). As explained, many scholars (Saarivirta & Kumpulainen, 2016; Sandén, 2007; Uljens et al., 2013) believe that the education program for principals is not comprehensive and does not reflect the intricate work principals perform on a daily basis. The training program for principals primarily provides administrative

3  Finland: A Structure of Trust

37

information on school leadership and creates a divergence between the expectations and reality of school leadership (Saarivirta & Kumpulainen, 2016). However, society highly values principals and characterizes them as having competence, expertise, responsibility, and engagement. The trust that society places in principals did not appear from nowhere but arose from intentional societal structures and innovations (Hargreaves et al., 2007).

Principals’ Practices Mäkelä (2007) examined the tasks performed by Finnish principals during their workdays. According to this study, 33% of the workday for principals involves management and financial tasks, 31% involves network leadership (both internal and external), 22% involves staff management, and 14% involves pedagogical management. As indicated by these results, principals spend a limited amount of time on what they consider pedagogical management. However, according to Vuohijoki’s (2006) study, 83% of principals view themselves as pedagogical leaders, although they do not perceive that they exercise pedagogical leadership. One can argue that every administrative decision has a pedagogical dimension that enables learning, as all decisions (financial, judicial, constructional, and economic) have an impact on the school culture and the learning environment. Conceptually, pedagogical leadership has received increased attention, but in a practical sense, the work of principals mainly consists of administrative tasks, such as strategic management and the recruitment of teachers and other personnel (Soini et al., 2016). Because one of the main objectives for principals is to promote school development, they must balance two different roles. On one hand, principals are facilitators of shared learning and must create an environment for teachers to develop professionally and pupils to learn. On the other hand, principals are managers responsible for allocating resources and assigning administrative tasks. It is important to consider and align these roles for principals. The roles highlight the contradictory challenge of making pedagogical decisions based on financial factors (Saarukka, 2017; Soini et al., 2016). A second challenge in promoting school development is the autonomy of teaching personnel. Pedagogical leadership in Finland is based on professional cooperation between teachers and principals. Although schools and learning communities enable and promote autonomy and pedagogical freedom, this does not necessarily translate into collective and collaborative responsibilities. As PirttiläBackman et al. (2017, p. 49) explained, cooperation in Finland can be described as “independent teamwork,” which means that agreements and negotiations about new learning models are conducted in a participatory manner but executed individually. This observation is aligned with Simola’s (2005, p. 461) view that Finnish teachers have a reputation for “pedagogical conservatism,” which makes the development of schools challenging for principals. Principals have to walk a narrow tightrope between equality and authority when interacting with teachers. As Pirttilä-Backman et  al. (2017) explained, teachers

38

A. Mäkiharju and A.-S. Smeds-Nylund

understand that principals have the authority to make final decisions, but they want to be heard and participate in decision making. Teachers want the principal to “be a skipper who steers the ship” (Pirttilä-Backman et al., 2017, p. 42), yet they want to be acknowledged and viewed as equals who have different roles and responsibilities. The fact that principals listen to teachers implies that they have confidence in teachers’ professional skills. Although everyone can and should participate in decision making, principals and teachers perceive rebellious voices as problematic. Teaching personnel who want to show off are disliked and regarded as thinking more highly of themselves than others. According to Menard (2016), Finnish equality is interrelated with features such as non-conflict, moderation, and sameness. As Vangrieken et al. (2015) stated, a state of non-conflict can lead to groupthink and a hesitancy to discuss possibilities and opportunities that are not aligned with prevailing conditions and thoughts. On the other hand, if done correctly, non-conflict can have a positive impact on morale, increase communication, and reduce isolation.

The Future for Finnish Principals The role of principals has expanded from focusing on administrative leadership to leadership in education and school development. As legislation has changed from institutional to functional, local authorities have delegated more power over the last 10 years to principals, such as hiring teachers and making financial decisions. The importance of a school’s relationship with the surrounding community and other external actors has also increased (Uljens & Nyman, 2015). One result of this increasing workload is that principals change or want to change their jobs more than ever, which undermines the previous notion that a principal’s job is a position to be held until retirement (Taipale, 2016). A significant challenge is the combination of the increase in work and responsibilities and the generational crisis, as many principals are reaching retirement age. In a report from the Ministry of Education and Culture & Finnish National Agency for Education (2018), more than half of all principals in basic, general upper secondary, and vocational upper secondary education are over the age of 50. According to Hargreaves et  al. (2007), four main factors contribute to the anticipated succession challenge. The first factor is demographic turnover. Many principals are close to the end of their careers, and there is no coherent national strategy to address the looming generational gap. The second factor is the increased workload. Potential successors do not perceive the increased scope of assignments, such as self-evaluating, auditing, action planning, and providing special education, as attractive work. This is particularly challenging because more people are leaving than entering the principal profession. The third challenge is insufficient incentives. Many principals and members of the Ministry of Staff recognize that the current pay structure does not sufficiently incentivize teachers to become principals. Teachers and principals belong to the same union, which diminishes the differences between the groups because it is

3  Finland: A Structure of Trust

39

viewed as a collective of a “society of experts” (Hargreaves et al., 2007, p. 21). This decreases the likelihood of preferential salaries or incentives being offered to principals. The last factor is inadequate training. The national qualification mostly focuses on administrative tasks and leadership issues in developing and maintaining relationships with teachers, students, and parents. Current principals do not have a strong tradition of leadership training. Many principals seek external in-service training, but the supply is inconsistent at best. Larger local authorities, such as Helsinki, Tampere, and Turku, provide better opportunities to attend these trainings, but these training options are not nearly as accessible in smaller or isolated municipalities (Hargreaves et al., 2007). Strategies have been developed to improve the attractiveness of the principal profession. Cross-school leadership has been identified as a possible solution to the anticipated challenges of principalship. Collaboration, shared resources, and improvement initiatives between and across schools, both within and beyond municipalities, can lighten the leadership burden, improve training, increase the strength of leadership roles, redistribute leadership, and improve pay incentives (Hargreaves et al., 2007). Principals have a hefty workload and must make the best use of all resources. As principals perform more administrative tasks, the possibilities for them to interact with teaching staff have decreased. This is especially applicable in larger schools. Principals cannot interact with every teacher every day and lead the school, so they must distribute leadership (tasks and responsibilities) to be efficient in their usage of time. Consequently, teachers are usually temporarily appointed to management roles (Lahtero et al., 2017). In addition to alleviating the principal’s workload, distributed leadership allows other actors in the school to participate more and feel ownership and empowerment, which fuels communality in the school (Risku & Pulkkinen, 2016). As Finland’s PISA results declined slightly during the last decade, Finnish policymakers concluded that the educational system should promote twenty-first-­ century skills. Digital knowledge, entrepreneurship, and environmental awareness are some of the twenty-first-century competencies emphasized in the core curriculum. Principals are responsible for developing a professional learning community in which the competencies are brought forth, while simultaneously allowing teachers and students to flourish. Thus, multiple projects to promote these competencies for teachers and principals have been initiated (Hanhimäki et al., in press; Lavonen, 2018). Some of the projects were directly focusing on leadership. During 2018–2022, four key projects from the Ministry of Education focused on developing training for educational leadership in Finland. The project teams researched and developed educational leadership for their individual and common project goals. Using this cooperative process, the project team members (i.e., several universities) built structures for communication and collaboration, which can be utilized to facilitate additional cooperation and dialogue with organizations such as the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Finnish National Agency for Education. The next step in this collaboration was implemented with the project that the Ministry of Education and Culture began in 2021, which is coordinated by the University of Helsinki, together

40

A. Mäkiharju and A.-S. Smeds-Nylund

with other universities and national authorities. This project focuses on creating a development plan for educational leadership, drafting the curriculum, and evaluating the legal changes and financial resources needed to enhance the qualification education for leaders in early childhood, pre-primary, and basic education (Hanhimäki et al., in press).

Conclusion Society highly values principals, views them as experts, and entrusts them with significant responsibility and autonomy. The main assignment for principals is to “run the school” within the framework of the law and the parameters established by education providers. Finland has not implemented test-based accountability or standardized education but relies on the professionalism of educational practitioners and self-evaluation. Thus, principals have some leeway to lead schools. The leadership hierarchy in the Finnish education system is rather flat, and it can be difficult to distinguish principals from teachers. Principals do not view themselves as bosses, and teachers share this perception. Principals and teachers are considered equals with different roles and responsibilities. A reason for the flat hierarchy is the dual role of principals, as they are both leaders and teachers. As principals are also teachers, they do not want to interfere with teachers’ instruction and use a distributive approach to leadership. Teachers expect principals to listen to and acknowledge all staff members’ opinions. This power dynamic makes it easy for principals to distribute leadership and assignments because everyone has equal footing (Hargreaves et al., 2007). Although principals perceive pedagogical leadership to be important, they rarely have the time to work on pedagogical aspects, as management and administration are more urgent and time-consuming tasks. However, one can also argue that every administrative decision has a pedagogical dimension that enables teaching and learning. Principals must be able to distribute leadership assignments and tasks because the scope of principalship is increasing, and the resources do not support the expected work and effort of principals. Principals are often overworked and underpaid, and many Finnish principals want to change jobs. In addition, a generational gap exists for principal successors because many do not perceive principalship as an attractive profession. Principals have been given more power and responsibility to varying degrees, but they are not properly trained for their new roles. Principals usually have to learn many aspects of their work on the job (Taipale, 2016). To address this issue, a national project involving the Ministry of Educational and Culture and several universities has been initiated to create new solutions to these challenges and to update the principal’s role to align with contemporary society. A challenge in developing schools and implementing twenty-first-century skills is the contradiction between collaboration and autonomy. Collaborative efforts are emphasized in the curriculum by introducing multidisciplinary learning as a mandatory feature and viewing the school as a learning organization. Although teachers

3  Finland: A Structure of Trust

41

view these changes as important, they still prefer to teach individually. One reason is the lack of multidisciplinary education in teacher education programs (Niemelä & Tirri, 2018). Teachers in Finland enjoy a high degree of individual autonomy and prefer to work individually. As the curriculum emphasizes collaboration and collective efforts, principals face difficulties in getting teachers to reduce their individual autonomy in favor of collective teaching concepts. However, there are also indications that teachers enjoy the collective and holistic approach that the new curriculum provides (Elo & Nygren-Landgärds, 2020; Mård, 2020), and a significant aspect appears to be principals’ pedagogical leadership, which provides opportunities and circumstances for learning and development (Lähdemäki, 2018). The curriculum also focuses on digitalization, and the ongoing pandemic has forced basic education into the digital and virtual worlds. As society and education change, and curricula are reformed, the demands on and expectations of principals must also change. Consequently, universities have taken action to support the needs of principals and their work. In-service training, education programs, and an increased emphasis on research regarding educational leadership are some of the concrete measures that support the work of principals. Furthermore, as principals are considered experts within their field, they have a significant amount of power to influence certain aspects of their work and the education system in general.

References Alava, J., Halttunen, L., & Risku, M. (2012). Changing school management. Status review – May 2012. Publications 2012:13. Finnish National Board of Education. Autio, T. (2013). The internationalization of curriculum research. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum research (2nd ed., pp. 17–31). Routledge. Basic Education Act 1296/2013, §21. (2013). Retrieved June 16, 2022, from https://www.finlex.fi/ sv/laki/alkup/2013/20131296 Basic Education Act 628/1998. (1998). Retrieved June 16, 2022, from https://www.finlex.fi/sv/ laki/kaannokset/1998/en19980628.pdf Braskén, M., Löfwall Hemmi, K., & Kurtén, B. (2019). Implementing a multidisciplinary curriculum in a Finnish lower secondary school—The perspective of science and mathematics. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(6), 852–868. https://doi.org/10.108 0/00313831.2019.1623311 Chong, P. W., & Graham, L. (2017). Discourses, decisions, designs: “Special” education policy-­ making in New South Wales, Scotland, Finland and Malaysia. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(4), 598–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305792 5.2016.1262244 Elo, J., & Nygren-Landgärds, C. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of autonomy in the tensions between a subject focus and a cross-curricular school profile: A case study of a Finnish upper secondary school. Journal of Educational Change, 22, 423–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10833-­020-­09412-­0 Finnish Education and Evaluation Center. (2021). National education evaluation plan 2020–2023. Retrieved March 27, 2022, from www.karvi.fi Finnish National Agency for Education. (2014). The national core curriculum for basic education. Helsinki.

42

A. Mäkiharju and A.-S. Smeds-Nylund

Fonsén, E., & Soukainen, U. (2020). Sustainable pedagogical leadership in Finnish early childhood education (ECE): An evaluation by ECE professionals. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48, 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-­019-­00984-­y Förordning om behörighetsvillkoren för personal inom undervisningsväsendet. (1998). Decree on qualification requirements for teaching staff. 14.12.1998/986. Retrieved June 16, 2022, from https://www.finlex.fi/sv/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980986 Hallinger, P., Liuc, S., & Piyamand, P. (2017). Does principal leadership make a difference in teacher professional learning? A comparative study of China and Thailand. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 49(3), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.108 0/03057925.2017.1407237 Hanhimäki, E., Alho, J., Nuora, P., Risku, M., Fonsén, E., Mäkiharju, A., Smeds-Nylund, A-S., Autio, P., & Korva, S. (in press). Towards a multiform nationally cohesive entity for educational leadership development. In R.  Ahtiainen, E.  Hanhimäki, J.  Leinonen, M.  Risku & A.-S. Smeds-Nylund (Eds.), Leadership in educational contexts in Finland: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Springer. Hardy, I., & Uljens, M. (2018). Critiquing curriculum policy reform in Finland and Australia: A non-affirmative, and praxis-oriented approach. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 15(2), 51–82. https://doi.org/10.14288/tci.v15i2.191090 Hargreaves, A., Halász, G., & Pont, B. (2007). School leadership for systemic improvement in Finland—A case study report for the OECD activity improving school leadership. Organization of Economic co-operation and Development. Retrieved June 20, 2022, from https://www.oecd. org/education/school/39928629.pdf Hautamäki, J., & Kupiainen, S. (2014). Learning to learn in Finland: Theory and policy, research and practice. Routledge. Lähdemäki, J. (2018). Case study: The Finnish national curriculum 2016–A co-created national education policy. In J. Cook (Ed.), Sustainability, human Well-being, and the future of education (pp. 397–422). Palgrave Macmillan. Lahtero, T., Lång, N., & Alava, J. (2017). Distributed leadership in practice in Finnish schools. School Leadership & Management, 37(3), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243 4.2017.1293638 Lavonen, J. (2018). Educating professional teachers in Finland through the continuous improvement of teacher education programmes. In Y.  Weinberger & Z.  Libman (Eds.), Contemporary pedagogies in teacher education and development (pp.  3–22). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77979 Liu, S., & Hallinger, P. (2018). Principal instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher professional learning in China: Testing a mediated-effects model. Education Administration Quarterly, 54(4), 501–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18769048 Mäkelä, A. (2007). Mitä rehtorit todella tekevät: Etnografinen tapaustutkimus johtamisesta ja rehtorin tehtävistä peruskoulussa [What principals really do: An ethnographic case study on leadership and on principal’s tasks in basic education]. Jyväskylä University Print. Mård, N. (2020). History in multidisciplinary education: A case study in a Finnish primary school. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 49(5), 513–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1737172 Menard, R. (2016). Doing equality and difference: Representation and alignment in Finnish identification. Text & Talk, 36(6), 733–755. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-­2016-­0032 Ministry of Education and Culture. (2022). The finnish education system. Retrieved March 27, 2022, from https://okm.fi/en/education-­system Ministry of Education and Culture & Finnish National Agency of Education. (2018). Finnish education in a nutshell. Grano Oy. Retrieved June 20, 2022, from URL: https://www.oph.fi/ sites/default/files/documents/finnish_education_in_a_nutshell.pdf Niemelä, M.  A., & Tirri, K. (2018). Teachers’ knowledge of curriculum integration: A current challenge for Finnish subject teachers. In Y. Weinberger & Z. Libman (Eds.), Contemporary

3  Finland: A Structure of Trust

43

pedagogies in teacher education and development (pp.  119–132). IntechOpen). https://doi. org/10.5772/intechopen.75870 Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). Education policy outlook in Finland. In OECD education policy perspectives. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ f162c72b-­en Palsa, L., & Mertala, P. (2019). Multiliteracies in local curricula: Conceptual contextualizations of transversal competence in the Finnish curricular framework. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 5(2), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2019.1635845 Paulsrud, D., & Wermke, W. (2019). Decision-making in context: Swedish and Finnish teachers’ perceptions of autonomy. Scandinavian Journal of Research, 64(5), 706–727. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/00313831.2019.1596975 Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., & Soini, T. (2017). Shared sense-making in curriculum reform: Orchestrating the local curriculum work. Scandinavian Journal of Research, 63(4), 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1402367 Pirttilä-Backman, A.-M., Menarda, R., Vermab, J., & Kassea, R. (2017). Social representations of trust among teachers and principals in Cameroonian, Indian, and Finnish schools. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5(1), 29–57. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v5i1.206 Pulkkinen, S., Kanervio, P., & Risku, M. (Eds.). (2015). More trust, less control—Less work? In Culture of trust as a basis of educational leadership and school improvement. University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved June 20, 2022, from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-­951-­39-­6286-­9 Risku, M., & Pulkkinen, S. (2016). Finland: Finnish principal. In H. Ärlestig, C.  Day, & O.  Johansson (Eds.), A decade of research on school principals: Cases from 24 countries (pp. 61–75). Springer. Saarivirta, T., & Kumpulainen, K. (2016). School autonomy, leadership and student achievement: Reflections from Finland. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(7), 1268–1278. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-­10-­2015-­0146 Saarukka, S. (2017). Understanding school principals’ leadership. Åbo Akademi. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press. Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on schooling. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), The handbook of global education policy (pp. 128–144). Wiley. Sahlberg, P. (2018). FinnishED leadership: Four big, inexpensive ideas to transform education (Corwin Impact Leadership Series). Corwin Press. Sandén, T. (2007). Lust att leda i lust och leda [Desire and disillusion in school leadership. Head teachers and their work at a time of change]. Åbo Akademi. Sebastian, J., Allensworth, E., & Huang, H. (2016). The role of teacher leadership in how principals influence classroom instruction and student learning. American Journal of Education, 123, 69–108. https://doi.org/10.1086/688169 Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41(4), 455–470. https://doi. org/10.1080/03050060500317810 Simola, H., Kauko, J., Varjo, J., Kalalahti, M., & Sahlström, F. (2017). Dynamics in education politics: Understanding and explaining the Finnish case. Routledge. Sivesind, K., & Wahlström, N. (2016). Curriculum on the European policy agenda: Global transitions and learning outcomes from transnational and national points of view. European Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116647060 Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2016). Leading a school through change—Principals’ hands-on leadership strategies in school reform. School Leadership & Management, 36(4), 452–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1209179 Suomen Rehtorit ry [Finnish Principal Association]. (2020). Rehtoribarometri 2020 [Principals’ Barometer 2020]. Retrieved June 16, 2022, from https://surefire.fi/web/

44

A. Mäkiharju and A.-S. Smeds-Nylund

Sydholm, I. (2022). Att vara rektor: De kommunala styrdokumentens innehåll formar uppdraget [Being a principal: The content of municipal steering documents forms the mission]. Åbo Akademi. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-­fe202201111859 Symeonidis, V., & Schwarz, J. (2016). Phenomenon-based teaching and learning through the pedagogical lenses of phenomenology: The recent curriculum reform in Finland. Forum Oświatowe, 28(2), 31–47. Retrieved June 16, 2022, from http://forumoswiatowe.pl/index.php/ czasopismo/article/view/458 Taipale, A. (2016). What matters in Finnish school principalship. In S. Pulkkinen, P. Kanervio, & M. Risku (Eds.), More trust, less control—Less work? Culture of trust as a basis of educational leadership and school improvement (pp. 50–61). University of Jyväskylä. Thoonen, E., Sleegers, P., Oort, F., Peetsma, T., & Geijsel, F. (2011). How to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 496–536. https://doi.org/10.117 7/0013161X11400185 Uljens, M. (2018). Understanding educational leadership and curriculum reform: Beyond global economism and neo-conservative nationalism. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 2(2–3), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.2811. Uljens, M., & Nyman, C. (2013). Educational leadership in Finland or building a nation with Bildung. In L.  Moos (Ed.), Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership: Is there a Nordic model? (pp. 31–48). Springer. Uljens, M., & Nyman, C. (2015). En historisk rekonstruktion av pedagogiska ledarskapsdiskurser i Finland [A historical reconstruction of pedagogical leadership discourses in Finland]. In M.  Uljens (Ed.), Report 38/2015, Pedagogical leadership—Theory, research and school development (pp. 13–40). Åbo Akademi. Uljens, M., & Rajakaltio, H. (2017). National curriculum development as educational leadership: A discursive and non-affirmative approach. In M.  Uljens & R.  Ylimaki (Eds.), Bridging educational leadership, curriculum theory and didaktik (pp. 411–437). Springer. Uljens, M., & Ylimaki, R. (2015). Theory of educational leadership, didaktik, and curriculum studies—A non-affirmative and discursive approach. In M.  Uljens (Ed.), Report 38/2015, Pedagogical leadership—Theory, research and school development (pp.  103–128). Åbo Akademi. Uljens, M., & Ylimaki, R. (2017). Bridging educational leadership, curriculum theory and didaktik. Springer. Uljens, M., Möller, J., Ärlestig, H., & Frederiksen, L. F. (2013). The professionalization of Nordic school leadership. In L. Moos (Ed.), Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership: Is there a Nordic model? (pp. 133–157). Springer. Uljens, M., Wolff, L.-A., & Frontini, S. (2016). Finland – NPM resistance or towards European neo-welfarism in education? In H. M. Gunther, E. Grimaldi, D. Hall, & R. Serpieri (Eds.), New public management and the reform of education (pp. 39–52). Routledge. Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002 Vuohijoki, T. (2006). Pitää vain selviytyä.Tutkimus rehtorin työstä ja työssä jaksamisesta sukupuolen ja virka-asemansuhteen tarkasteltuna [One just has to survive. A study on principal’s work and coping at work from the point of view of gender and position]. Turku University Publications. Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Sarja, A., Hämäläinen, S., & Poikonen, P.-L. (2012). Rewards, changes and challenges in the role of primary headteachers/principals in England and Finland. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 40(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/03004279.2010.489513

Chapter 4

School Leaders within the Icelandic Education System: Complex Roles, Multilevel Relations, and Fragmented Support Sigríður Margrét Sigurðardóttir

and Guðrún Ragnarsdóttir

Abstract  The tasks and roles of school leaders in Iceland have changed in parallel with a steady and constant development taking place within the education system since the early 1900s. Nowadays the leading force is decentralisation, with emphasis on soft governance. Together with social and cultural changes, and global influences, decentralisation influences the work and working environment of school leaders. The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the school leaders role, their working conditions, and relationships at the first three school levels in Iceland. We used existing publications as data and content analysis when analysing the data. The findings show that school leaders have an extinctive role in the school system, which is changing rapidly in parallel with various transnational and national changes. School leaders are in complex and multilevel relations with various stakeholders, within and outside the school, on both national and municipal levels. However, there is limited and fragmented support from the authorities. Their roles, stipulated in the regulative structure, do not fully reflect school leaders’ actual tasks and activities. Both principals and middle managers are swamped by administrative tasks that diminish their capacity and goodwill to act as pedagogical leaders. Their pedagogical agency decreases moving higher up the school system. Distributed leadership characterises the leadership structure within the education system in Iceland, and the growth of the middle managers layer has increased accordingly. The formal education of all school leaders is grounded in their teacher license. However, requirements for pedagogical leadership are not the leading demand, even though call for such emphasis has increased recently at the global level and by the school leaders themselves. They lack professional support and formal educational S. M. Sigurðardóttir (*) School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Akureyri, Akureyri, Iceland e-mail: [email protected] G. Ragnarsdóttir School of Education, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. E. Gunnulfsen et al. (eds.), Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries, Educational Governance Research 21, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4_4

45

46

S. M. Sigurðardóttir and G. Ragnarsdóttir

training. That is, increased workloads and demands together, may threaten their well-being and professional capacity. Keywords  Educational system · School leadership · School leaders · Upper secondary principals · Compulsory school principals · Preschool principals

Introduction Globally, school leadership and governance has been an ongoing research subject. Concurrently, the research scope on the topic has grown in Iceland. Some of this interest focuses on principals (Hansen & Lárusdóttir, 2019, 2020; Steinþórsdóttir et  al., 2015) while others evolve around assistant principals or middle managers (Halldórsdóttir, 2020; Sigurðardóttir & Ragnarsdóttir, 2020). In this chapter we provide an overview of the school leader’s role, working conditions, relationships, and support at the first three school levels. This chapter feeds into the comparative discussion in this book on the Nordic model of education with a specific focus on governance, leadership, democratic citizenship, and inclusion (see Chap. 1). We used context analysis (Mjøset, 2009) to build up a contextual background with the intention of generating new knowledge on school leadership and governance, and provide a platform for further study in the field. A wide range of documents were systematically evaluated and summarised to identify and understand important points of emphasis. The documents included legislation and regulations, policy documents, statistical information, and published research. Despite many similarities, the school levels differ somewhat in purpose, terminology, and organisational structure. In pre- and compulsory education, the term principals (Icel. skólastjóri) and assistant principals (Icel. aðstoðarskólastjóri) are used, while in upper secondary education the predominant terminology is school director (Icel. Skólameistari/rektor) and assistant school director (Icel. aðstoðarskólameistari/conrektor). Hereafter, the term principal, and assistant principal is applied for all the school levels to simplify. When addressing other school leaders in formal leadership positions the term middle managers is used, even though their role can vary. In order to address the whole group, we use the term ‘school leaders’.

The Education System in Iceland Iceland has a geographically large area, but a small population. The inhabitants are spread around the coastline in 64 municipalities. Altogether, 70% of the population lives in the six largest municipalities located mostly at the capital area and in the north of the island. The main educational policy is to ensure an inclusive and comprehensive system, where all students have equal access to education (Jónasson et  al., 2021a). Decentralisation and centralisation have taken turns as a leading

4  School Leaders within the Icelandic Education System: Complex Roles, Multilevel…

47

governing structure, where the ministry and the municipalities have exchanged power positions since 1907, particularly at the compulsory school level. Nowadays, decentralisation is the main governing idea (Jónasson et al., 2021a; Sigurðardóttir et al., 2018). The formal education system consists of preschool, compulsory, upper secondary, and higher education. Most schools in Iceland are public (Jónasson et al., 2021b). The only mandated school level is compulsory education. The parliament and the Ministry of Education and Children (hereafter MoEC) have the overall responsibility of the three school levels, until 2022 the ministry was named the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (hereafter MoESC). The municipalities operate and finance the preschools. The school level educates children from 1–6 years (Preschool Act No. 90/2008, hereafter Act or Regulation). Even though the school level is not obligatory, 95–97% of the student population attend preschool (OECD, 2019). Parents pay a moderate part of the cost and meals served at the preschools, and the municipalities cover the rest. There is a serious lack of preschool teachers, and only 26% of the staff hold a teacher licence. In total, 250 principals run the preschools in cooperation with 184 assistant principals and 939 middle managers. Almost all (96%) of the teachers and principals are female (Statistics Iceland, 2020a, b, c). The municipalities also operate and finance the compulsory schools that are organised as a ten-year comprehensive education for children from 6–16 years of age and is free of cost. Municipalities are obliged to offer meals for students at a low cost for parents. The municipalities must also transport students long distances where necessary (Act No. 91/2008). Approximately 87% of the teacher population hold teacher licence. There are currently 171 principals in total, where females account for 82% of teachers and 55% of principals. There are currently 136 assistant principals (Statistics Iceland, 2020c, d, e). The number of other middle managers are not applicable. The MoEC directly operates and finances the upper secondary schools that are generally for 16–19 year old students and upwards. The education is not obligatory, but all students who has completed compulsory education or reached the age of 16, are entitled to upper secondary education (Act No. 92/2008). The school types are grammar, vocational, and comprehensive schools. Upper secondary education is almost free of cost. Parents and students pay the registration fee, the meals, teaching material, and travel costs. The percentage of educated teachers is 84%, and 54% are females. In total 29 principals run the upper secondary schools, and 37% of them are female. At the school level 49 teachers are assistant principals and 207 are middle managers (Statistics Iceland, 2020c, d). There is a policy of free school choice in Iceland, at the preschool and compulsory school level. The actual choice is however mainly in the metropolitan area. In general parents choose schools that are close to their homes. Parents with higher educational and stronger economic background tend to cluster in certain neighbourhood districts. Thus, the socio-economic background of students is homogeneous in some areas (Magnúsdóttir et al., 2020). This causes concern regarding equality and justice. For the upper secondary school level, a free school choice is at a national

48

S. M. Sigurðardóttir and G. Ragnarsdóttir

level. In the metropolitan area the schools tend to be selective when it comes to the student’s profile, reinforcing school hierarchy (Eiríksdóttir et al., 2022) and small rural schools are under in the competition processes and in constant battle for students (Bjarnadóttir & Ragnarsdóttir, 2021). In Spring 2008, current legislation for the first three school levels was designed and published simultaneously for the first time (Act No. 91/2008; No. 90/2008; No. 92/2008) and the national curriculum guides followed in 2011 (MoESC, 2012a, b, c). The law contained notable changes from previous legislation and national curricula. The change had diverse and interrelated origins, all from historical legacy, the political arena, societal discourse, and transnational influences. Five categories of curricular change are highlighted here. The first are the decentralised curriculum design and implementation. Secondly, a strong focus on knowledge, skills, and competence-based education. The third category is the six fundamental pillars across programmes and school practices: literacy, sustainability, democracy and human rights, equality, health and well-being, and creativity. The fourth, focusses on increased student support. The final fifth category covers the expanded role of the teaching profession, that includes active participation in school development and its implementation (Ragnarsdóttir, 2018a). Additionally, when it comes to upper secondary education, only three compulsory subjects, Icelandic, mathematics, and English, exist across all upper secondary programmes and few additional subjects for matriculation examinations are discussed (Ragnarsdóttir, 2018a). The national curriculum guide for the two first school level is more detailed and centralised (MoESC, 2012a, b). Thus, more freedom, power, and authority to change was given to the upper secondary schools. They could create their own specialities and academic emphasis. Still, extensive changes were made on assessment practises in compulsory education (Þórólfsson, 2019) and the fundamental pillars received extensive attention at all the school levels.

School Leaders’ Relations A range of agents, with a different degree of school involvement, impact not only school leaders work in Iceland, but also numerous social structures. Those impacting principals are located at the transnational, national, municipal, or the school levels. Thus, their relations and interactions are rather complex. Transnationally the Icelandic school system has its roots in Nordic ideologies with a strong focus on welfare and democracy. It is also influenced by several international organisations from the East and the West, i.e., OECD, UNESCO, European Union and the Council of Europe (Jónasson et al., 2021a, b). Under those influences is a reform implemented in public administration in the mid-1990s. The government, at the time increased privatisation, transferred activities from the state to the municipalities and changed financial strategies, performance emphasis, and human resources (Kristinsson, 2006). These actions have been maintained ever since (Dýrfjörð & Magnúsdóttir, 2016; Sigurðardóttir et al., 2018).

4  School Leaders within the Icelandic Education System: Complex Roles, Multilevel…

49

Part of the reform was to make the municipalities, who already ran the preschools, responsible for compulsory education. Upper secondary schools remained under the MoEC.  Following the decentralisation of compulsory education, the state placed almost the entire responsibility in the hands of each municipality, or school principals, to navigate this new reality without the necessary organisational structure in the governance system (Ólafsdóttir, 2016; Svanbjörnsdóttir et  al., 2021). Thus, principals took on various new responsibilities without many guidelines or infrastructure. Over the last decade the state has increased their steering again, with emphasis on soft governance (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2018). In addition, as part of the reform, performance-oriented formula funding was implemented in 1999 to distribute money to upper secondary schools. Later the collective bargaining agreements also became more performance oriented with an increased number of middle managers. All of these reforms increased and changed the work and workload of school leaders. Their administrative tasks increased, as well as demands to report to their authorities, with increased emphasis on external and internal evaluation systems (see Halldórsdóttir, 2020; Ragnarsdóttir, 2018a). In 2015 the Directorate of Education was formed by the combination of two national agencies and expansion of their tasks. It is the only national agency in the country, serving all of the three school levels. It has taken on several administrative tasks and operates specific developmental programmes from the MoEC. Its main task is to regulate and monitor education and provide educational material for compulsory schools, and operate the international comparison like PISA and TALIS and the national exams (Act No. 91/2015). The exams have a long tradition, particularly at the compulsory school level. Until 2008 the exams were used by the upper secondary schools to select students. Today, each upper secondary school sets their own admission policies and selects students based on academic performance (primarily in Icelandic, English, and mathematics) assessed by compulsory school teachers (Eiríksdóttir et  al., 2022). The exams changed from being summative assessments to formative assessments for students, parents, and teachers and submitted to fourth, seventh, and ninth graders. The exams have also been used for comparison between districts, municipalities, and schools (Jónasson et al., 2021a). An overhaul of the assessment system is now taking place after extensive debate about its purpose and use (MoESC, 2020). The outcome of the exams and the internal and external evaluation systems has never been used as hard governance in Iceland. This means that neither principals nor teachers face consequences based on the outcome (Jónasson et  al., 2021a, see Chap. 10). Research indicates that the Directorate needs to work on their purpose and relationships with local and school levels that, at present, are rather weak (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2020). In Iceland there is a strong tradition for links with unions, and they have considerable power that affects principals’ work in various ways (Ragnarsdóttir, 2018a). The Icelandic Teacher Union is an umbrella union for teachers, school leaders and career and guidance counsellors in pre, compulsory and upper secondary schools. Their aim is to safeguard the rights of its members and to strengthen their professionalism (Icelandic Teachers Union, n.d.). For pre and compulsory schools, the union negotiates collective bargaining agreements with the Icelandic Association

50

S. M. Sigurðardóttir and G. Ragnarsdóttir

of Local Authorities. For upper secondary schools, it negotiates with the Ministry of Finance, in cooperation with the MoEC for other than principals. Upper secondary principals fall directly under the national wage council (Icel. Kjararáð) that is an independent body determining the salaries, remunerations, and all other benefits for staff in the highest governmental positions (Ragnarsdóttir, 2018a). As the union also aims to strengthen their members professionalism, they offer counselling to school leaders regarding work-related issues. Principals have a professional relationship with school boards at all of the school levels, although they operate differently at the different levels. The board members are politically appointed. Principals at all school levels attend the board meetings with the right to speak and make proposals, but without having voting power (Act No. 90/2008; No. 91/2008; No. 92/2008). Each municipal council establishes a board that handles the affairs of the preschools and compulsory schools (Act No. 91/2008; No. 90/2008). At the upper secondary school level, each school has its own board that answers to the Minister of MoEC. The boards are meant to maintain a strong connection between the schools and the labour market and provide the minister with a review of the applications for principal positions (Act No. 92/2008). Research within the compulsory level indicates a loose connection between the school boards and principals. However, principals in rural municipalities are in a more active relationship with the boards and their decisions, compared to larger municipalities (Ásmundsson et  al., 2008; Ólafsson & Hansen, 2022). The loose connection in larger municipalities can possibly lead to a superficial relation between the members of the school boards and the principals and the principals may also receive limited support from the school boards, as discussed by Ólafsson & Hanssen (2022). Principals also have various internal relationships. Although principals are legally responsible for the operation of the school it must take place in cooperation with their teachers and other school staff. They need to involve students, parents, and the wider community in the schools’ matters, both informally and formally, i.e., through parents’ associations, pupils’ associations, and the school council. They are also responsible for the coordination of the various agents that concern pupils’ well-­ being, health, and special needs (Act No 91/2008; Act No 90/2008; Act No. 92/2008). Some scholars indicate that principals and assistant principals in compulsory and upper secondary schools, divide the responsibilities regarding internal and external agents. The principals usually focus more on the external relations, such as the communication with the ministry and the municipalities, while the assistant principals direct their attention more towards the daily school tasks (Halldórsdóttir, 2020; Ragnarsdóttir, 2018a; Sigurðardóttir & Ragnarsdóttir, 2020).

School Leader’s Education and the Recruitment Process The responsibility to select a principal at preschools and compulsory schools’ rests with the municipal council (Act No. 90/2008; No. 91/2008). In municipalities that have employed superintendents, they select principals in cooperation with the

4  School Leaders within the Icelandic Education System: Complex Roles, Multilevel…

51

school boards. For upper secondary schools the MoEC selects the principals often based on the school board’s review of the applicants (Act No. 92/2008). In pre and compulsory schools, the employment period is usually unrestrained in years, but at the upper secondary level the position is for 5  years and usually reviewed every 5 years. The few applicants for each vacant post at all the three school levels is of concern in Iceland. School principals at all of the school levels are hired from public advertisements. Their position requires a teaching licence and additional degree in administration, or teaching experience at the appropriate school level. Hence, principals are always teachers and some may have an additional education in school administration and leadership or public administration. From 2015 the teachers licence for all the school levels requires a Master of teaching qualification on top of their Batchelor or craftsman degree, or a diploma if the person already has a master’s degree in another field. Since 2019 principals are also required to develop certain sets of competences, i.e., in school development, management, operation and administration (Act No. 95/2019) giving more emphasis on administrative tasks on the cost of pedagogical leadership, the leading focus in the other Nordic countries (see Chap. 8). In Iceland the state does not provide mandatory principal preparation programmes or ongoing professional development programmes for principals or aspiring principals like in some of the other Nordic countries (see Chap. 7). The universities offer Diplomas and master’s programmes in school management and leadership or public administration. Concurrently the number of school leaders who have completed a master’s programme have increased (Ragnarsdóttir et al., 2020). It is up to the person to pursue such formal education and school leaders tend to do it on top of their full-time working duties, or when they take sabbaticals that they can apply for once during their professional carrier. Participants find the education strengthens their personal and professional competences and motivation (Baldursdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2016, see Chap. 7).

School Leader’s Roles and Responsibilities At all of the school levels, principals have extensive responsibility for the school’s operation although roles, resources, and demands differs between the school levels. Principals are responsible for the daily administration of the schools according to the rules of law, regulations, and the national curriculum guides. Their role as administrators is most explicit for upper secondary education (Act No. 92/2008). Only in the act for compulsory education it is stated that principals should provide “professional leadership” (Act no. 91/2008, Article 7). The acts for all the three school levels are silent about the pedagogical leadership role of principals, again at odds with the emphasis in the other Nordic countries (see Chap. 8). Upper secondary school leaders are expected to lead the schools in the way they draw “up the school curriculum guide and instigating reforms within the school” (Act No. 92/2008, Article 6). This places a demand for the upper secondary principals to act as curriculum leaders and be active change agents when it comes to school

52

S. M. Sigurðardóttir and G. Ragnarsdóttir

development. However, studies indicate that they do not have as much influence to promote changes in content of subjects, as the content is still under the jurisdiction of the subject teachers (Ragnarsdóttir, 2018b, 2021). This curricular emphasis is not mentioned for the lower school levels. The school leaders in compulsory schools and preschools have more influence when it comes to content change. However, change in content is expected to be in cooperation with teachers and other school staff (Act No. 91/2008; No. 90/2008). The principals’ financial resources and power vary between the school levels. The financial role of principals in preschools and compulsory schools is often indirect (Act No. 91/2008; No. 90/2008) and their actual financial power varies between the municipalities (Hansen et al., 2008). Municipalities in Iceland differ much in size, population, financial capacity, and how they organise and provide school support services. The variation and different resources put principals in different and unequal positions that influences their capacity, i.e., to follow the policy of inclusive education (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2017; Jónasson et al., 2021b; Svanbjörnsdóttir et al., 2021). Some municipalities (MoESC, 2021) are implementing more just distribution of finances considering more social and educational factors. The financial role of upper secondary principals is more explicit (Act No. 92/2008). The schools receive operational fees directly from the government and they are financed after the ideology of formula funding (Regulation No. 335/1999). The formula funding has been heavily criticised. It is judged to be unfair, too complex, and inflexible. The school leaders claim that formula funding lacks transparency, has unclear salary benchmarks, and does not meet the needs and diversity of schools and students (Ragnarsdóttir, 2018a). Principals hire their staff at all levels and have considerable formal authority to organise the governing structure of the schools (Act No. 91/2008; No. 90/2008; No. 92/2008). A newly stipulated Act No. 95/2019 has brought principals at all the school levels more power when it comes to the manpower. They are expected to define the profile and qualities of the teachers and other school leaders they seek to hire. This change has not been welcomed by all teachers or teacher educators. Their concerns evolve around diminishing qualifications for specific skills necessary for each school level, and bringing too much power to principals (Samráðsgátt, 2019). Another concern related to the change involves the manpower in preschools, since preschool teachers can now teach in compulsory education without any additional education. This means that teachers may possibly leave the preschool, the most understaffed school level, for better working conditions in compulsory education. Those differences in working conditions are a cause for concern as it adds to principals’ difficulty to attract and hold onto teachers at the preschool level (Dýrfjörð, 2019). In Iceland bargaining agreements have a substantial impact on governance structures of the schools at all levels, and have given principals increased power to organise the structure. Compulsory school principals have more opportunities to hire middle managers, and offer an extra fee to reward teachers (Hansen et  al., 2008). This emphasis was meant to enhance teachers’ ability for career development within the school system and enabled the principals to acknowledge teacher’s

4  School Leaders within the Icelandic Education System: Complex Roles, Multilevel…

53

contribution to different aspects of the school practises that again strengthened the system of distributed leadership. There is a concern within the research field that compulsory school principals have used this opportunity to lift their work burden and utilise the manpower better, but neglected to see this as an opportunity for teacher’s empowerment benefiting the school and the individual teacher (Hansen & Lárusdóttir, 2016). Thus, principals need to make more effort to motivate and support teachers to take on leadership roles (Hansen & Lárusdóttir, 2019). Similar trends can be seen at the upper secondary school level, although the process is more democratic. Each school is supposed to build up a specific additional bargaining agreement designed by the principal and teachers’ representatives. The teachers in the schools then agree or reject the school agreements. Through these additional agreements, the middle management positions are formulated (Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, 2014). Preschool principals have less freedom in their governing structure than their counterparts at the other two levels. This is partly due to more restrictions in the organisation of the preschool than the other school levels, and the different working conditions for preschool teachers. One of the newest changes in principals’ roles concerns the COVID-19 pandemic which brought school leaders new tasks and changed roles. These roles were constructed in various policy documents sent to them via emails. They needed to be pandemic experts, experts in crisis management, and health related issues and to cooperate more with parents and other external and internal stakeholders (see Chap. 9). Concurrently, they faced extensive stress and workload as the pandemic developed (See Dýrfjörð & Hreiðarsdóttir, 2022; Jónsdóttir, 2020; Ragnarsdóttir & Jónasson, 2022). Several scholars point out that school leaders have taken on broader role than stated in policy documents. Both principals and assistant principals in compulsory and upper secondary schools report that they would like to focus more on educational matters and pedagogical leadership, i.e., by devoting more time to curriculum related work, school development, and other activities related to teaching, student learning and assessment but they are swamped by administrative tasks that diminish their capacity and goodwill to act as pedagogical leaders (Halldórsdóttir, 2020; Hansen & Lárusdóttir, 2020; Sigurðardóttir & Ragnarsdóttir, 2020; Ragnarsdóttir, 2018a). Principals tend to focus on creating conditions for teachers’ cooperation and development of teaching methods, but less indirect educational guidance and feedback on the teaching and learning (Hansen & Lárusdóttir, 2019, 2020; Ragnarsdóttir, 2021). Principals also claim to transform those activities to assistant principals and department heads in compulsory schools (Hansen & Lárusdóttir, 2019). Yet, middle managers tend to be overwhelmed with administrative work and having limited time for pedagogical leadership (Hansen & Lárusdóttir, 2016, 2020; Sigurðardóttir & Ragnarsdóttir, 2020). Research show that working conditions in preschools and compulsory schools prevent school leaders from prioritising according to their best knowledge and best intentions, especially regarding pedagogical leadership (Hansen & Lárusdóttir, 2020; Sigurðardóttir, 2018). This has been highlighted as a concern for both the national and municipal governance levels,

54

S. M. Sigurðardóttir and G. Ragnarsdóttir

particularly in relation to the limited and unsystematic support and professional development provided (Sigurðardóttir, 2018; Sigurðardóttir et al., 2022).

School Leader’s Fragmented Support The MoEC has the overall responsibility for professional support to schools, including the support of school leaders. For the upper secondary education, the responsibility remains at the MoEC, but the ministry transfers this responsibility to each municipality for the preschool and compulsory school education (Act No. 90/2008; No. 91/2008; No. 92/2008). For the upper secondary education, the MoEC has little infrastructure in place for the support and opportunities for school leaders’ professional development. The existing support is mainly constructed in cooperation promoted by the union and other professional groups of school leaders (Halldórsdóttir, 2020; Ragnarsdóttir, 2018a). There is more support available for preschool and compulsory education due to the school support services at the municipal level. The municipalities can choose how they arrange their school support services but it should include support for pupils and their parents and professional support for school activities and their staff in a way that strengthens “schools as professional institutions” (Regulation No. 444/2019, Article 2). The services have been criticized for having weak infrastructure and leadership and for being limited and unsystematic. Although this applies particularly to smaller municipalities in vulnerable positions, the bigger municipalities are struggling as well. The support provided to principals relates mainly to human resources, finances, and administrative tasks signalling administrative emphasis on cost of pedagogical focus. The support is seldom tailored to the needs of the individual principals and municipalities take little responsibility for principals’ professional development, that often is considered as the principal’s private matter (Sigurðardóttir, 2018; Sigurðardóttir et  al., 2022; Svanbjörnsdóttir et al., 2021). The lack of support for school leaders was also identified in a recent study focusing on preschools during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study indicates that municipalities were not strong in identifying and supporting school leaders who were struggling with their leadership role (Dýrfjörð & Hreiðarsdóttir, 2022). There is a call for more responsibility on behalf of the municipalities, and better support tailored to principals need and context. It has been argued that limited professional support has had a negative effect on principals’ well-being, can lead to burnout, or a drop out from the position (Sigurðardóttir, 2018; Steinþórsdóttir et al., 2015). Recently the professional development of school leaders and teachers has caught increased attention and cooperation, and is being addressed by the main stakeholders (MoESC, 2019), with the result of hopefully strengthening school leaders’ opportunities for professional development and formal education. One example of this development is evident in a collective bargaining agreement since 2015. It

4  School Leaders within the Icelandic Education System: Complex Roles, Multilevel…

55

states that school leaders in pre and compulsory schools can increase their salaries by seeking university-based courses throughout their professional life (Icelandic Association of Local Authorities and The Association of Headteachers, 2015). This is not a feature in the upper secondary school system. Another example is MoEC launching of elective professional development programme entitled ‘Menntafléttan in line with a model from Sweden’ or “Skolverket” (see Chap. 7).

Conclusions In this chapter we have explained and analysed the roles, relationships and support of school principals in Iceland. Principals have an extensive role within the school system and their roles and tasks are changing rapidly in parallel with various transnational and national changes. School leaders are in complex and multilevel relations with various stakeholders within and outside of the school on both municipal and state levels. Distributed leadership characterises the leadership structure within the education system and the growth of the middle managers layer has increased accordingly. Nevertheless, laws and other regulations do not reflect school leaders’ actual tasks and activities and assistant principals and other school leaders are hardly discussed in legislative documents. Both principals and middle managers are swamped in administrative tasks that diminish their capacity and good will to act as pedagogical leaders. Their pedagogical agency decreases when moving higher up the school system, and they have less influence to promote change in the content of subjects as we progress higher in the education system. The formal education of all school leaders is grounded in their teacher license. However, requirements for pedagogical leadership are not the leading demand, even though the call for such emphasis has increased recently at the global level and by the school leaders themselves. School leaders get fragmented support and are not guaranteed the professional support and formal educational training they need, either from educational authorities at municipal or national level. This together with increasing workloads and demands, may threaten their well-being and professional capacity. The chapter highlights various research opportunities. There is a need to further study the nature and scope of distributed and pedagogical leadership, as well as the support school leaders receive and need. Compulsory education has received more research attention as compared to preschool and upper secondary education. Thus, it is important to conduct a comprehensive study on the governing structures, relations, and school leaders’ roles across all three school levels. Such research will better map and compare the similarities and among the school levels and help to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the Icelandic education system.

56

S. M. Sigurðardóttir and G. Ragnarsdóttir

References Act on the Education, Competency and Recruitment of Teachers and Administrators of Preschools, Compulsory Schools and Upper Secondary Schools No. 95/2019. Ásmundsson, G. Ó., Hansen, B., & Jóhannsson Ó. H. (2008). Stjórnskipulag grunnskóla: Hugmyndir skólanefnda um völd sín og áhrif [The governance of basic schools: School boards’ ideas on their role, influence and impact]. Netla – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. http://wayback.vefsafn.is/wayback/20201017174451/https://netla.hi.is/greinar/2008/010/ index.htm Baldursdóttir, A. Þ., & Sigurðardóttir, S. M. (2016). Reynsla skólastjóra af meistaranámi í stjórnun skólastofnana [Principals’ experience of a master’s program in school management and leadership]. Netla – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. https://ojs.hi.is/netla/article/ view/2382/1267 Bjarnadóttir, V. S., & Ragnarsdóttir, G. (2021). “Við skiptum máli fyrir samfélagið”. Samfélagslegt mikilvægi og flókin samkeppnisstaða tveggja framhaldsskóla í dreifðum byggðum [“We matter to society” Societal importance and complex market position of two rural upper secondary schools]. Icelandic Journal of Education, 30(2), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.24270/ tuuom.2021.30.8 Compulsory School Act No. 91/2008. Directorate of Education Act No. 91/2015. Dýrfjörð, K. (2019). Preschool teachers’ working conditions in Iceland: Crisis in the making. In S.  Phillipson, & S.  Garvis (Eds.), Teachers‘and families‘perspectives in early childhood education and care. Early childhood education and care in the twenty-first century (pp. 110–122). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203730546 Dýrfjörð, K., & Hreiðarsdóttir, A.  E. (2022). Preschool staff perceptions of leader capabilities during covid-19 early stage in Iceland. Journal of Childhood, Education & Society, 3(1), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.37291/2717638X.202231160 Dýrfjörð, K., & Magnúsdóttir, B.  R. (2016). Privatization of early childhood education in Iceland. Comparative & International Education, 11(1), 80–97. https://doi. org/10.1177/1745499916631062 Eiríksdóttir, E., Blöndal, S., & Ragnarsdóttir, G. (2022). Selection for whom? Upper secondary school choice in the light of social justice. In A.  Rasmussen, & M.  Dovenmark (Eds.), Governance and choice of upper secondary education (pp. 175–197). Springer. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2017). Education for all in Iceland  – External audit of the Icelandic system for inclusive education [report]. Author. https://www.stjornarradid.is/media/menntamalaraduneyti-­media/media/frettatengt2016/Final-­ report_External-­Audit-­of-­the-­Icelandic-­System-­for-­Inclusive-­Education.pdf Halldórsdóttir, H. (2020). “Fyrst og fremst vinnum við þetta saman”. Upplifun aðstoðarskólameistara af starfi sínu “First and foremost we do this together”. [Assistant principals in Icelandic high schools discuss their educational leadership role]. (Unpublished master’s thesis), University of Iceland. Hansen B., & Lárusdóttir, S. H. (2016). Störf deildarstjóra í grunnskólum: Verkefni og áherslur. [Middle leaders in Icelandic compulsory schools. Tasks and leadership emphasis]. Netla  – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. https://netla.hi.is/greinar/2016/ryn/06_ryn_ arsrit_2016.pdf Hansen, B., & Lárusdóttir, S.  H. (2019). Forysta sem samstarfsverkefni: Áhersla skólastjóra á valddreifingu og samstarf [Collaboration with middle leaders and teacher’s leadership emphasis of compulsory school principals in Iceland]. Netla – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. https://doi.org/10.24270/netla.2019.14 Hansen, F. B., & Lárusdóttir, S. H. (2020). Principals’ priorities and values – Twenty-five years of compulsory school principalship in Iceland. Nordic Studies in Education, 40(4), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.23865/nse.v40.2603

4  School Leaders within the Icelandic Education System: Complex Roles, Multilevel…

57

Hansen, B., Jóhannsson, Ó. H., & Lárusdóttir, S. H. (2008). Breytingar á hlutverki skólastjóra í grunnskólum – kröfur, mótsagnir og togstreita [Changes in the role of basic school principals – Pressures, tensions and contradictions]. Icelandic Journal of Education, 17(2), 87–104. Icelandic Association of Local Authorities and The Association of Headteachers. (2015). Kjarasamningur Sambands íslenskra sveitarfélaga og Kennarasambands Íslands vegna skólastjórafélags Íslands [Bargaining agreements between the Icelandic Association of Local Authorities in Iceland and the Association of Headteachers]. https://issuu.com/kennarasamband/ docs/si_heildarsamningur_2015 Icelandic Teacher Union. (n.d.). Icelandic teacher union. https://www.ki.is/um-­ki/annad/ icelandic-­teachers-­union/ Jónasson, J. T., Bjarnadóttir, V. S., & Ragnarsdóttir, G. (2021a). Evidence and accountability in Icelandic education – An Historical Perspective? In L. Moos, & J. B. Krejsler (Eds.), School, the Nordic dimension and the turn towards ‘evidence’ (pp.  173–194). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­66629-­3_9 Jónasson, J. T., Ragnarsdóttir, G., & Bjarnadóttir, V. D. (2021b). The intricacies of educational development in Iceland: Stability or disruption? In L. Moos, & J. B. Krejsler (Eds.), School, the Nordic dimension and the turn towards ‘evidence’ (pp. 67–86). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­66629-­3_4 Jónsdóttir, K. (2020). Tengslin við heimilin trosnuðu merkilega lítið í fyrstu bylgju COVID-19: Sjónarhorn stjórnenda og grunnskólakennara [COVID-19 did not damage the relationship with families, according to leaders and teachers in compulsory schools]. Netla – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. Special issue 2020 – Menntakerfi og heimili á tímum COVID-19. Kristinsson, G.  H. (2006). Íslenska stjórnkerfið [The Icelandic government]. University of Iceland Press. Magnúsdóttir, B.  R., Auðardóttir, A.  M., & Stefánsson, K. (2020). Dreifing efnahags- og menntunarauðs meðal foreldra í skólahverfum höfuðborgarsvæðisins 1997–2016 [The distribution of economic and educational capital between school catchment areas in Reykjavík Capital Region 1997–2016]. Icelandic Review on Politics & Administration, 16(2). https://doi. org/10.13177/irpa.a.2020.16.2.10 Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2012a). The Icelandic national curriculum guide for compulsory school: General section. Author. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2012b). The national curriculum guide for preschool. General section. Author. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2012c). The national curriculum guide for upper secondary schools. General section. Author. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2019). Samstarfsráð um starfsþróun kennara og skólastjórnenda: Skýrsla til mennta- og menningarráðherra [Co-operation council on the professional development of teachers and school leaders: Report]. https://www.stjornarradid. is/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=349b2e00-­ef44-­11e9-­944e-­005056bc530c Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2020). Framtíðarstefna um samræmt námsmat: Tillögur starfshóps um markmið, hlutverk, framkvæmd og fyrirkomulag samræmdra könnunarprófa [National assessment policy: Suggestions on aims, role, implementation and arrangements of national examinations]. https://www.stjornarradid.is/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemi d=b53b51f5-­47f5-­11ea-­945c-­005056bc4d74 Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2021). Rástöfun fjármuna í grunnskóla fyrir alla: Samstarfsverkefni mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytisi, Sambands íslenskra sveitarfélaga og 13 sveitarfélaga [Financial distribution in compulsory schools: A cooperation between the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, the Association of Local Authorities and 13 municipalities]. https://www.stjornarradid.is/library/01-­-­Frettatengt-­-­-­myndir-­og-­ skrar/MRN/R%c3%a1%c3%b0st%c3%b6fun%20fj%c3%a1rmuna%20%c3%ad%20 grunnsk%c3%b3lum_sk%c3%bdrsla_okt.pdf

58

S. M. Sigurðardóttir and G. Ragnarsdóttir

Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs. (2014). Samkomulag um breytingar og framlengingu á kjarasamningi [Agreement on changes and extension of salary contract]. http://issuu.com/ kennarasamband/docs/kjarasamningur_ki-­ff_040414?e=10593660/7652687 Mjøset, L. (2009). The contextualist approach to social science methodology. In D.  Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of case-based methods (pp. 39–68). Sage. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781446249413 OECD. (2019). Education at a glance: OECD indicators: Iceland. https://www.oecd.org/ education/education-­at-­a-­glance/EAG2019_CN_ISL.pdf Ólafsdóttir, B. (2016). Tilurð og þróun ytra mats á Íslandi frá 1991–2016 [The origin and development of external evaluation in Iceland from 1990–2016, in Islandic]. Netla  – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. https://netla.hi.is/greinar/2016/ryn/14_ryn_arsrit_2016.pdf Ólafsson, R., & Hansen, B. (2022). Characteristics of the authority basis of Icelandic compulsory school principals in comparison to other TALIS countries. Education Sciences, 12, 219. https:// doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030219 Preschool Act No. 90/2008. Ragnarsdóttir, G. (2018a). School leaders’ perceptions of contemporary change at the upper secondary school level in Iceland. Interaction of actors and social structures facilitating or constraining change. (PhD), University of Iceland, Reykjavík. Ragnarsdóttir. G. (2018b). Kvika menntabreytinga: Viðbrögð framhaldsskólans við kröfum menntayfirvalda um breytingar [Dynamics of change: The upper secondary schools’ responses to ministerial demands for change]. Netla – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. Special Issue 2018 – Framhaldsskólinn í brennidepli. https://doi.org/10.24270/serritnetla.2019.5 Ragnarsdóttir, G. (2021). School leaders’ actions and hybridity when carrying out reform and confronting teachers’ responses: Institutional and organisational perspectives. Education Inquiry, 4, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2021.1950272 Ragnarsdóttir, G., & Jónasson, J.  T. (2022) Stofnunareðli framhaldsskóla í faraldurskreppu. Ný reynsla og breytt umboð skólastjórnenda [The institutional nature of upper secondary education during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis: New experiences and changed agency of school leaders]. Icelandic Review of Politics & Administration, 18(2), 283–312. https://doi. org/10.13177/irpa.a.2022.18.2.6 Ragnarsdóttir, G., Jóhannesson, I. Á., Jónasson, J. T., & Halldórsdóttir, B. (2020). Evidence-based publications on upper secondary education in Iceland, 2003–2012. Icelandic Review of Politics & Administration, 16(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.13177/irpa.a.2020.16.1.3 Regulation on Formula Funding to Calculate the Teaching Cost at the Upper Secondary School Level No. 335/1999. Samráðsgátt. (2019). Frumvarp til nýrra laga um menntun og ráðningu kennara og skólastjórnenda við leikskóla, grunnskóla og framhaldsskóla [Commentary on bill of law No. 95/2019 on teachers‘and head teachers‘education and employment in preschool, compulsary and upper secondary school]. https://samradsgatt.island.is/oll-­mal/$Cases/ Details/?id=1315&uid=b6e4e769-­d240-­e911-­9450-­005056850474 Sigurðardóttir, S. M. (2018). Stuðningur við skólastjóra í námi og starfi [Personal and professional support to principals]. Netla  – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. https://doi. org/10.24270/netla.2018.8 Sigurðardóttir, D.  M., & Ragnarsdóttir, G. (2020). Fagleg forysta eða stjórnun í erli dagsins: Hlutverk og staða aðstoðarskólastjóra í grunnskólum Reykjavíkur. Tímarit um uppeldi og menntun, 29(2), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.24270/tuuom.2020.29.5 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. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.2760 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 H. Ärlestig, & O. Johansson (Eds.), Educational authorities and the schools: Organisation and impact in 20 states (pp. 55–74). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­38759-­4_4

4  School Leaders within the Icelandic Education System: Complex Roles, Multilevel…

59

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221076251 Statistics Iceland. (2020a). Starfsfólk í leikskólum eftir kyni, starfssviðum og rekstraraðilum 1998–2018 [Preschool staff by gender, occupation and operators 1998–2018]. https:// px.hagstofa.is/pxis/pxweb/is/Samfelag/Samfelag__skolamal__1_leikskolastig__1_ lsStarfsfolk/SKO01300.px Statistics Iceland. (2020b) Starfsfólk leikskóla eftir menntun [Preschool staff by education]. https://px.hagstofa.is/pxis/pxweb/is/Samfelag/Samfelag__skolamal__1_leikskolastig__1_ lsStarfsfolk/SKO01303.px Statistics Iceland. (2020c). Starfsfólk við kennslu eftir kyni, réttindum, starfsheiti, tegund og aðsetri skóla 1999–2012 [Upper secondary staff by gender, rights, occupation, type and location of schools 1999–2012]. https://px.hagstofa.is/pxis/pxweb/is/Samfelag/Samfelag__skolamal__3_ framhaldsskolastig__4_fseldra/SKO03301.px Statistics Iceland. (2020d). Starfsfólk við kennslu eftir kyni, réttindum, starfsheiti, tegund og aðsetri skóla 2011–2015 [Upper secondary staff by gender, rights, occupation, type and location of schools 2011–2015]. https://px.hagstofa.is/pxis/pxweb/is/Samfelag/Samfelag__skolamal__3_ framhaldsskolastig__2_fsStarfsfolk/SKO03305.px Statistics Iceland. (2020e). Starfsfólk við kennslu í grunnskólum eftir starfssviði 1998–2018 [Teaching staff in compulsory schools by occupation 1998–2018]. https://px.hagstofa.is/pxis/ pxweb/is/Samfelag/Samfelag__skolamal__2_grunnskolastig__1_gsStarfsfolk/SKO02305.px Steinþórsdóttir, G. Ó., Björnsdóttir, A., & Hansen, B. (2015). Grunn- og leikskólastjórar á Íslandi – kulnun í starfi? [An exploration of burnout amongst principals in preschools and compulsory schools in Iceland]. Uppeldi og menntun, 24(2), 33–56. http://vefsetur.hi.is/uppeldi_og_ menntun/sites/files/uppeldi_og_menntun/2_gerdur_amalia_borkur_ensk.pdf Svanbjörnsdóttir, B. M., Sigurðardóttir, S. M., Þorsteinsson, T., Gunnþórsdóttir, H., & Elídóttir, J. (2021). Skólaþjónusta sveitarfélaga: Starfsþróun og skólar sem faglegar stofnanir [School support services: Professional development and schools as professional organisations]. Icelandic Journal of Education, 30(2), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.24270/tuuom.2021.30.5 Þórólfsson, M. (2019). Álitamál tengd innleiðingu hæfnimiðaðs námsmats í skyldunámi [Issues related to the implementation of a new assessment system in compulsory education]. Netla – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. https://doi.org/10.24270/serritnetla.2019.44 Upper Secondary Education Act No. 92/2008.

Chapter 5

School Leadership in Norway: Key Characteristics and Current Challenges Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen

and Guri Skedsmo

Abstract This chapter discusses the role and practices of Norwegian school principals in a policy context of increased monitoring and regulation and in a context of dealing with value dilemmas related to upholding a focus on democracy and inclusion. Research has shown that Norwegian school principals work under a loyalty dilemma with increasing pressure to improve student outcomes, which does not always align with other pressing local priorities or the diverse needs of students and student welfare. The chapter (first/initially) describes how the Norwegian education system is built on democratic practices and inclusion and then presents the school principal’s role and position, responsibilities and governance expectations. Moreover, the chapter builds on a scoping review of research on the school principal’s role and practices in a changing policy context. The country report is based on national policy documents and findings from current Norwegian and international research concerning leadership and policy in schools. In the concluding remarks, we state that there is a large room for manoeuvre and discretion, which means opportunities to determine how policy initiatives should be dealt with in the school context. The school principal’s role is closely connected to social influence and relational bargaining as a strategy to promote social justice and student well-being, as well as the school’s academic results. The school principal’s discretionary role in promoting social justice and relational bargaining contributes to the knowledge relevant to the notion of a Nordic model of school leadership.

A. E. Gunnulfsen Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] G. Skedsmo (*) Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Institute for Research on Professions and Professional Learning, Schwyz University of Teacher Education, Goldau, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. E. Gunnulfsen et al. (eds.), Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries, Educational Governance Research 21, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4_5

61

62

A. E. Gunnulfsen and G. Skedsmo

Introduction Policy principles such as decentralisation, standards and accountability are considered key to improving educational effectiveness worldwide and feature increasingly in reform initiatives based on standardised assessments (Ball et  al., 2017; Verger et  al., 2019). This means that while lower government levels and schools are given greater authority for organisational and pedagogical decisions, these actors are simultaneously held accountable for achieving centrally defined objectives measured by standardised tests. Compared to many other countries in the Western world, Norway has been slow to introduce policies for monitoring student performance and the accompanying accountability of school actors to boost improvement. The introduction of national testing in 2004 was prompted by the first Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results in 2001, which ranked Norway below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average. A National Quality Assessment System (NQAS) was introduced in 2005 and national testing has since become a key governing instrument, aiming to serve the dual functions of controlling and monitoring educational quality and improvement – although national education policy conceals the former (Skedsmo, 2011; Gunnulfsen, 2017). Compared to Anglo-Saxon countries, Norway represents a type of ‘soft’ accountability context (Maroy, 2015; Verger et al., 2019). Still, Norwegian school principals deal with student test data and accountability policies in different ways in seemingly similar schools (Gunnulfsen, 2017). Research has also shown that school principals work under a loyalty dilemma with increasing pressure to improve student outcomes, which does not always align with other pressing local priorities or the diverse needs of students and student welfare (Skedsmo & Møller, 2016; Mausethagen et al., 2020). The use of test results does not necessarily foster professional dialogue on improving teaching and learning in diverse classroom contexts with specific student challenges (Skedsmo & Møller, 2016). Moreover, studies have implied that key values and traditions, such as democratic practices in Norwegian schools during the last 10  years, have been challenged by increased monitoring, regulation and other control mechanisms from the state and municipal levels (Aasen et al., 2014; Camphuijsen et al., 2020). This chapter discusses the role and practices of Norwegian school principals in a policy context of increased monitoring and regulation and of handling value dilemmas related to upholding a focus on democracy and inclusion. This country report chapter builds on a review of research on the school principal’s role and practices in a changing policy context. The review can be characterised as a scoping review (Grant & Booth, 2009) because the aim is to cover research literature on school leadership in the Norwegian context more broadly and to examine policy demands as they are expressed in formal documents. At the same time, this approach provides the flexibility to focus on important topics in more depth. The report is based on national policy documents and findings from current Norwegian and international research concerning leadership and policy in schools.

5  School Leadership in Norway: Key Characteristics and Current Challenges

63

The chapter starts with a general description of how the Norwegian education system is built on democratic practices and inclusion, followed by a presentation of the school principal’s role and position, responsibility and governance expectations. Next, the chapter presents the school leaders’ education, professional understanding and practice before capturing the role and practices of Norwegian school principals in the context of increased monitoring and regulation. The final section provides concluding remarks.

The School System in Norway Norway has a comprehensive and predominantly public school system. Only 10% of primary and secondary schools are private (Statistics Norway, 2022). The structure of the system includes 10 years of compulsory primary and lower secondary education and 3 years of upper secondary education, which includes various programmes for providing access to higher education as well as a range of vocational training programmes. School starts at age six and 90% of students stay in school until at least age 18. It is a political aim to create both equal and equitable life conditions for all social groups, regardless of social background, gender, ethnicity and geographical location. More than 95% of the cohort is enrolled in regular classes in public schools. Regarding size, Norway is comparable to Britain but has only five million inhabitants. However, in Norway there are 3214 schools and many are quite small (Statistics Norway, 2022). A small school is recognised as having fewer than 100 students. The population is widely dispersed and educational institutions are important for ensuring the survival of many small communities. Since the end of the 1980s, the Norwegian educational system has undergone major reforms, influenced essentially by new managerial ideas. Legal regulations and requirements represent one of the main pillars in the governing structures of schooling in Norway, and robust unions have played important roles in negotiating work conditions and time use for teachers with the school principal as well as for school principals. Strategies to renew the public sector have been promoted as new public management (NPM) (Christensen & Lægreid, 2011). During the late 1980s and 1990s, NPM did not directly challenge the established tradition of schooling, since it mainly produced consequences for the restructuring of the local school administration at the municipal level in terms of deregulation, horizontal specialisation and management by objectives. To date, marketisation as a principle has been less embraced in the Norwegian context, probably because the market of school choice for students and parents is only possible in larger cities. The development of NPM changed direction and sped up when Norway was listed below the average of the OECD member countries by the PISA at the start of the new millennium. The need for new assessment tools to measure and monitor students’ performance levels, strong leadership in schools and accountability became the key issue in the public debate on education, which centred increasingly on students’ achievements in basic skills as the main indicator of educational quality (Møller & Skedsmo,

64

A. E. Gunnulfsen and G. Skedsmo

2013; Skedsmo, 2011). According to the current national educational quality system, the key to improvement lies in the use of performance data and output controls. Key actors, such as local authorities, school principals and teachers, are expected to use this information to improve their practice in ways that enhance student outcomes, particularly students’ results on national tests (Skedsmo, 2011). In their role (defined in policy documents) as school owners and as part of their responsibility for the quality of schools, many municipalities have developed new approaches to school governing in line with new national expectations to use performance data to enhance educational quality. New titles have been created for managers at the municipal level, and these people are trained and accredited as managers using business models. They may or may not have an educational background. Managerial elements include a combination of performance measurement, quality indicators, target setting, accountability and the use of incentives and sanctions. The intention is to mobilise educators’ work efforts to improve student outcomes. A great deal of faith is put in assessment tools that provide data and information to improve practice. Results from national testing are used locally for benchmarking purposes, where schools aim to perform better than the municipal average (Skedsmo, 2018). Many chief education officers at the municipal level also increasingly use pay-forperformance to reward principals who demonstrate good results on national tests in literacy and numeracy and in many Norwegian municipalities, the logic of contractualism has been institutionalised (Gunnulfsen, 2017; Skedsmo & Møller, 2016). Although professional autonomy has been emphasised in the latest reforms, there was a shift in knowledge promotion (K06) in how trust was communicated. Trust in the profession itself was replaced by trust in the results. On one hand, it was argued that the managerial approach to education aimed at ensuring a basic standard for all, presumably equalising disadvantages; on the other hand, there was a push for debureaucratisation and de-centralisation, aiming to allow for more differentiation and specialisation (Møller & Skedsmo, 2013). These governing perspectives illuminate possibilities but also tensions with regard to the school principals’ opportunities to use their professional discretion in their leadership practices and decision-making. Norway has a long tradition of focusing on democratic values, such as equity and solidarity (Møller, 2011; Telhaug et al., 2006). Similar to the education system in all Nordic countries, the role of educational institutions in the making of civic society has been highlighted in research and education policy documents. In addition to training children to become part of a competent workforce, schools should prepare them to play beneficial roles in a democratic society. The democratic purpose of education is a vital part of the mission of educational professionals in the Education Act. Although the Education Act and National Curriculum Guidelines regulate actions in schools, there is space for discretion in professional work. Following the introduction of the new Norwegian General Curriculum in 2017 (Ministry of Education and Research, 2015), a renewed focus on the democratic purpose of education emerged. The recurrent demand for the democratic purpose of education in the Norwegian education policy context calls for an investigation into school leaders’ democratic practices and student inclusion in the context of increased monitoring and regulation from municipal and state levels.

5  School Leadership in Norway: Key Characteristics and Current Challenges

65

 orwegian School Principal’s Role and Position, N Responsibility and Governing Expectations During the last 20 years, administrative structures with clearer definitions of tasks and responsibilities have been established. Each school represents a self-governing unit, and the main type of accountability can be characterised as performative and is carried out through hierarchical relationships; the school principals monitor the teachers’ work, the principals are monitored by their superiors at the municipal level and the superintendent is accountable to the elected local politicians. Over the last 20 years, surveys among school principals have reported on the increasing administrative tasks and tensions related to time to prioritise development work (Møller, 2009; Vibe, 2010; Seland et  al., 2012). Norwegian school principals spend more time on administrative tasks and less time on school development compared to their international colleagues (OECD, 2008; Vibe et al., 2009). At the same time, studies have also questioned the division between administrative and development tasks. According to school principals, many administrative tasks are necessary to provide a basis for school development (Seland et al., 2012; Jensen, 2011). Generally, studies conducted within the Norwegian context underline the importance of school leadership for student learning in terms of establishing good social relationships between principals and teachers. A good functioning school principal has a positive influence on teachers’ motivation, work conditions and morale (Lysø et  al., 2011). Moreover, research emphasises the need for school principals to engage more directly in the core tasks of the schools, for instance, by supporting teachers’ planning of teaching and providing feedback on teachers’ work (Helstad & Møller, 2013). To support the school principal, there is a recent trend to establish mid-level leaders and delegate specific tasks and responsibilities to teachers (Abrahamsen & Aas, 2016; Abrahamsen, 2018). At the same time, many teachers and mid-level leaders are hesitant to apply for a position as school principal since the work pressure is perceived as high and they do not feel prepared to take on the responsibility (Aas & Törnsén, 2016).

School Leaders’ Professional Development Norway does not have a long history of formal training for school leaders, and the training for school leaders is not mandatory. National and regional authorities offered a number of national programmes for school leaders between 1980 and 2000 (cf. Tjeldvoll et al., 2005). In the early 1990s, the first continuing professional development (CPD) programme in school leadership targeted towards established and aspiring school leaders was established at the University of Oslo. In 2002/2003, various CPD programmes and three master’s programmes were launched at universities and university colleges around the country. The CPD programmes were launched as a result of a joint collaboration of higher education institutions located

66

A. E. Gunnulfsen and G. Skedsmo

in different parts of the country. In 2009, the Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training launched the National Principal Preparation Programme. Hence, a variety of strategies have been tested in Norway to promote and organise professional development programmes for school leaders (Skedsmo & Aas, 2017). The first programmes for school leaders offered during the 1980s and 1990s were organised by the national and regional authorities, meaning they were centrally organised. In 2002, the Ministry of Education and Research tried a new strategy in which they put out two different invitations for tenders to promote formal school leadership training at universities and university colleges throughout the country. The first invitation was to develop and pilot CPD programmes for established and aspiring school leaders. The second invitation was to develop and pilot master programmes for the same target group, integrating the CPD programmes as the first step of the master programme. National authorities laid down certain premises with respect to the number of credit points, key topics covered and the organisation of the programmes. For instance, different higher education institutions were required to form partnerships and develop the programmes as joint efforts. At the same time, leeway was given with respect to designing modules and developing programme profiles. In 2004, the national educational authorities introduced a partnership strategy in preparation for the next education reform, which encouraged cooperation and partnerships between universities/university colleges and counties and municipalities to develop school leadership programmes that focused on regional and local needs. Municipalities and counties put out invitations for tenders and were supported economically by the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. Although the new education reform laid down some premises, this practice of putting out invitations and tenders is nevertheless an example of a decentralised strategy in which school leadership development was linked to school development (Aas & Skedsmo, 2014). The National Training Programme for Principals was launched in 2009, representing a centralised initiative. The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training has established national standards through a competence model for school leadership. They also recruit and select participants and ensure the quality assurance of the programmes. So far, there have been three rounds of invitations for tender, with demand for a five-year commitment from the universities and university colleges. Currently, seven institutions have been selected as providers of the National Programme following competitive bidding. The regional and local authorities are still responsible for providing professional development for teachers and school leaders and for deciding on the formal requirements for entering principalship; however, thus far, there have been no such formal requirements nationally (Ottesen, 2016). In the last couple of years, the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training has also invited providers of school leadership programmes to participate in tenders for single modules, focusing on national prioritised areas such as school law and topics linked to the introduction of the new national curriculum. In Norway, school leadership has a long history of being framed as ‘primus inter pares’, or ‘first among equals’ (Møller, 2016). The first among equals means that a respected teacher with long teaching experience usually becomes the leader. The

5  School Leadership in Norway: Key Characteristics and Current Challenges

67

framing of the role of school leaders in national policy document have changed over time over the last 20 years. With output-oriented means of governing at the beginning of the milennium, a more ‘explicit’ individual principal role has been promoted in policy documents. National policy documents, e.g. White Paper No. 30 (2003–2004) Culture for learning,1 present explicit expectation on how school principals are should work to develop a learning organisation. The requirements also address how school principals should actively contribute to teacher development and improve teaching practices. This policy document illuminates that a learning organisation requires an extra high degree of explicit and powerful leadership (cf. Abrahamsen & Aas, 2016). which recently has transformed into a distributed understanding of the role of the ‘facilitating school leader’ (Abrahamsen & Aas, 2016). A later national White Paper, No. 31 (2007–2008) Quality in school,2 refers to international trends by introducing the report ‘Improving School Leadership and Underlining the Importance of Leadership’. The ‘explicit principal’ from White Paper No. 30 (2003–2004) has been replaced with a description of how to succeed as a leader. The concept of ‘ability’ is merged into the ‘ability to cope with conflicts’ and the ‘ability to communicate well’. This change in terms represents a move away from the descriptive term ‘explicit’ leadership to a more collaborative leadership role. Blossing et al. (2014) argued that the Nordic model can represent a demanding balance between traditional values, institutionalised practices and contemporary neo-liberal forms of governance and politics. According to Abrahamsen Aas (2016), the notion of the ‘facilitating’ Norwegian principal has the opportunity to construct leadership within traditional democratic values by distributing leadership into traditional practices. Norwegian principals are, however, still met with expectations of efficiency and better test scores (Møller, 2012; Gunnulfsen & Møller, 2017) and seen as a key to effectiveness. In Norway, the evaluation of the national curriculum reform (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training)3 has contributed to an increased level of consciousness among school leaders about following up on school results (Gunnulfsen, 2017).

 he Role and Practices of Norwegian School Principals T in the Context of Increased Monitoring and Regulation The Norwegian school system and the ideal for school principalship are built upon basic democratic values, such as equality and solidarity (Møller, 2011; Telhaug et al., 2006). The role of educational institutions in the creation of civic society has been emphasised in research and education policy documents. Schools have been

 https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/stmeld-nr-030-2003-2004-/id404433/  https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/806ed8f81bef4e03bccd67d16af76979/no/pdfs/ stm200720080031000dddpdfs.pdf 3  https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/evaluering-av-kunnskapsloftet/ 1 2

68

A. E. Gunnulfsen and G. Skedsmo

expected to prepare young people to play constructive roles in a democratic society and to deal with expectations in the labour market. There is a picture of the Norwegian values of education and school leadership as being part of the social democratic project to rebuild and modernise society by means of science, rationality and democratic participation (Imsen et al., 2017, p. 568). In Norway, the democratic purpose of education is a crucial part of the school principal’s mission, as constituted in the Education Act. Although the Education Act and National Curriculum Guidelines regulate actions in schools, there is a large room for manoeuvre and discretion in school principals, middle-level leaders and teachers’ professional work. By discretion in professional work, we mean opportunities to determine how policy initiatives should be dealt with in the school context. An ascending rise in input control in terms of laws and regulations (i.e. a national focus on individual student assessments) has occurred, with implications for the school principal’s role. Numerous rules have increasingly been regulating Norwegian schools since 1980 and into the new millennium, and school principals, middle-­level leaders and teachers need the knowledge of and competence in comprehensive and complex legislation to attend to their roles as civil servants. Prior to the global influence on the introduction of accountability measures in the Norwegian school system, schools, school leaders and teachers were generally seen as competent at managing their own practices (Hopmann, 2008; Mausethagen, 2013). The reform agenda in the new millennium has been greatly influenced by NPM, which is considered to diverge from traditional social democratic values. After this shift, school professionals found themselves positioned in increasingly hierarchical structures and had to report student results to local educational authorities (Gunnulfsen, 2017). A significant reform initiative in Norwegian education has been the introduction of the Norwegian quality assessment system in education and large-scale student testing as part of controlling the quality of the school system (Ministry of Education and Research, 2007).4 The focus on performance expectations and external quality monitoring is a contemporary challenge (Camphuijsen et al., 2020; Møller & Skedsmo, 2013). With the introduction of the reform for curriculum renewal in 2020 (LK20), increased attention has been given to democracy and citizenship as an interdisciplinary theme. Tensions have become intensified and more visible over time between policy demands involving quality control with external monitoring on the one hand and policies relating to democratic aims on the other (Larsen & Mathé, 2023). Research has also indicated that the democratic practices in Norwegian schools over the last 10 years have been challenged by increased monitoring and other control mechanisms at the state and municipal levels (Aasen et  al., 2014; Camphuijsen et  al., 2020; Skedsmo & Camphuijsen, 2022).

 https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/finn-forskning/rapporter/Evaluering-av-Nasjonaltkvalitetsutviklingssystem/ 4

5  School Leadership in Norway: Key Characteristics and Current Challenges

69

In Norwegian White Paper No. 28 (2015–2016), the main goal of the curriculum reform (LK20) (Directorate of Education, 2020)5 is emphasised as a provision for ‘better learning and understanding for the students’ (Ministry of Education and Research, 2015, p. 26). The intention of the LK20 is to contribute to coherence between and across subjects and to provide direction for school professionals’ choice of content in teaching practices. The subjects shall be renewed by emphasising ‘deep learning’ and prioritising three interdisciplinary themes: ‘public health and life mastery’, ‘democracy and citizenship’ and ‘sustainable development’ (Karseth et  al., 2020). The government states in LK20 that the school leadership is responsible for providing direction and facilitating pedagogical and professional collaboration between the teachers to fulfil the realisation of the curriculum reform. In this way, the introduction of LK20 implies a renewed focus on the democratic purpose of education. Studies show that schools seem to have brought into place a system of how to make use of national test results for school development. However, there is a great variation in the local quality assessment system established by the municipalities and routines for reporting as well as accountability practices (Prøitz et al., 2019). The school leaders’ stories of their use of national test results may be described as incorporating performance management in their leadership practice, using the test results strategically or symbolically as part of ‘window dressing’ or taking a stance that the test results are important for monitoring results over time but not for student learning (Mausethagen et al., 2018; Gunnulfsen, 2017; Camphuijsen, 2021). Several studies have identified parallel approaches in which school leaders attempt to balance different priorities, such as the pre-existing practice of using assessment for learning and the ‘new’ practice of using national test results to enhance student learning. Even though the school principals described the national test results as insignificant for school work in general, the school leaders and teachers seemed to use the test data as legitimation for focusing work on improving the scores of low-­ performing students (Gunnulfsen & Møller, 2017; Mausethagen et al., 2018). The ways in which school leaders in Norwegian schools enact policy demands for using national student test data are quite different in seemingly similar schools. Research has shown that the autonomous experiences and practices of school leaders consist of a struggle to translate and negotiate what policy intentions imply are necessary needs for changes with regard to reaching better quality in their schools. In other words, school leaders and teachers struggle to make sense of how they might use performance data to enhance school quality and learning for the individual students and at the same time contribute to safeguarding democratic values, thus reducing stress and enhancing student and staff well-being and promote inclusion. Tiplic and Elstad (2021) identified that innovation support contributes to school principals’ job satisfaction with school but that stress can be perceived as an

 https://www.udir.no/lk20/overordnet-del/3.-prinsipper-for-skolens-praksis/3.5-profes jonsfellesskap-og-skoleutvikling/?lang=nob 5

70

A. E. Gunnulfsen and G. Skedsmo

inhibitory factor in principals’ work. By analysing TALIS data from 2018, the authors found that the stress was involved with work overload from following up on teachers’ professional development, having too much administrative work and having extra work due to staff absence. This stress is primarily related to a connection between principals’ working capacity and their ambitions to execute their leadership goals, such as safeguarding democratic values. Democratic values are sought to be safeguarded through professional autonomy in combination with distributing leadership roles, both in the municipalities and in schools. A question that arises, then, is whether the Norwegian education system will be more part of marketisation as a principle in the future and how this will affect the democratic purpose of education. Thus far, marketisation has been less embraced in the Norwegian education context.

Concluding remarks The governance of the Norwegian school system has transformed over the last two decades, relying on performance data as a key quality indicator and as a basis for improvement and accountability. At the same time, the democratic tradition and the purposes of education remain strong in the national curriculum. Several studies have shown that strong performance orientation and accountability practices at the municipal level put pressure on school leaders and teachers who have to cope with value dilemmas. Current knowledge about the role and practices of school principals in a Norwegian education policy context has shown that their tasks and responsibilities have increased and the development of new formal and informal leadership roles reflects the need to delegate tasks and share responsibilities, particularly with respect to focusing on the core tasks of the school, namely support students’ learning and school development. Over time, expectations of principals have transformed which have implications for the roles of principals and other leadership roles in the school school system. Along with this development, the need for formal education and qualification to take on leadership roles has increased over time and ‘new’ knowledge areas, such as school law, are integrated into leadership programmes. With the repeated appeal for the democratic purpose of education in Norwegian education policy, it is a question of whether school leaders are faced with increased competing aims, since local performance monitoring in many municipalities and national regulation remain strong means of governing (Gunnulfsen & Larsen, 2021). Studies have shown that aspects of education that cannot be measured receive less attention (Spillane, 2012). In dealing with conflicting ideals in policy, school leaders will, as usual, have to use their professional discretion to handle daily tasks and challenges and strengthen their argumentation for school priorities.

5  School Leadership in Norway: Key Characteristics and Current Challenges

71

References Aas, M., & Skedsmo, G. (2014). Kollektiv kunnskapsbygging og profesjonalisering av. lederteam. [Collective knowledge building and professionalisation of leader teams]. In E.  Elstad & K.  Helstad (Eds.), Profesjonsutvikling i skolen [Professional development in school] (pp. 278–291). Universitetsforlaget. Aas, M., & Törnsen, M. (2016). Examining Norwegian and Swedish leadership training programs in light of international research. Nordic Studies in Education, 36(2), 173–187. Aasen, P., Prøitz, T. S., & Sandberg, N. (2014). Knowledge regimes and contradictions in education reforms. Educational Policy, 28(5), 718–738. Abrahamsen, H. (2018). Redesigning the role of deputy heads in Norwegian schools–tensions between control and autonomy? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(3), 327–343. Abrahamsen, H., & Aas, M. (2016). School leadership for the future: Heroic or distributed? Translating international discourses in Norwegian policy documents. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 48(1), 68–88. Ball, S.  J., Junemann, C., & Santori, D. (2017). Edu. net: Globalisation and education policy mobility. Routledge. Blossing, U., Imsen, G., & Moos, L. (2014). The Nordic education model. Springer. Camphuijsen, M.  K. (2021). Coping with performance expectations: Towards a deeper understanding of variation in school principals’ responses to accountability demands. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 33(3), 427–453. Camphuijsen, M., Møller, J. & Skedsmo, G. (2020). Test-based accountability in the Norwegian context: exploring drivers, expectations, and strategies. Journal of Educational Policy. Published online 11 March. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2020.1739337 Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). Democracy and administrative policy: Contrasting elements of new public management (NPM) and post-NPM. European Political Science Review, 3(1), 125–146. Grant, M.  J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. Gunnulfsen, A. E. (2017). School leaders’ and teachers’ work with national test results: Lost in translation? Journal of Educational Change, 18(4), 495–519. Gunnulfsen, A., & Larsen, E. (2021). The Norwegian case of school reform, external quality control, and the call for democratic practice. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved 24 Jan. 2023, from https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/ acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-­9780190264093-­e-­1680. Gunnulfsen, A.  E., & Møller, J. (2017). National testing: Gains or strains? School leaders’ responses to policy demands. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16(3), 455–474. Helstad, K., & Møller, J. (2013). Leadership as relational work: Risks and opportunities. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(3), 245–262. Hopmann, S.  T. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind: Schooling in the age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 417–456. Imsen, G., Blossing, U., & Moos, L. (2017). Reshaping the Nordic education model in an era of efficiency. Changes in the comprehensive school project in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden since the millennium. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(5), 568–583. Jensen, E. S. (2011). Et skolelederperspektiv på tilpasset opplæring [A school leader perspectrive on differentiated education]. Høgskolen i Sogn og Fjordane, Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift nr. 3/2011. Karseth, B., Kvamme, O.  A., & Ottesen, E. (2020). Fagfornyelsens læreplanverk: Politiske intensjoner, arbeidsprosesser og innhold [The subject renewal: Political intentions, working processes and content]. Det utdanningsvitenskapelige fakultet [Faculty of Educational Sciences], University of Oslo.

72

A. E. Gunnulfsen and G. Skedsmo

Larsen, E. & Mathé, N. E. (2023). Teachers’ perceptions of their schools’ democratic character. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 67(2), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.108 0/00313831.2021.2021437 Lysø, I.  H., Stensaker, B., Aamodt, P.  O., & Mjøen, K. (2011). Ledet til ledelse: Nasjonal rektorutdanning i et internasjonalt perspektiv. [Lead to leadership: National principal preparation in an international perspective). Delrapport 1 fra Evaluering av den nasjonale rektorutdanningen. NIFU. Report 2011. Maroy, C. (2015). Comparing accountability policy tools and rationales. In H.  G. Kotthoff & E.  Klerides (Eds.), Governing educational spaces (pp.  35–56). SensePublishers. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­94-­6300-­265-­3_3 Mausethagen, S. (2013). Accountable for what and to whom? Changing representations and new legitimation discourses among teachers under increased external control. Journal of Educational Change, 14(4), 423–444. Mausethagen, S., Prøitz, T., & Skedsmo, G. (2018). Teachers’ use of knowledge sources in ‘result meetings’: Thin data and thick data use. Teachers and Teaching, 24(1), 37–49. Mausethagen, S., Prøitz, T., & Skedsmo, G. (2020). Data Use in Recent School Reforms. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved 24 Jan. 2023, from https://oxfordre.com/ education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-­9780190264093-­e-­853 Ministry of Education and Research. (2007). White Paper No. 31 (2007–2008). Kvalitet i skolen [Quality in school]. Ministry of Education and Research. (2015). White Paper No. 28 (2015–2016). Fag – Fordypning – Forståelse — En fornyelse av Kunnskapsløftet. (Subjects – Specialization – Comprehension. A renewal of the knowledge promotion). Møller, J. (2009). School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between managerial and professional accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 10(1), 37–46. Møller, J. (2011). Promoting equity and social justice: A task too heavy for individual school principals? Counterpoints, 409, 279–290. Møller, J. (2012). The construction of a public face as a school principal. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(5), 452–460. Møller, J. (2016). Kvalifisering som skoleleder i en norsk kontekst: Et historisk tilbakeblikk og perspektiver på utdanning av. skoleledere. [Qualification of school leaders: A historical retroperspective on the education of school leaders]. Acta Didactica Norge, 10(4), 7–26. Møller, J., & Skedsmo, G. (2013). Modernising education: New public management reform in the Norwegian education system. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 45(4), 336–353. OECD. (2008). Improving school leadership: Policy and practice. OECD. Ottesen, E. (2016). Et kunnskapsgrunnlag for skoleledelse. [A knowledge base for school leadership]. Acta Didactica Norge, 10(4), 69–81. Prøitz, T., Mausethagen, S., & Skedsmo, G. (2019). District Administrators’ Governing Styles in the Enactment of Data Use Practices. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24(2), 244–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1562097 Seland, I., Olsen, M. S., Solem, A., Lysø, I. H., Aamodt, P. O., & Røsdal, T. (2012). Spørsmål om tid. En studie av arbeidsbetingelser og tidsbruk for ledere av skoler og sykehjem [A question of time. A study of work conditions and time use for leaders in schools and nursing homes]. NIFU Rapport 18/2012. 12. Skedsmo, G. (2011). Formulation and realisation of evaluation policy: Inconsistencies and problematic issues. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 23(1), 5–20. Skedsmo, G. (2018). Comparison and benchmarking as key elements in governing processes in Norwegian schools. In L. M. Carvalho, L. Levasseur, M. Liu, R. Normand, & D. A. Oliveira (Eds.), Education Policies and the Restructuring of the Educational Profession (pp. 137–158). Springer.

5  School Leadership in Norway: Key Characteristics and Current Challenges

73

Skedsmo, G. & Aas, M. (2017): Selvvurdering og gruppecoaching: Nye muligheter for refleksjon og læring for skoleledere [Self-Assessment and group coaching: New opprtunities for reflection and learning for school leaders]. In: Paulsen, J.M. & Aas, M. (Eds.), Ledelse i fremtidens skole [Leadership in future schools] (pp. 333–356). Fagbokforlaget,. Skedsmo, G., & Camphuijsen, M. K. (2022). The battle for whole-child approaches: Examining the motivations, strategies and successes of a parents’ resistance movement against a performance regime in a local Norwegian school system. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30(136). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.6452 Skedsmo, G., & Møller, J. (2016). Governing by new performance expectations in Norwegian schools. In H. Gunter, D. Hall, R. Serpieri, & E. Grimaldi (Eds.), New public management and the reform of education (pp. 71–83). Routledge. Spillane, J.  P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 113–141. https://doi.org/10.1086/663283 Statistics Norway. (2022). Retrieved February 16, 2022 from https://www.ssb.no/en/utdanning/ grunnskoler/statistikk/elevar-­i-­grunnskolen Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, A. O., & Aasen, P. (2006). The Nordic model in education: Education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 245–283. Tiplic, D. & Elstad, E. (2021). Forhold ved skolen som påvirker skolelederens tilfredshet med jobben [School aspects that affect the school leader’s job satisfaction]. In J. K. Björnsson (Ed.), Hva kan vi lære av TALIS 2018? Gode relasjoner som grunnlag for læring [What can we learn from TALIS 2018? Good relations as a foundation for learning] (Kap. 2, pp. 21–33). Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Tjeldvoll, A., Wales, C., & Welle-Strand, A. (2005). School leadership training under globalisation: Comparisons of the UK, the US and Norway. Managing Global Transitions, 3(1), 23–49. Verger, A., Parcerisa, L., & Fontdevila, C. (2019). The growth and spread of large-scale assessments and test-based accountabilities: A political sociology of global education reforms. Educational Review, 71(1), 5–30. Vibe, N. (2010). Spørsmål til Skole-Norge høsten 2010. Resultater og analyser fra Utdanningsdirektoratets spørreundersøkelse blant skoler og skoleeiere [Questions to the schools in Norway 2010. Results and analysis from the survey of Directorate of Education and Training, to schools and municipal school authorities]. NIFU STEP Rapport 40/2010. Vibe, N., Aamodt, P. O., & Carlsten, T. C. (2009). Å være ungdomsskolelærer i Norge. Resultater fra OECDs internasjonale studie av undervisning og læring [Being a lower secondary teacher in Norway. Results from OECD’s study of teaching and learning]. NIFU STEP Rapport 23/2009.

Chapter 6

Sweden – Good Will on All Governance Levels Is Not Enough to Create Sustainable Improvement Helene Ärlestig

and Ulf Leo

Abstract  In Sweden as in the other Nordic countries schools are an important part of how individuals as well as society develops. How schools are led and governed therefore affects all citizens. In this chapter we discuss principals’ positions, responsibility, and expectation within the Swedish governance system. The chapter and our conclusions rest on current Swedish research and policy documents. In Sweden external expectations, support, and control from national and municipality (school owner) level has an increasing impact on the local schools. Traditions, values, and reforms puts a focus on contemporary change processes. In turn, these contemporary change processes affect to a high extent principal’s role and tasks in the local schools and create an increasing heterogeneity in prerequisites, expectations, and results. There is a strong will and high ambition to improve schools for better results on all governance levels, ambitions that often ask for fast effect which has backsides such as concurring reforms and a high turnover among school leaders. Keywords  Principals · Reform · Pedagogical leadership · Governance · Quality assurance · School improvement

Introduction How schools are led and governed has been a recurring topic in Sweden during recent decades. An international comparison of results and schools’ prerequisites as well as a growing amount of research shows both similarities and differences with other countries. Since the 1950s, Swedish principals have moved from being teachers with administrative tasks (the first among equals) to school managers accountable for student results, staff, and other resources (Jarl et al., 2012; Uljens et al., H. Ärlestig · U. Leo (*) Centre for Principal Development, Department of Political Science, Umea University, Umea, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. E. Gunnulfsen et al. (eds.), Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries, Educational Governance Research 21, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4_6

75

76

H. Ärlestig and U. Leo

2013). In Sweden, the principal position is regulated through the National Education Act and curriculum while they are employed by the municipality or an independent school owner. Today’s society is highly impacted by global changes in relation to migration, environmental issues, and digitalization that affect schools and principals’ leadership. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic put principals and teachers in unprecedented situations. Sweden has a transparent school system; the media, combined with external control of schools, shows an increasingly heterogeneous picture of school prerequisites and results (Ärlestig et  al., 2016a; Johansson & Ärlestig, 2022). Multiple aims and a fast-changing society require a look at principals and schools’ leadership from several perspectives (Shaked & Schechter, 2017; Ärlestig & Johansson, 2020), as schools are complex, adaptive systems that are nonlinear, unstable, and constantly changing (Morrison, 2002). The multiple aims and a fast-changing society create a situation in which both macro- and micropolitics become important. Individual agency matters for a deeper understanding of organizational structures and cultures. This concept of agency highlights that actors always act by means of their environment rather than simply in their environment, so that the achievement of agency will always result from the interplay of individual efforts, available resources and contextual and structural factors as they come together in particular and, in a sense, always unique situations. (Biesta & Tedder, 2007, p. 137)

Principals are seen as important actors. At the same time there is a risk that a focus on governance and standards underestimate individual competence and initiative. Just as leadership research highlight the importance of context it should highlight the importance of individual leaders’ agency. This chapter includes some aspects of the current work situation and common tasks for Swedish principals. To reflect on heterogeneity among principals, we present the current governing system and describe how leadership is delegated and distributed through several organizational levels. Our description builds on national policy documents and domestic research. We begin by reflecting on formal expectations from the national level; then, we describe the municipality- or school-owner level (local educational administration, LEA) and the reported experience and culture at the local school level. In the second section, we problematize principals’ roles from a cultural and change perspective to show the heterogeneity among prerequisites and challenges. In the third section, we describe principals’ education and professional roles. In the conclusion, we discuss how high ambitions become a challenge in a long governing chain. Expectations from all levels—global, national, LEA, and local—affect principals and their leadership. Principals experience both opportunities and limitations in terms of LEAs and their representatives, other schools, parents, and the community.

6  Sweden – Good Will on All Governance Levels Is Not Enough to Create Sustainable…

77

 rincipals’ Position, Responsibility, and Expectations P in the Country’s Governance System Sweden has had a decentralized education system since the 1990s, steered by objectives and goals defined at the national state level. The government has the overall responsibility and sets the curricula and other framework for education at all levels. Municipalities are responsible for organizing most of the education from preschool to upper secondary school, as well as municipal adult education and Swedish tuition for immigrants. During the last 30 years, it has been possible for parents and students to choose schools. This includes independent schools that are free of charge (financed through taxes) and organized by private companies or other organizations. All types of schools have the same national regulations based on the Education Act and curriculum, even if prerequisites vary. According to data from the National Agency for Education, around 16% of all compulsory school students and 29% of all upper secondary school students were enrolled in independent schools in 2021/2022. Most of the schools are small which means that there are 828 independent compulsory schools out of 4748 and 260 independent upper secondary schools out of 1036. Policy is formulated on the state level and translated and mediated at the local level to be performed and executed in classrooms by teachers. School governance is a mix of ideological, economic, juridical, and evaluation tools and arguments (Lindensjö & Lundgren, 2014; Nihlfors & Johansson, 2013). Sweden revised its Education Act in 2010, and legal arguments related to school government have increased. Sweden has several national school agencies that have grown in size during the last decades. The three largest and most important are the Swedish National Agency for Education, the Swedish Schools Inspectorate, and the National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools (SPSM). All three are intended to support LEAs and individual schools. Principals and teachers respect and trust national governing documents and the state agencies. Sometimes, this can cause conflicts if the national mission is not in line with policies and regulations from the LEAs (Berg, 2011). Principals and teachers are employed by LEAs. Municipalities have politically elected school boards with overall responsibility for schools. A large number of independent schools belong to a school company with a company board. There are also small, individually run preschools and schools, where the same person may be owner, principal, and teacher. Each LEA has an appointed school superintendent to assist in ensuring that national regulations are followed (SFS, 2010:800). Since the 1990s, LEAs’ impact on local schools has grown, and so have their tasks and sizes (Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020). The expectations for local schools, principals, teachers, and students are regulated in the Education Act, in the curriculum and syllabi, and in municipalities and local schools’ documents. Despite divisions between municipalities and state responsibilities, leaders on all levels are highly affected by what happens on the national level. In some cases, laws and policy detail what is expected; in other cases, economic incitements, in-service training, or education

78

H. Ärlestig and U. Leo

affect and regulate school development. Despite a common understanding that the local context matters, most national initiatives have general frames and regulations. During the last decade, there has been a focus on subject knowledge even though the curricula state that students should also acquire fundamental values such as democracy and respect for each other. Although curricula for various school forms vary from preschool to adult education, the form and main messages are the same. The curriculum’s last section clarifies expectations and obligations for principals to ensure that school activities are successful. This includes responsibility for school results within given constraints. Principals have specific responsibilities listed in bullet points: e.g., pupils work together regardless of gender, and principals should use methods for active pupil influence and provide modern, high-quality teaching materials. A principal is responsible for being an educational leader, administrator, and manager for school staff. A principal is responsible for the school budget, the inner organization, teachers’ time and working conditions, and school results. This means that a principal has a large influence on how teachers organize their workdays (Ärlestig et al., 2016b). In recent years, collaborative and collective work and learning among teachers has grown in popularity (Blossing & Wennergren, 2019). The Swedish school system includes independent/private schools with public funding. Parents and their children can choose among tuition-free schools, whether municipal or private. The public funded tuition fee consists of a basic amount for each student and an additional amount for students with an extensive need for special support. It is up to each municipality to decide how large the amounts should be. This means that preschools and schools depend on having enough students to offer a qualitative education. The tuition fee reflects the school budget, which can create competition, not only between public and independent/private schools, but also between schools within a municipality. In relation, principals sometimes have to take roles as private-sector managers who prioritize spending, since there are often not enough resources in relation to national and local ambitions. The number of school leaders has increased at LEA and local school levels, partly due to larger school units and partly because of an increase in leadership tasks and higher administrative control. It is common to have several deputy principals in the same school, as well as various teacher leader roles. The number of expectations and their level of detail vary among organizations, partly depending on the size of the municipality and the number of hierarchal levels above the principal. The local expectations on keeping within the budget combined with high expectations to raise students’ results are often highlighted as dilemmas for principals in Sweden. Another example of a local dilemma is that as LEAs mandate to support and control local schools grow, they increase principals’ administrative tasks, as schools are requested to deliver data, documents, and reports linked to HR issues, economy, and buildings (Leo et al., 2020). Strong expectations from various directions combining demands for accountability with a focus on school improvement can create stress among principals. A recent study on Swedish school principals’ work environments, health, and directions for the future (Persson et  al., 2021a, b) highlighted some results and problems to be addressed. In a survey answered by 2317 principals from

6  Sweden – Good Will on All Governance Levels Is Not Enough to Create Sustainable…

79

all over Sweden, 29% met exhaustion criteria and displayed signs of exhaustion that, if sustained, might lead to poor health. Additionally, 25–30% reported that role conflicts occurred always or often, and 22–23% always or often experienced a lack of resources. Only 16–18% answered that supportive management applied well or very well in their situations. Turnover among Swedish principals is increasing (Arvidsson et al., 2021; Thelin, 2020). International research shows associations between principal turnover and student performance, and frequent changes of principals result in lower teacher retention, which is particularly harmful for low-achieving schools with many inexperienced teachers (Béteille et al., 2012). According to The Teaching and Learning International Survey, TALIS (OECD, 2019; chapter Leo & Gunnulfsen in this book), Swedish principals had worked at their current schools for a median of 3 years. After the “PISA-chock” in 2015, a government focus increased on raising academic results for all students, prompting quality assurance on all levels. The increased interest in classroom activities drew attention to details and transparency. A huge amount of time is spent in schools on result analyses (the basis for organizational development plans) as well as assessment dialogues and meetings between LEAs and principals. During the last decades, several factors, including those described above, have created new expectations for principals in the decentralized school system (Uljens et al., 2013). A new kind of juridification (steering/governance with legal norms and national policy) has grown along with increased accountability for principals (Leo, 2016). Principals (and other school leaders) spend much of their time handling everyday issues (Norqvist & Ärlestig, 2021). Some of principals’ everyday work challenges include handling budget cuts, high turnover among teachers, and other organizational tension (Norberg & Gross, 2019). Other important factors are student health and quality assurance. Compared to countries with more centralized school systems, Swedish principals have a lot of room to maneuver. Traditionally, they are expected to be involved in everyday decisions and strive to work closely with classrooms (Ärlestig et al., 2016b). Even if the intention is for LEAs to have the same missions as the local schools, tension exists between national and LEA governance that can be described as cross-pressure (Berg, 2011). Explicitly expressed expectations for principals’ accountability in specific areas have raised their status and ability to demand support. This is hard for some principals, as many of them are new and may feel pressure and insecurity concerning their performance. Networking with other principals has become even more important to support principals’ independence. The National Principal Program is not only a source for knowledge; it also gives opportunities to create a broader network of school leaders. Many principals report a lack of time to read and connect their daily work to research, even if they are interested in the research. They are heavily occupied with everyday issues, which can result in a lack of time for reflections and ability to prioritize strategic work. A growing number of actors in school government chains have focused on clarified role descriptions and tasks. Role expectations for superintendents and principals, as the responsible actors, are communicated and clear, while other roles are vaguer and more limited. They are often expected to

80

H. Ärlestig and U. Leo

support principals, especially in relation to school improvement. Still, teachers play a hidden role in the governing chain (Norqvist & Ärlestig, 2021), and the intervening spaces between actors in the governing chain play important roles (Johansson & Ärlestig, 2022).

 raditions, Values, Policies, and Reforms in Relation T to Change The national ambition is that all students should have the same opportunities regardless of which school they attend. At the same time, the heterogeneity of school prerequisites has increased. The median municipalities in Sweden have fewer than 16,000 inhabitants. The smallest municipality has 2450 inhabitants, and the largest has 962,152 inhabitants (Bergstrand, 2021). Differences exist between schools in rural areas compared to schools in larger cities. In rural areas, schools and future education are of low value (Nordholm et al., 2022). Lund (2022) observed a specific leadership practice for principals in rural areas who commute between several schools, preventing professional isolation. Rural principals also seem to struggle with teachers’ solidarity on a local level, and municipal boards struggle to understand schools’ specific conditions in the geographic periphery. Still, principals and schools have the same legal requirements. This often means that in small LEAs and independent schools, the principal (as all other civil servants) needs broad competence and is included in all kinds of tasks and processes. Larger LEAs can involve multiple layers of leadership in a hierarchical system between the superintendent and principal (Norqvist & Ärlestig, 2021). According to Leo et al. (2020), principals are sometimes too far from where decisions are made in the chain of local politicians, superintendents, school form managers, and area managers. This creates a hierarchical decision structure in which a principal’s main task is to implement national and district policy and thus take responsibility for schools’ inner quality. As mentioned before, Sweden has high ambitions to improve school quality. It has also increased the number of national investigations and reforms, which are often accompanied by changes in policy, state subsidies, and professional development courses. This has rendered a situation in which all schools have one or more improvement projects (Rönnström & Johansson, 2021). The projects are often initiated as a response to a state offer or municipality request, and some of the offers are difficult to decline. The Swedish National Agency for Education offers support to selected municipalities and schools with low academic results over time as well as to schools with many newly arrived immigrants. The support involves actors from the national agency and from universities over a 3-year process with the aim of increasing students’ results through school improvement. In recent decades, discussions about how to improve and govern Swedish schools have increased. A government white paper suggests stronger national governance,

6  Sweden – Good Will on All Governance Levels Is Not Enough to Create Sustainable…

81

increased professionalism and trust for teachers and principals, and stronger policy related to student selection for municipal and independent schools (SOU, 2017:35). Most of the suggestions do not have enough political support to become reality, as reflected in conversations about schools. Many parents, as well as teachers and principals, are satisfied with their own schools but claim that there is space for improvement in schools in general. The media covers school and school results, and even if most actors have the will to create world-class schools, opinions on the way forward differ. Stronger national governance is visible through active state inspection, economic support in relation to in-service training, and improvement projects. Municipalities and school owners are frustrated that a lot of support is conditional, and some teachers and principals are tired of external improvement projects. Besides offering general support (both online and in-service training), the increasing heterogeneity of prerequisites has also prompted more direct national support. In addition to more visible heterogeneity, national-level administration has discovered how difficult it is to create equal prerequisites that go deeper than offering the same solution or policy for everyone. As a result, local interpretation and decisions need more attention. Besides recurrent school inspections, the Swedish National Agency for Education will start quality dialogues with each LEA to find mutual solutions and strengthen trust in the governing chain. The concept that schoolwork should rest on science and proven knowledge has contributed to more efforts to connect daily work with theory and research (Hörnqvist, 2019). A national project to develop and test sustainable collaboration models between academia and the school system regarding research, school activities, and teacher education has been implemented. Despite an understanding that many of the reforms have not given the expected results, high ambitions in digitalization during recent decades did help in the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic (See Chap. xx in this book). In a few months, much silent knowledge came forward, and Swedish teachers and principals managed to keep students’ grades up the first year under unusual conditions (Ahlström, et al., 2020).

 chool Leaders’ Education, Professional Understanding, S and Practice LEAs decide who they want to hire as principals. According to the Education Act, a Swedish principal needs “pedagogical insight” as a formal requirement (See Chap. xx in this book). Principals usually have backgrounds as teachers, but it is not a formal requirement. When principal comes into office, they are requested to start and finish a 3-year national principal training program on an advanced level within 4 years as a part of their work. The program is conducted as a commissioned course by seven universities, and from the states’ perspective, it is a part of national governance. The national principal training program is also open to deputy principals. Jerdborg (2021, 2022) studied how the identity of novice principals in the program

82

H. Ärlestig and U. Leo

forms in the interaction between school-leader education and professional practice. One conclusion is that their learning builds on access to theoretical thinking tools that help them understand and rethink practice by distancing, reflective thinking, and questioning. Principals’ role identity contains social, personal, and professional dimensions—the professional dimension dominates (Nordholm et  al., 2020). Identity is dynamic and affected by the current time. To solve tomorrow’s problems, principals must understand and make sense of their roles and missions in relation to the local context and current problems (Nordholm, 2021). That implies that role identity is under constant construction, especially for novice principals. Sweden’s 3-year national principal program probably has a great impact on how principals act and contributes to their sense-making and identity construction. Taken together, national and local levels—as well as principals themselves— have strong expectations that they should act as pedagogical leaders. Thus, the concept of pedagogical leadership is used widely. With roots in other concepts, such as transformational, instructional, and democratic leadership, there are many definitions and interpretations of pedagogical leadership (Törnsen & Ärlestig, 2018; Svedberg, 2019, Forssten Seiser, 2020). Most principals and scholars agree that pedagogical leadership has a very strong focus on developing the quality of teaching, and in line with this notion, principals want to be active in their schools and classrooms to follow teaching and learning processes among students and teachers. (See also Chap. xx in this book). However, data from the National Agency for Education (Skolverket, 2015) indicates that principals use 51% of their work time doing administrative tasks and only 18.5% for pedagogical tasks. This suggests a possible role conflict for principals wanting to spend more time on proactive pedagogical tasks rather than control and quality assurance. At the same time, principals’ work is diverse, requiring knowledge and competence to work on various tasks, balance expectations, contribute to prerequisites for student learning, and maintain active focus on pedagogical discussions. Principles’ tasks often overlap with the goals of state, LEA, or local improvement projects. Even if principals try to differ between operational tasks and an improvement agenda (Liljenberg & Blossing, 2021), the ambition for measurable improvement projects is visible on all levels in the system. The Swedish ideal, often based on egalitarian norms and a reluctance to talk about power, calls for collective, shared, and distributed leadership. Liljenberg (2018) differentiates between schools whose leadership is operative and management-­oriented and those with more learning-oriented leadership. The latter often has higher outcomes. A combination of support, inner organization, and professional attitude is required to establish the structures and culture of these schools. The number of deputy principals and teacher leaders is increasing, and the high number of leaders is also relevant to the concept of shared leadership. It means that, e.g., principals and deputy principals are responsible for various parts of managerial assignments that a principal otherwise undertakes alone. The principal must be responsible for tasks that cannot be delegated, according to legislation. Tasks that fall outside this regulation (e.g., work environment, premises, and budget) may be another person’s responsibility. In practice, this means that a principal and assistant

6  Sweden – Good Will on All Governance Levels Is Not Enough to Create Sustainable…

83

principals need to coordinate and take joint responsibility for the school unit as a whole. This creates opportunities for shared responsibility as well as meta reflection, and an important aspect of shared principalship is power with rather than power over (Döös et al., 2019). The ideal on a shared leadership is to some extent challenged by Sweden’s market-­oriented schools’ system. Even though many are in favor of school choice the heterogeneity creates a large variation in prerequisites. Size, economy and competence differ widely among both municipalities and independent schools which can diffuse the expectations on what a principal should accomplish. There is little empirical research on how individual principals experience that their power and everyday work are affected by working in a school system with both independent and municipality governed schools. Research on Swedish principals’ roles, work, and leadership has gradually increased since the 1990s, contributing to a knowledge base that could also strengthen principalship as a profession (Ekholm, 2000; Johansson, 2011; Larsson, 2021). A basic assumption in this chapter, is that theory and practice in educational leadership are socially constructed and contextually bound on national and local levels (Ärlestig, et  al., 2016a). This means that theory and practice change constantly, even if the change is sometimes subtle. A review of research in the field shows that most studies are smaller case studies, and there are few research projects from critical perspectives (Norqvist & Isling, 2020); larger studies that would allow generalization are missing. The Education Act states that all education shall rest on research and proven experience, so it is strange that support from the National Agency for Education and the Swedish Research Council related to research on educational administration is low. As a result, research findings are hard to implement and do not contribute to long-term development.

Conclusions As a democratic welfare state, the Swedish school system is built on fundamental values such as democracy and inclusion. Schools shall work toward the individual good for each student and the public good that forms the Swedish society. The Educational Act and other policy documents set clear expectations on principals role to improve schools, so each student gets the same opportunities to learn. Even if pedagogical leadership are seen as ambiguous concept among researchers, it is accepted and seen as ideal compared to work mainly with administration among most school actors. Currently principals and deputy principals handling all upcoming local issues and spend a lot of time on student care and internal issues. Principals have become a key function in schools and externally in terms of dealing with LEAs and their representatives, other schools, parents, and the community. Ideally, leadership should be distributed so that communication, trust, involvement, and mutual learning become important aspects (Bringselius, 2021).

84

H. Ärlestig and U. Leo

Global perspectives and international assessments and trends affect decisions on all leadership levels (Ärlestig & Johansson, 2020). The tradition of a school where all students have opportunities to succeed has emphasized ideals such as inclusion, social justice, and respect for individual students. A high focus on individual choice as well as results based on national and international assessment has contributed to an emphasis on effectiveness and school improvement projects. This emphasis has in turn contributed to a mix of governance perspectives in which old public management, new public management, and new public governance are visible at the same time (Magnusson, 2018; Ärlestig & Johansson, 2020). Thus, loyalty to the next governance level and short-term effects seem more important than holistic and sustainable long-term efforts. National (macro) and LEA (meso) expectations, support, and demands form much of the basis of micropolitics in principals and teachers’ everyday work (Gunnulfsen, 2020). The increasing heterogeneity in local prerequisites and student results contribute to a principal role that varies in content and responsibility depending on where the employment is situated. High national ambitions with many initiatives on all governance levels together with a market-oriented school structure and increased school inspection has added tasks and expectations on the local school and principal. In ambition to succeed on all areas at the same time there has been little space for schools to set their own phase. Instead of continuing to work on improvement projects that shows little effect in the beginning many schools tent to start new projects that never settles. Many principals have a large workload. This contributes to a high turnover, so many principals and deputy principals are new in their positions. One of the problems with high turnover among principals is the large number of principals at risk of exhaustion, calling for solutions at national (macro), LEA (meso), and local (micro) school levels. Principals and teachers have generally high trust in national policy documents and initiatives. Proposed actions for change are, e.g., clarification of role demands to reduce role conflicts, close organizational support, and recognition of principals as coworkers with their own rights, not only as employers with responsibility for teachers’ work environment (Persson et al., 2021a, b). Additionally, a strong will and good intentions to create support exist on all levels. The ambitious reforms to increase student learning have expanded the number of leaders on all levels. There is a mix between tight coupling and demands as well as loose couplings (Weick, 1995) between various government levels that, on the surface, highlights trust, cooperation, and dialogue. There is still a strong belief in finding the best solutions and practices that result in initiatives where “one size fits all” based on a tradition of general solutions. All governing levels have high ambitions that contribute to many projects involving activities that do not always last when the project ends. Beneath the surface, this shows a tendency to try to solve difficult problems with easy solutions (Rönnström & Johansson, 2021). Even if the ambition for all activities is to support learning and better prerequisites for the level beneath, the focus on visible results and legal issues has contributed to a higher degree of external control and more detailed recommendations on how to act. This

6  Sweden – Good Will on All Governance Levels Is Not Enough to Create Sustainable…

85

is experienced by principals and teachers as control and increased administration rather than support. To balance insight and knowledge from the local level with governance and data from the national and regional levels requires cooperation, mutual interpretations, and analyses that can render individualized solutions based on a local school’s situation. Dividing working tasks and hiring more leaders might cause increased decoupling and control instead of a stronger governing chain. Instead, it is necessary to construct processes that are more suitable for long-term change with competent and well-educated actors. Even if our society and the roles of school principals are complex, many devoted and engaged principals with high agency exist, whose work makes a difference for children and students. Fast societal changes highlight the importance of good, stable schools. In many ways, Sweden has all ingredients of a high-quality school system based on democracy and inclusion. The challenge is how to combine trust, support, control, and room to maneuver in an expanding governing chain.

References Adolfsson, C.-H., & Alvunger, D. (2020). Power dynamics and policy actions in the changing landscape of local school governance. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(2), 128–142. Ahlström, A., Leo, U., Norqvist, L., & Poromaa Isling, P. (2020). School leadership as (Un)usual. Insights from principals in Sweden during a pandemic. International Studies in Educational Administration, 48(2), 35–41. Ärlestig, H., & Johansson, O. (2020). Educational authorities and the schools: Organisation and impact in 20 states. Springer. Ärlestig, H., Day, C., & Johansson, O. (2016a). A decade of research on school principals: Cases from 24 countries. Springer. Ärlestig, H., Nihlfors, E., & Johansson, O. (2016b). International school principal research. In H. Ärlestig, C. Day, & O. Johansson (Eds.), A decade of research on school principals: Cases from 24 countries. Springer. Arvidsson, I., Leo, U., Oudin, A., Nilsson, K., Håkansson, C., Österberg, K., & Persson, R. (2021). Should I stay or should I go? Associations between occupational factors, signs of exhaustion, and the intention to change workplace among Swedish principals. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 5376. Berg, G. (2011). Skolledarskap och skolans frirum (School leadership and the schools room to manauver). Studentlitteratur. Bergstrand, U. (2021). Styrning och re-kontextualisering av värden i utbildningspolicy på nationell och lokal nivå (Governing and re -contextulisation of values in educational policy on national and local level). Thesis, Mittuniversitet. Béteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2012). Stepping stones: Principal career paths and school outcomes. Social Science Research, 41(4), 904–919. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. Blossing, U. & Wennergren, A.-C. (2019). Kollegialt lärande: resan mot framtidens skola (Collegial learning: The trip towards a future school). Studentlitteratur. Bringselius, L. (2021). Tillit och omdöme. Perspektiv på tillitsbaserad styrning (Trust and assessment. Perspectives on trustbased governance). Studentlitteratur.

86

H. Ärlestig and U. Leo

Döös, M., Wilhelmson, L., Madestam, J., & Örnberg, Å. (2019). Shared principalship: The perspective of close subordinate colleagues. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18(1), 154–170. Ekholm, M. (Red.). (2000). Forskning om rektor: en forskningsöversikt (Research on principals: A research overview). Statens skolverk. Forssten Seiser, A. (2020). Exploring enhanced pedagogical leadership: An action research study involving Swedish principals. Educational Action Research, 28(5), 791–806. Gunnulfsen, A. E. (2020). Utdanningsledelse som mikropolitisk praksis: forhandling om mening, makt og posisjonering (Educational leadership as micropolitical practice: Negotiation of meaning, power, and positioning). Universitetsforlaget. Hörnqvist, M. (2019). Skolledarskap: vetenskaplig grund och beprövad erfarenhet (School leadership: Scientific ground and proven experience). Gleerups. Jarl, M., Fredriksson, A., & Persson, S. (2012). New public Management in Public Education: A catalyst for the professionalization of Swedish school principals. Public Administration, 90(2), 429–444. Jerdborg, S. (2021). Participation in the Swedish national principal training programme: How does it intertwine with principals’ practice? Educational Management Administration & Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143221998711 Jerdborg, S. (2022). Educating school leaders: Engaging in diverse orientations to leadership practice. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(2), 287–309. Johansson, O. (Red.). (2011). Rektor – en forskningsöversikt 2000–2010 (Principals – A research overview 2000–2010). Vetenskapsrådet. Johansson, O., & Ärlestig, H. (2022). Democratic governing ideals and the power of intervening spaces as prerequisite for student learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 60(3), 340–353. Larsson, M. (2021). Rektor, profession och autonomi (Principal, profession and autonomi). In I.  B. Ahlström, G.  Berg, M.  H. Lindqvist, & F.  Sundh (Eds.), Att jobba som rektor: om rektorer som professionella yrkesutövare (To work as principal: Principals as professionals). Studentlitteratur. Leo, U. (2016) Rättslig reglering och professionella normer som påverkar rektorers ledarskap (Legal regulation and professional norms that affect principals’ leadership). In I. K. Andenæs, & J. Møller, (Red.). Retten i skolen – mellom pedagogikk, juss og politikk. Universitetsforlaget. Leo, U., Persson, R., Arvidsson, I., & Håkansson, C. (2020). External expectations and wellbeing, fundamental and forgotten perspectives in school leadership: A study on new leadership roles, trust and accountability. In L. Moos, E. Nihlfors, & J. M. Paulsen (Eds.), Re-centering the critical potential of Nordic school leadership research: Fundamental, but often forgotten perspectives. Springer International Publishing. Liljenberg, M. (2018). Distribuerat ledarskap och förbättringsarbete: lärares och skolledares praktik (Distributed leadership and improvement: Teachers and principal’s practice). Studentlitteratur. Liljenberg, M., & Blossing, U. (2021). Organizational building versus teachers’ personal and relational needs for school improvement. Improving Schools, 24(1), 5–18. Lindensjö, B. & Lundgren, U.  P. (2014). Utbildningsreformer och politisk styrning (Education reform and political governance). Liber. Lund, S. (2022). The geographic periphery as architecture for leadership practice with Swedish primary school principals : A peripatetic leading practice. International Journal of Leadership in Education. Ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2022.2027526 Magnusson, E.  M. (2018) Vad händer i själva verket? Om styrning och handlingsutrymme i Skolverket under åren 1991-2014 (What happends in reality? About governance and room to Manouver in the Swedish National Agency for education 1991–2014). Thesis Uppsala, Uppsala Universitet. Morrison, K. (2002). School leadership and complexity theory. Routledge. Nihlfors, E., & Johansson, O. (2013). Rektor – en stark länk i styrningen av skolan (The principal – A strong link in the governance of the school). SNS förlag.

6  Sweden – Good Will on All Governance Levels Is Not Enough to Create Sustainable…

87

Norberg, K., & Gross, S. J. (2019). Turbulent ports in a storm: The impact of newly arrived students upon schools in Sweden. Values And Ethics in Educational Administration, 14(1), 1–7. Nordholm, D. (2021). Rektorers identitet: en bok om ledarskap, meningsskapande och lömska problem (Principal identity: A book on leadership, sensemaking and wicked problems). Studentlitteratur. Nordholm, D., Arnqvist, A., & Nihlfors, E. (2020). Principals’ emotional identity – The Swedish case. School Leadership & Management, 40(4), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243 4.2020.1716326 Nordholm, D., Nihlfors, E., & Arnqvist, A. (2022). Perceptions on the local school and further education: A rural school leader’s perspective. Scandinavian Journal och Educational Resarch, 60(1), 150–162. Norqvist, L., & Ärlestig, H. (2021). Systems thinking in schools, perspectives from various levels. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(1), 77–93. Norqvist, L., & Isling, P. (2020). Skolledarskap i Sverige: En forskningsöversikt 2014–2018 (School leadership in Sweden. A research overview). Nordic Studies in Education, 40(2), 167–187. OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results (volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners, TALIS. OECD Publishing. Persson, R., Leo, U., Arvidsson, I., Håkansson, C., Nilsson, K., & Österberg, K. (2021a). Prevalence of exhaustion symptoms and associations with school level, length of work experience and gender: A nationwide cross-sectional study of Swedish principals. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1–13. Persson, R., Leo, U., Arvidsson, I., Nilsson, K., Österberg, K., Oudin, A., & Håkansson, C. (2021b). Svenska skolledares arbetsmiljö och hälsa: En lägesbeskrivning med förslag på vägar till förbättringar av arbetsmiljön (Swedish school leaders’ work environment and health: A description of the situation with suggestions for ways to improve the work environment). AMM-Rapport 4/2021. Rönnström, N., & Johansson, O. (2021). Att förbättra skolor med stöd i forskning: exempel, analyser och utmaningar (To improve schools based on research: Examples, analyses and challenges). Natur & Kultur. SFS 2010:800. Skollag (Education Act). https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-­lagar/dokument/ svensk-­forfattningssamling/skollag-­2010800_sfs-­2010-­80 Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2017). Systems thinking for school leaders: Holistic leadership for excellence in education. Springer. Skolverket. (2015). Svenska rektorers erfarenhet i nordiskt perspektiv. En analys av TALIS 2013 (Swedish principals experience in a Nordic perspective. An analysis of TALIS 2013). Skolverket. SOU 2017:35 Samling för skolan – Nationell strategi för kunskap och likvärdighet (The Swedish school commission, a national Strategy for knowledge and equity). Fritzes. Svedberg, L. (2019). Pedagogiskt ledarskap och pedagogisk ledning: teori och praktik (Pedagogical leadership and pedagogical leaders). Studentlitteratur. Thelin, K. (2020). Principal turnover: When is it a problem and for whom? Mapping out variations within the Swedish case. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 5(2), 417–452. Törnsén, M., & Ärlestig, H. (2018). Ledarskap i centrum: om rektor och förskolechef (Leadership in the centre: About principals and preschool managers). Gleerups. Uljens, M., Möller, J., Ärlestig, H., & Frederiksen, L. F. (2013). The professionalisation of Nordic school leadership. In L. Moos (Ed.), Transnational influence on values and practice in Nordic educational leadership – Is there a Nordic model? (pp. 133–157). Springer. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.

Part II

Chapter 7

Principals’ Autonomy in the Nordic Countries: Governing Positions, Responsibilities, and Expectations Ann-Sofie Smeds-Nylund, Lars Frode Frederiksen, and Alex Mäkiharju

Abstract  Growing political expectations exist for educational leaders in terms of their efforts to enhance students’ outcomes and apply education as a tool in national and international competition regarding school quality and student achievement. Educational leadership can be viewed as a multi-level phenomenon distributed over several levels, in which multiple actors interact and collaborate in dynamic networks. In this article, we investigate how the mission of a principal is constructed according to formal documents in the Nordic countries by conducting a document analysis with emphasis on the following research question: what degree of autonomy do school principals have as public educational leaders in the Nordic countries? Depending on the educational leadership levels above them (municipality and national levels), principals have different relative autonomy with regard to national laws, curriculum, policies and local municipal directives. For principals, many tasks may stand in contradiction with each other and point in different directions, making it impossible to uncritically conform with all responsibilities and expectations. Instead, principals need to interpret and relate to these in a reflective manner. Keywords  Autonomy · Educational leadership · Trust · Curriculum · Principal leadership · Public administration · Governing documents

A.-S. Smeds-Nylund · A. Mäkiharju (*) Faculty of Education and Welfare Studies, Department of Pedagogical Leadership and Development Work, Åbo Akademi University, Vasa, Finland e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] L. F. Frederiksen Department of Media, Design, Education and Cognition, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. E. Gunnulfsen et al. (eds.), Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries, Educational Governance Research 21, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4_7

91

92

A.-S. Smeds-Nylund et al.

Introduction There are growing political expectations for educational leaders in terms of their efforts to enhance students’ outcomes and apply education as a tool in national and international competition regarding school quality and student achievement (e.g. Leithwood et al., 2004). In this article, we attempt to investigate how the school principal’s role is constructed according to formal documents in the Nordic countries, with a special focus on school leaders’ autonomy (i.e. expectations and opportunities to make decisions). As a point of departure, we define autonomy as “self-governing,” which means “functioning without the control of others” (Levacic, 2002, p. 187). This is also related to discussions about school leaders as professionals (Bøje et al., 2021). When focusing on autonomy and relations, we approach the study using a multi-­ level perspective and a model distributed over several levels, in which multiple actors interact and collaborate in dynamic networks (Elo, 2021; Uljens, 2018). Educational leadership is exercised in a formal hierarchy through both formal and informal networks. The object of educational leadership encompasses different phenomena linked to education, and among the most important are policy, law, economics, curricula and didactics. Depending on the higher administrative levels (municipality and national) and horizontal educational leadership levels (the actors that surround a principal) in question, principals have different relative autonomy with regard to the national curriculum and policies and local municipal directives. For principals, many tasks may stand in contradiction to each other and point in different directions (Alava et al., 2012), making it impossible to uncritically affirm all policies, aims and goals. Instead, principals need to interpret and relate to these in a reflective manner. If principals do not receive any autonomy or space to act independently, pedagogical leadership will be reduced to the instrumental transferal of knowledge and directives (Uljens, 2021). This chapter’s purpose is to investigate the principal’s position from a multi-level perspective. What tasks and issues are described with regard to the principals in the documents? What degree of autonomy do the principals have as public educational leaders? We identify and analyse various perceptions of leadership expressed explicitly and implicitly in different regulative documents. We choose the main educational law and the national curriculum for compulsory education in each Nordic country. We have taken into consideration the fact that other laws are important and that education is part of the vast public sector with several overarching rules and regulations. We also understand that there is a discrepancy between national steering documents and everyday educational leadership practices (Hansen & Frederiksen, 2017; March, 1984). Still, we assume that the educational sector is framed by the documents regulating compulsory education, the main educational law and the national curriculum. The laws and steering documents concerning principals’ missions and educational backgrounds are likely to vary in the Nordic countries due to traditions, policies and

7  Principals’ Autonomy in the Nordic Countries: Governing Positions…

93

reforms. The understanding of the principals’ profession in the Nordic countries is deepened with insight into the similarities and differences concerning a principal’s autonomy to act within the formal legal frames and hierarchies, as well as how variations in traditions, values and policies may affect their actual accomplishment of tasks.

Theory Although educational leadership has evolved as an academic institution during the last 100 years, it has never been established as a homogeneous field of science (Bøje et al., 2021; Møller, 2016). There seems to be an orthodoxy among functionalistic and instrumental perspectives, while interpretive, analytical and critical approaches have struggled for recognition. While especially focusing on relations between various actors and institutions, in the following, we will take a multi-level approach as a starting point (Elo, 2021; Uljens, 2021).

 chool Leaders Within the Multi-level Phenomenon S of Educational Leadership The first order of pedagogical leadership in the classroom usually consists of teaching (Smeds-Nylund & Autio, 2021). In the second order of pedagogical leadership, principals lead teachers in their educational activities. This can be interpreted as the pedagogical leadership of pedagogical leadership (Uljens, 2021). In order to initiate, lead and develop professional learning processes, principals need a theory that explains what it means to become a better teacher. They also need insights into how principals, through their pedagogical actions, can alleviate teacher development and student learning (Uljens, 2021). The third order is the aspect of municipal leadership (e.g. superintendents), which governs principals’ leadership, and the fourth involves the national level, which focuses on curriculum making and is a different kind of pedagogical leadership compared to teaching or leading teachers. A curriculum is a policy document created for reflection by different actors, for example, teachers, principals and superintendents. The fifth order of educational leadership is the transnational level, which influences the national education system. Even though this level lacks judicial legitimacy (apart from the EU), organisations, such as The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD with their Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA test, clearly influence national education systems in terms of how countries measure student outcomes (Grek, 2009). There is also an external dimension to which the different levels must react. Teachers’ conversations with parents and caretakers are an example of external influence (Elo, 2021).

94

A.-S. Smeds-Nylund et al.

This model is non-hierarchical in nature as its levels can be bypassed (Uljens, 2014). Even though educational leadership is a hierarchical structure (ranging from classrooms to national levels and transnational organisations), the relationships between the levels and actors are of a non-hierarchical nature, as every actor has certain autonomy and a capacity to act independently, even though the amount of autonomy is determined by the level above (Elo, 2021).

Educational Leadership as a Non-affirmative Process The principals’ degree of autonomy and freedom to act independently varies in the Nordic countries. The non-affirmative (Benner, 1987) approach offers the opportunity to analyse the actors’ autonomy. Affirmation is not binary, but should rather be understood as a continuum of different degrees ranging from the total disregard of an affirmation to complete affirmation. This gradation works as an analytical tool for understanding what kind of autonomy an actor is given and in what way an actor can affirm a certain assignment. The degree of affirmation provides tools for understanding how much freedom to act an actor can find for themselves. For example, what kind of autonomy does a principal have in developing optimal conditions for teachers’ development and students’ learning in a school? In ambiguous circumstances, many factors affect school development and principals have many other obligations due to various requirements and expectations from regulations and stakeholders in the environment (Cribb & Gewirtz, 2007). The multi-level process, described as a systemic leadership (Fig. 7.1), meets the demands of a changing society. It can also be seen as a non-affirmative (Benner, 1987) leadership process, where we understand pedagogical leadership to be an activity that strives to influence the other’s understanding of him- or herself, the world and the relationship between them through a summons to self-activity based on mutual recognition. One consequence of people thinking about and understanding the world in new ways is that they may also act differently (Elo, 2021). For autonomous and highly qualified actors, such as school principals and teachers, there is a need to find meaningfulness in the curriculum processes themselves; a non-affirmative approach facilitates adequate results from meaningful, sense-­ making (Weick, 2001) processes. A part of this pedagogical leadership involves enhancing teachers’ professional development and creating and ensuring a supportive and positive working environment for teachers (Saarivirta & Kumpulainen, 2016).

Conceptualising Autonomy Our approach is not to perceive autonomy as a discrete variable or a continuum ranging from less to more autonomy. Nor is it embedded in the concept that complete autonomy for principals is desirable as there might be wise reasons for

7  Principals’ Autonomy in the Nordic Countries: Governing Positions…

95

Fig. 7.1  Educational leadership as a distributed multi-level process. (Uljens, 2018)

constraints. Among them is the fact that the regulations are implemented for the sake of democratic control and public legitimacy and not least a pressure for autonomy from teachers to secure their professional responsibility (Cribb & Gewirtz, 2007). We assume, however, that school leaders need a certain amount of autonomy or their roles and positions may be reduced to technical tasks. This is a central element when looking at school leaders as part of a developing profession. In the sociology of professions, the general assumption is that a professional’s performance depends on a high degree of autonomy. This is important for making decisions and performing actions on behalf of clients (Bøje et al., 2021). As Frostenson (2015, p. 20) argues, a loss of autonomy also means a loss of professionalism as autonomy can be defined as the “freedom of professional actors to define the nature of professional work with regard to its formal contents, quality criteria, entry barriers, formal education, control mechanisms [and] ethics.” Autonomy does not mean isolation, in that, besides regulations, individuals will also be affected by others with regard to norms, values, etc. (Dworkin, 2015). In the area of schools, Neeleman (2019, p. 34) claims that “school autonomy is defined as a school’s right of self-government—encompassing the freedom to make independent decisions—on the responsibilities that have been decentralized to schools.” This concerns a central distinction between autonomy for schools and for school leaders. Schools may be ascribed autonomy, but their leaders may not be able to perform it. Adamowski et al. (2007) call this an autonomy gap by focusing on school leader autonomy. One of the main issues highlighted in their report is the possibility of rewarding good teachers and firing ineffective teachers being one of the most important tasks for school leaders and a significant indicator of autonomy and decision-making power. A consequence of these kinds of autonomy may turn

96

A.-S. Smeds-Nylund et al.

out to be market orientation, which focuses on the fact that autonomy is the freedom to act based on the market and that schools may be perceived as enterprises marketing the school to stakeholders, e.g. students and parents (Frostenson, 2015; Heikkinen et al., 2021). Autonomy may differ between areas for school leadership, and attempts have been made to elucidate differences in comparable studies, although the categories can be hard to measure directly. They can include the organisation of teaching, personnel management, planning and structures, and resources (Cruz Martins et al., 2019). Frostenson (2015) makes another approach, presenting a three-level understanding of professional autonomy—namely general professional autonomy—which concerns the general frames of professional work and how much autonomy the professional has to organise and frame their working conditions (e.g. forming the purpose of schooling); collegial professional autonomy, which is the collective freedom to decide something at the school level or within a collective in practice; and individual autonomy, which is an individual’s opportunity to influence the practice-­ related framing of their work inside given contexts and constraints. These distinctions may seem important when considering different communities in schools, ranging from former communities inside schools to new communities established between school leaders. Attempts to enhance school autonomy do not necessarily lead to autonomy in practice. This might suggest that the general definition is supplemented by the combination of freedom and the capacity to act; that is, how autonomy is enacted in schools (Neeleman, 2019). The country chapters in this book have shown that political development has led to the Nordic countries experiencing a tendency to move away from state regulation toward more independent, or municipality driven, schools in a more competitive environment. Parallel to such increased independence, and as described in the introductory paragraph, audit procedures have also expanded. In summation, autonomy can be understood as a multi-level phenomenon that is present at all levels of educational leadership. It is also layered in the sense that practitioners can have different kinds of autonomies, depending on the specific context and situation. Non-affirmative theory further describes autonomy, or the capacity to act, as a spectrum ranging from complete affirmation to total disregard.

Method With the purpose of analysing what degree of autonomy curriculum and education policies are constructing for principals in the different Nordic countries, a document analysis approach (Bowen, 2009) is used. Document analysis is a qualitative approach as data are examined to elicit meaning, gain understanding and implement empirical knowledge.

7  Principals’ Autonomy in the Nordic Countries: Governing Positions…

97

Document analysis requires an analytical procedure that involves finding, selecting and synthesising data from documents. Documents, in this case, can be seen as social facts (Atkinson & Coffey, 1997), as they are produced, shared and used in social contexts. Documents, in this sense, “reveal something about the outside world in a more unmediated or authentic way” (Karppinen & Moe, 2011, p. 5). Some advantages of using document analysis are availability, stability and exactness (Bowen, 2009). All documents analysed in this study are available online and are stable and exact in the sense that they will not be altered although they can be interpreted differently. Bowen (2009) also argues that document analysis, in most cases, might not be comprehensive enough as it is usually a part of method triangulation. However, in this case, we argue that a document analysis of curricula and education policies can verify findings or corroborate evidence, as they are essential documents upon which education is built. Through curricula and basic education acts, we can discover forces or interests behind certain policy developments, as such documents are written in a certain context and have a rhetorical function and credibility. From such a qualitative standpoint, an analysis consisting of a word count (Cardno, 2018) is not appropriate and should not be considered as more than a broad overview of the frequency with which a term is used. Instead, the text should be holistically analysed with a focus on the context as well. Therefore, the intention and in which context the documents were created are to be assessed and reflected upon (Karppinen & Moe, 2011). As documents are not written devoid of contexts, texts (such as national curricula) are not only descriptions. This means that the language used is not the primary interest, but rather the themes, concepts and ideas conveyed in the documents are; document analysis becomes “a tool for analyzing the value-laden assumptions behind policy-making” (Karppinen & Moe, 2011, p. 11). Document analysis gives only limited information on the actors’ intentions and motives; however, it can help us understand the political definitions and meanings and, in other words, clarify the policy process. The official steering documents were downloaded from the national ministries and central agencies in the five Nordic countries and are presented in Table 7.1. Not all of them were available in English, thereby making international comparison difficult.

Results In researching how the different countries construct the mission of a principal in their central guiding documents and what degree of autonomy a principal is granted, we read and analysed the laws and the curricula, the fourth order of educational leadership (Fig. 7.1). We used appropriate search and signal words to find where principals (headteachers, leaders) were mentioned in the documents. In the text

Sweden

Norway

Iceland

Curriculum Bekendtgørelse om formål, kompetencemål, færdigheds- og vidensområder og opmærksomhedspunkter for folkeskolens fag og emner (Fælles Mål) BEK nr 1217 19/08/2020 (National Common Objectives) National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014 (https://www.oph.fi/sites/ default/files/documents/grunderna_for_laroplanen_for_den_grundlaggande_ utbildningen_2014.pdf) Compulsory School Act 2008 No. 91 12 June (https://www. The Icelandic National Curriculum Guide for Compulsory Schools–with government.is/media/menntamalaraduneyti-­media/media/ Subject Areas March 2014 (https://www.government.is/library/01-­Ministries/ law-­and-­regulations/Compulsory-­School-­Act-­No.-­91-­2008.pdf) Ministry-­of-­Education/Curriculum/adalnrsk_greinask_ens_2014.pdf) LOV-1998-07-17-61 Act Relating to Primary and Secondary The national curriculum: Knowledge Promotion 2020 (LK20), including The Education and Training (https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/ Core Curriculum – Values and Principles for Primary and Secondary Education lov/1998-­07-­17-­61) (the Education Act) and Training (www.udir.no/lareplaner) Skollag (https://www.oph.fi/sv/utbildning-­och-­examina/ Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2011 (https:// grunderna-­laroplanen-­den-­grundlaggande-­ www.skolverket.se/undervisning/grundskolan/laroplan-­och-­kursplaner-­for-­ utbildningen[EducationAct]; https://www.oph.fi/sv/utbildning-­ grundskolan/laroplan-­lgr22-­for-­grundskolan-­samt-­for-­forskoleklassen-­och-­ och-­examina/ fritidshemmet). Revised 2019. grunderna-­laroplanen-­den-­grundlaggande-­utbildningen) (2010:800)

Country Law Denmark Bekendtgørelse af lov om folkeskolen. Education Act LBK nr 1887 af 01/10/2021 (https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/ lta/2021/1887) Finland Finland Basic Education Act 628/1998 (https://www.finlex.fi/ sv/laki/kaannokset/1998/en19980628.pdf)

Table 7.1  Official steering documents analysed

98 A.-S. Smeds-Nylund et al.

7  Principals’ Autonomy in the Nordic Countries: Governing Positions…

99

below, we examine the mentions of the signal words with regard to each country while bearing in mind the questions of autonomy and the multi-level perspective. In the following, we provide examples from the Nordic steering documents, focusing at first on the education act and then the national curriculum in each case. In the process, we use the expression for “principal” that was used in each of the analysed documents.

Denmark The Educational Act The purpose of primary and lower secondary schools (folkeskole) is described in the law (Ministry of Children and Education, 2021a). Some specific Danish conditions and regulations frame school leaders’ tasks. In Denmark, compulsory schooling is substituted with compulsory education. This means that parents can choose to send their children to schools other than public ones, and it is also possible for them to teach at home if they achieve what is commonly required in primary school. Other forms of schooling are private or free schools (Ministry of Children and Education, 2021b), and the responsibility for public schools is mainly delegated to the municipalities. In the law on folkeskole, a school leader’s tasks roles and responsibilities are thoroughly outlined. In fact, school leaders are mentioned approximately 60 times. To compare, the municipal council is mentioned more than 170 times. Another comparison is that, in the law governing free schools, leaders are mentioned 20 times. This means that an important and recurring theme in the law on the folkeskole is balancing the relationship between the municipality, school leaders and school boards. Within the legislation’s framework and the decisions of the municipal council and the school board, the main task for a school leader involves taking responsibility for the quality of the teaching in accordance with the school’s purpose and determining the organisation of the teaching. Their other main tasks include contacting parents and organising the education of pupils with special needs. The principles and content of pedagogical elements of school leaders’ tasks are described in more detail on the Ministry of Education’s website. This also emphasises the relationship between the municipal council, school boards and school leaders, concerning both administration and pedagogical leadership. A school leader takes control of and distributes the work among a school’s employees and makes all the concrete decisions regarding the pupils.

100

A.-S. Smeds-Nylund et al.

The National Curriculum Importantly, a school leader does not decide on, but rather prepares, proposals for the school board regarding curricula, principles regarding the school’s activities, and suggestions for the school budget, which is determined by the municipal council. Regarding the curricula, the framework, called Common Objectives, is set by the ministry and parliament (Ministry of Children and Education, 2020). The plans for a single school must fit with the Common Objectives. These national goals are adopted by parliament and describe what students must learn in school subjects and topics at different grade levels. The Common Objectives are described in terms of competences, skills and knowledge. In Danish and history classes, a canon is established and specific subjects are mandatory. The ministry highlights some specific fields for school leaders’ governance. Among these are managing professional and interprofessional work; capacity and competence development; learning environments; strategy and change processes; well-being, motivation, and commitment; and knowledge and the results-based development of a school’s teaching.

Finland The Educational Act The Basic Education Act 628/1998 mentions headteachers twice and states that “each school providing education referred to in this Act shall have a headteacher responsible for operations.” (p. 38). The short statement includes “responsible for the operations” (p. 38) and thus opens it up to other regulations. From such a viewpoint, the institutional agent is giving considerable degrees of autonomy to individual and collective agents (Cribb & Gewirtz, 2007) on the local level. The provisions concerning the qualifications required of a headteacher are laid down elsewhere by government decree (Decree 986/1998) (Ärlestig et al., Chap. 6, in this volume). A closer account of principals’ responsibilities is laid down on the municipal level, the third order of educational leadership. As the municipalities in Finland are quite autonomous and the tasks of headteachers are regulated in their administrative statutes, the variation between the municipalities is considerable. Some headteachers are given the responsibility for administration, pupils’ healthcare, and leading personal, networking and cooperation and strategic work (Sydholm, 2022). This means that principals have a considerate amount of professional and individual autonomy (Frostenson, 2015) to run the school as they see fit; for

7  Principals’ Autonomy in the Nordic Countries: Governing Positions…

101

example, through creating a local curriculum and the school’s activity plan (Uljens & Nyman, 2015). However, this is usually a collective endeavour and done in cooperation with teachers as part of the professional collegial autonomy with municipal actors and other stakeholders.

The National Curriculum The national core curriculum mentions headteachers six times. Headteachers sign students’ grades, thus taking responsibility for the educational actions in the schools in question. The curriculum also mentions headteachers as those that, together with teachers, inform the parents about bullying or violence in the school. This would involve being in touch with both the parents of the bully and of the victim in such a case. Other authorities can share information about necessary health issues with a headteacher in order to aid with planning appropriate education for the pupils. The national curriculum mentions the importance of school culture and points out that pedagogical and shared leadership is preferred in order to meet the prerequisites for learning. Finally, the national curriculum states that a school culture is built on leading, organising, planning, implementing and evaluating work. Improving school culture is quite an abstract endeavour, meaning that principals have a considerate amount of autonomy and possibility to interpret and implement changes in the school. This requires a critical and reflective manner of thinking, meaning that principals have more of a non-affirmative approach than an affirmative one (Elo, 2021). Analysing the curriculum and the basic education act, it is clear that the main responsibility is placed on the local education provider, which is usually the municipality, the third order of educational leadership. Education providers are mentioned 166 times in the core curriculum concerning every possible aspect of school operations, ranging from pupils’ healthcare to their language education. Education providers are responsible for education on a local level, which is seen in the responsibilities and assignments of the education provider compared to those of the principal. In summary, principals seem to have considerable autonomy—even individual autonomy within the frames of law—to act according to these national steering documents. This also means that principals have an almost limitless mission, leading to a huge workload (Mäkiharju & Smeds-Nylund, Chap. 3, in this volume). The school providers, which in Finland mainly means the municipalities and are mentioned often in the core curriculum, have the possibility to frame the principal’s mission according to local circumstances and possibilities to arrange for sharing their work between other personnel.

102

A.-S. Smeds-Nylund et al.

Iceland The Educational Act The Icelandic Compulsory School Act from 2008 states that every compulsory school will be led by a headteacher, similar to the Finnish Act, but here mentioned 60 times. The headteacher assumes the responsibility for their school’s work vis-àvis the municipal council, including providing professional leadership. The council must appoint a schoolboard which oversees that schools operate in accordance with legislation and, among other things, makes proposals to the headteachers and/or the municipal council regarding improvements in schooling. A headteacher makes proposals to the school board regarding the administrative organization of the school in question and decides on their tasks, of which one should act as a deputy headteacher. The headteacher promotes cooperation between all members of the school community and calls teachers and staff meetings as often as needed. The headteacher is responsible for forming councils and associations operating within the school community. Each school should have a school council. The headteacher chairs it and it consists of teachers and other staff, pupil representatives and parent representatives. The school council will select an additional representative (or a parent) from the local community. Once a year, the headteacher will summon a joint meeting with the school council and the pupils’ association. The fourth order of educational leadership directs clearly how the second and third orders of educational leadership should function. In the case of a student’s inappropriate behaviour, the responsible teacher will handle the situation and have conversations with the student and their parents. If that does not help, the teacher will solicit the help of the headteacher and experts from among the school’s counsellors. If the problem remains unsolved, the headteacher may dismiss the pupil for a short or long time after having reported the situation to the parents and the schoolboard and ensuring that the suspended student receives suitable instruction. Headteachers are also responsible for creating and implementing school curricula in consultation with the teachers. This includes setting up a curriculum guide and an operating plan. The headteacher, with collegial professional autonomy, is in charge of the process of adapting the national core curriculum to the local circumstances and must ensure that students receive health services within the school in accordance with the laws.

The National Curriculum The Icelandic national curriculum uses the term headteacher for compulsory schools. Headteachers, mentioned 28 times in the curriculum text, are responsible for the quality of the activities in their schools. Each school will formulate a clear

7  Principals’ Autonomy in the Nordic Countries: Governing Positions…

103

policy in accordance with the relevant steering documents, such as the laws, the national curriculum guide and the municipality policies. Headteachers are responsible for implementing the school curriculum guide and the annual operation plan. Headteachers are responsible for cooperating with other educational levels. Home tutoring is possible if the municipality gives permission and if at least one parent is a certified compulsory schoolteacher. Headteachers are also involved in recognising and validating studies that take place outside of compulsory schools (i.e. for pupils with mother tongues other than Icelandic or for those that participate in sports). Icelandic headteachers lead together with the school board and have quite extensive responsibilities concerning both school buildings and children’s healthcare and learning results. Their professional leadership role is clearly stated in the legislation that also highlights their responsibility of engaging other school staff in their leadership actions. The headteacher has the option to involve assistant principals and other middle managers for support (Chap. 4, Sigurdadottir & Ragnarsdottir, 2023). The educational leadership seems to be a multifaceted process with Frostenson’s (2015) different aspects of autonomy involved. Although the municipal level seems autonomous, the Minister of Education intervenes directly at the school level since, for example, students do national tests in Icelandic and mathematics in grades four, seven and nine and in grade nine in English, too.

Norway The Educational Act The Norwegian Educational Act mentions principal ten times and states that each school is to have sound professional, educational and administrative management. Principals must lead the teaching in schools. They must be familiar with the day-to-­ day activities of their schools and endeavour to further develop these activities. Persons appointed as principals must have pedagogical qualifications and the necessary leadership abilities. Thus, Norway opens up for details in the principal’s second order of educational leadership early in the fourth order of educational leadership documents. Upon application, the ministry may make exceptions and allow other ways of organising a school’s management. If someone working at a school suspects or finds out that another person working at the school is violating a pupil by means of bullying, violence, discrimination or harassment, he or she must immediately inform the principal. The school principal must then inform the school owner. If a pupil does not have a good psychosocial school environment, the pupil or his or her parents may report the matter to the county governor after first having raised the matter with the principal. On the other hand, the municipality may lay down in the school rules that primary and lower secondary school pupils may be excluded from teaching if they are guilty of serious or repeated violations of the rules.

104

A.-S. Smeds-Nylund et al.

The local school authorities (elected politicians in the municipality), the third order of educational leadership, are responsible for ensuring that schools are competent. The school owner must have a system for providing teaching personnel, school leaders and personnel with special responsibilities in the school system and with opportunities for necessary competence enhancement. This must be done with a view to refreshing and extending their professional and educational knowledge and enabling them to remain informed and on par with developments in the school and in society. Norway has regulations for enhancing collegial professional autonomy as each primary and lower secondary school must have a coordinating committee with two representatives from the teaching staff, one from the other employees, two from the parents’ council, two from the pupils and two from the municipality. One of the municipality representatives must be the principal. The coordinating committee has the right to express its views on all matters relating to the school. Each primary and lower secondary school should have a school environment committee consisting of pupils, parent council members, employees, school management and representatives from the municipality. The school environment committee must be composed in such a way that the representatives of the pupils and parents together comprise a majority. The democratic purpose of education is an important part of the mission of educational professionals (Chap. 5, Gunnulfsen & Skedsmo, 2023).

The National Curriculum The Norwegian curriculum’s main target group comprises everyone with a responsibility for teaching and training: teachers, instructors, assistants, school leaders, school owners (local or county authorities), other professional groups in schools and training establishments. Here, the collegial educational leadership is repeated following the law. The curriculum mentions leaders eight times and leadership four times. Professional collaboration in schools requires good leadership. Good school leadership, in turn, requires legitimacy in professional leadership and a good understanding of the educational and other challenges that teachers and other members of staff are facing. Good leadership gives priority to developing collaboration and relationships in order to build trust in the organisation. School leaders are in charge of and facilitate the learning and development of pupils and teachers. They must lead educational and professional collaboration between the teachers and help develop a stable and positive environment where everyone is focused on performing at his or her best. It is the school leaders’ duty to ensure that all staff can make use of their strengths, experience and develop in their profession. Schools should be professional environments where teachers, leaders and other members of staff reflect on common values and assess and develop their practices. According to their different roles, the school owners (local or county authorities),

7  Principals’ Autonomy in the Nordic Countries: Governing Positions…

105

school leaders and teachers have the joint responsibility for laying the ground for good development in schools. Together, they must ensure that a school’s practices comply with the entire curriculum. All school staff must take an active part in the professional learning environment to develop a school. This means that everyone included must reflect on the value of choices and development and use research, experience-based knowledge and ethical assessments as the grounds on which to base targeted measures. Well-developed structures for collaboration, support and guidance between colleagues and across schools promote a sharing and learning culture. Multi-level systemic educational leadership seems obvious in Norway where the school owners, as well as the region, make decisions about certain important matters. A principal might remain autonomous with regards to leading a school, but is included in the steering documents among the other actors in the school. Features, such as committees with several different actors, enhance the local school’s democracy and allow local networks to be part of a school.

Sweden The Educational Act Principals are mentioned 142 times in the law, and their mission seems to be outlined quite clearly. The fourth order of educational leadership is obvious. A principal is to be called a principal, and the title is reserved for those working as such. The pedagogical work at a preschool or school unit will be led and coordinated by a principal, who must work for the development of education. Principals are hired by the school provider and need to have pedagogical insight into education based on experience. When a principal is hired, the school provider will look into whether the principal is taking part in a principal education program within four years. Each principal has an individual autonomy and gets to decide on the internal organisation of their unit and is responsible for allocating resources within the unit according to the children’s and students’ different conditions and needs. The principal is responsible for the whole school, but some specific demands are mentioned: the principal decides if political parties can be invited to take part in education as well as how to implement education for children with special needs, such as weak language skills and the need for extra support, after having discussed the matter with the parents in some cases. Principals are responsible for grading the pupils’ learning-results after having listened to teachers’ points of view. In the chapter entitled Quality and influence, the act says how a principal is responsible for ensuring that quality work at their unit is carried out in accordance with the law, thus emphasising the Swedish governance regime with, for instance, national student assessment and school inspections. The

106

A.-S. Smeds-Nylund et al.

principal is also responsible for ensuring that there is a forum for consultation and is obliged to provide information on such in accordance with the law. Children, students and guardians must be informed of the situation with regards to influence and consultation. They must also be told about the main features of the regulations that apply to education. Principals decide on the rules of order. They, along with teachers, are allowed to take immediate and temporary measures to ensure students’ security and peace of mind or to rectify a student’s disorderly conduct. If a pupil has disturbed the order on several occasions, the principal has to investigate the matter in consultation with the child’s caregivers. Under Measures against abusive treatment the law states that a teacher must report it to the principal if they become aware that a child or a student feels they have been subjected to abusive treatment in connection with school activities. A principal who receives such information must report this to the student’s home municipality so that the matter can be urgently investigated. Sweden has compulsory schooling. If a pupil does not fulfil this obligation and is found to be absent from school, the principal is obligated to take several measures (contact the caregivers, inform the municipality, etc.).

The National Curriculum The national curriculum mentions principals seven times and has a special chapter on the principal’s responsibilities, thus following the principle of the law to clearly state is the principal’s mission. As the pedagogical leader and head of the teachers and other staff in a school, a principal has the overall responsibility for ensuring that the activities as a whole are focused on the national goals. The principal is responsible for guaranteeing that their school’s results are followed up on and evaluated in relation to the national goals and knowledge requirements. The curriculum mentions how a principal should arrange for students to meet and work together regardless of gender. Active student influence is favoured. The principal is responsible for providing good quality teaching materials as well as other learning tools for a modern education, including school libraries and digital tools. The school environment must be safe, and the students should receive guidance and support according to their needs. The principal will develop forms of cooperation between school and home, and the parents will receive information about the school’s goals and different choice alternatives for courses of study. The principal will arrange for the teaching in different subject areas to be coordinated so that students have the opportunity to perceive larger areas of knowledge as a whole. The principal is in charge of cooperation with other educational levels, and they will ensure that their staff receives the skills development required for them to be able to perform their tasks professionally. They will also ensure that the staff is continuously given opportunities to share their knowledge and learn from each other in

7  Principals’ Autonomy in the Nordic Countries: Governing Positions…

107

order to develop their training. Finally, the principal is in charge of international contacts with other schools. In summary, Swedish principals seem to have clearly framed, individual autonomy within which to lead the work in their schools within a collegial professional autonomy. They are to obtain good results for their students and work with parents who are well informed about what goes on in the school, all of which is encompassed within the national goals and knowledge requirements. Each child in Sweden shall have the same opportunity to learn (Chap. 6, Ärlestig & Leo, 2023).

Discussion The Tasks and Issues from a Multi-level Perspective In this section, our aim is to derive some patterns from the descriptions of the principals’ positions in the steering chains, educational power hierarchies and bureaucracies from a multi-level perspective. What tasks and issues are described with regard to the principals in the documents? What degree of autonomy do the principals have as public educational leaders? School leaders’ missions and autonomy and the relationships with other actors in leading/managing compulsory primary schools vary across the countries, according to these central documents. They represent various public administrative traditions, which may explain some of the differences in their design and structure (i.e. some actors and issues are explicitly expressed while others are omitted), as the country chapters in this publication have shown.

A School Needs a Principal All the Nordic countries state in their national laws that a compulsory school must have a principal. The principals are public officials and, as such, answer to the law, the state and the municipalities, school owners or operators (i.e. the municipal authorities). The laws provide frames for the public power that the principals have as public servants. Constitutional rights and responsibilities, such as the provision of a democratic, safe school environment, legal security, and a child’s right to equal education, are visible. Some countries also handle management, leadership and development in the laws, but it is more common to discuss these in the national curricula. In particular, some laws mention that principals need to make decisions together with certain groups, such as in Iceland: Each compulsory school shall operate a School Council which shall serve as a forum for consultation between the headteacher and the school community regarding the operation of

108

A.-S. Smeds-Nylund et al.

the school. The School Council shall be invited to comment on any plans involving major changes to the operation and work of the school before a final decision is reached. (Article 8 School councils)

The Norwegian law mentions school committees, such as coordinating committees with representatives of the teaching staff, other employees, the parents’ council, the pupils and the municipality. One of the representatives of the municipality must be the headteacher of the school. The coordinating committee has the right to express its views on all matters relating to the school, but nothing is said about the power to decide on such matters. In Norway, schools must also, according to the law, have an environmental committee where the pupils and parents together comprise a majority. Some countries, such as Sweden, state in their laws not only that a school must have a principal but also how the principal should execute their mission. Other countries, such as Finland, leave the how to the municipal level and other laws. Iceland and Norway have a mixed perspective, with the ministry at the national level sometimes directly deciding about municipal school matters.

Quality and Testing We saw in the former chapters concerning the individual countries, that the third and fourth levels of educational leadership are strong in the sense that the frameworks for curricula are established in the ministries and parliaments and the local tasks for school leaders involve completing the curricula and implementing the expectations, followed by varying degrees of testing. All Nordic countries have some kind of national tests, but differ in how the tests are used. The former chapters reflected in detail on what kind of choices the different countries have made. On a transnational level, the fifth order of educational leadership, organisations like the EU, OECD, World Bank, United Nations (UN) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are active educational policy actors. Where the EU has legal and political influences in promoting policy at the national level, the OECD does not possess these instruments. Yet, through PISA testing, education policy is not only framed on a national level, but also with regard to global policy. Policymakers in national contexts draw on PISA and the reference system it has constructed (Rautalin et al., 2019), which are visible in the Nordic curricula. Even though there are cultural, political and economic differences, the Nordic curricula all emphasise similar competencies and so-called twenty-first century skills. However, as Rautalin et al. (2019) mention, it is difficult to establish how much impact the OECD has, as global and national changes might go hand in hand.

7  Principals’ Autonomy in the Nordic Countries: Governing Positions…

109

The Power over the Life of a Child and a Family Since the laws regulate how public power should be executed, all the countries take bullying and harassment seriously and mention early in their steering documents how principals are to act in case of problems. The same applies for when students may be excluded for a short or long period if they are not complying with the school’s rules. When pondering on the principal’s autonomy, it is important to understand the kind of power the school has over the child and the family. The children in the Nordic countries have the right and obligation to be a part of the educational systems. The principal’s public power is thus to be clearly written out in the laws, and the chapters and paragraphs considering harassment and bullying are therefore included in the table below. The principal’s place in the multilevel leadership is the same in all the countries: they report to the municipality. Finally, the curriculum process is included in the table below as an important process for the principal to lead (Table 7.2).

Discussion and Conclusion In this chapter, we have addressed the subject of educational leadership and autonomy by analysing official documents for constructing the missions of such leaders. It was our aim to investigate what degree of autonomy might be attributed to principals. By presenting a model emphasising how leadership is practiced at several levels, inside as well as outside schools, we were able to focus on relations at different levels. The concept of autonomy appears ambiguous and is hard to definitively determine. The different traditions in the public administrations in the Nordic countries also make it difficult to draw conclusions. Autonomy in practice is not just the ability to make independent decisions. It is possible that independence is more restricted in some relations while being more accessible in others. In some ways, it looks like historical relations inside schools are diminishing and principals are more detached from teachers or have primary connections other than them, meaning that the collegial professional autonomy (Frostenson, 2015) in a school is weakened. This could mean that decentralisation followed by accountability and potential inspections is actually a stronger affiliation to political authorities. Stronger leadership means strengthened forces for principals to implement educational policy and reforms. The principals then need to find their own individual autonomy in mediating between their own decision power inside the given contexts. A question also arises as to whether detailed tasks given to school principals help establish individual autonomy or not, such as the differences between Finnish and Swedish educational laws. Another potential development is collegiality between school leaders (i.e. if they establish an identity as a community of school leaders during a professionalisation process). The documents, focusing on formal responsibilities, cannot anticipate whether different kinds of autonomy such as individual or shared new collective autonomies will have impact.

Curriculum

The right and obligation of the child and the family Public power, harassment and bullying To whom do principals report?

National indicative curricula. The school leader and board make a recommendation for a local curriculum, and it is binding when approved by the municipal council.

National core curriculum with municipal applications within this curriculum

Municipality

Law section 9–A-6, 11

Norway Compulsory schooling between the ages of 6 and 16

National curriculum National curriculum with guide + school curriculum local translation and guide implementation

Municipality

Municipality

Municipality

Iceland Compulsory schooling, usually between the ages of 6 and 16

Law 36–37§ Law 14§ (see the laws in Table 7.1)

Finland Compulsory learning between the ages of 6 and 18

Denmark All children have the right and duty to receive education for 10 years, starting from the age of 6 Separate law for a safe school environment

Table 7.2  Relevant findings in the official steering document

Municipality For free schools, the municipality and school inspections (the state) National curriculum Local implementation

Law chapters 5–6

Sweden Compulsory schooling from the age of 6 for a period of 10 years

110 A.-S. Smeds-Nylund et al.

7  Principals’ Autonomy in the Nordic Countries: Governing Positions…

111

The Nordic municipalities seem to have quite strong autonomy concerning educational matters within the frames of the steering documents. At the same time, the municipalities are required to balance the financial support from the state with their local circumstances. All the Nordic countries allow for municipal translation and implementation of the curricula. In all the countries, the state also takes precedence over the municipal decision level (i.e. giving private schools the right to operate in municipalities, such as in Sweden and Norway). The homes and parents in the Nordic countries are to be well informed about what happens in the schools. The Icelandic curriculum states that each compulsory school should have its own parent council and the school principal is responsible for its foundation and should provide it with the necessary assistance. In some countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, parents can choose the type of school to which they send their children. Although the same option exists in Finland, Norway and Iceland, the sparsely populated countryside means that, in reality, the choice of a free school is impossible outside the cities. In Norway, such a choice is grade-based, and at the primary level, parents have to choose the school closest to home. All the countries have some kind of arrangement for parental involvement, but the opportunities for parents to execute power over the schools are restricted to political decision routes, discussion groups in schools or complaints sent to the authorities concerning individual pupils. If we end by reflecting on Levacic (p.187, 2002) and autonomy as “self-­ governing” and “functioning without the control of others,” then principals are not autonomous in the Nordic countries since they are functioning under the control of others and with others. On the other hand, if we follow Bøje et al. (2021) and the discussions about principals as professionals, they may be perceived as part of an emerging profession. They do not subscribe to the same characteristics as many other professions in relation to their clients and autonomy toward external authorities. They have distanced themselves from their former equals and have achieved more formal specific education. On the other hand, they can be perceived as civil servants in a political steering chain. Relations with other authorities in this steering chain are emphasised in the documents analysed in this chapter. Principals fulfil a public commission that mediates between the different levels of educational leadership in terms of governing schools and maintaining their professional autonomy. This chapter has provided insight into national laws and curricula and what degree of autonomy the principal is granted in them. The country chapters in this book give a rich description of how the central documents are interpreted in municipalities and schools, and it would be interesting to take the research further and possibly interview principals in the Nordic countries about how their missions are framed in the laws and curricula.

112

A.-S. Smeds-Nylund et al.

References Adamowski, S., Therriault, S.  B., & Cavanna, A.  P. (2007). The autonomy gap. In Barriers to effective school leadership. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Institute. Alava, J., Halttunen, L., & Risku, M. (2012). Muuttuva oppilaitos johtaminen. [Changing School Management]. Finnish National Board of Education. Atkinson, P.  A., & Coffey, A. (1997). Analysing documentary realities. In D.  Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 45–62). Sage. Benner, D. (1987). Allgemeine Pädagogik: Eine Systematisch-problem geschichtliche Einführung in die Grundstruktur pädagogischen Denkens und Handelns (Grundlagen texte Pädagogik) [General pedagogy: A systematic, problem-historical introduction to the basic structure of pedagogical thinking and acting]. Juventa. Bøje, J. D., Frederiksen, L. F., Ribers, B., & Wiedemann, F. (2021). Professionalisation of school leadership – Theoretical and analytical perspectives. Routledge. Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Cardno, C. (2018). Policy document analysis: A practical educational leadership tool and a qualitative research method. Educational Administration Theory and Practice, 24(4), 623–640. https://doi.org/10.14527/kuey.2018.016 Cribb, A., & Gewirtz, S. (2007). Unpacking autonomy and control in education: Some conceptual and normative groundwork for a comparative analysis. European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041221138626 Cruz Martins, S.  D., Capucha, L., & Sebastião, J. (2019). School autonomy, organization and performance in Europe. A comparative analysis for the period from 2000 to 2015. Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology (CIES). Dworkin, G. (2015). The nature of autonomy. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(2), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28479 Elo, J. (2021). Pedagogiskt ledarskap på utbildningsledarskapets olika nivåer [Pedagogical leadership at the different levels of educational leadership]. In M.  Uljens & A.-S.  SmedsNylund (Eds.), Pedagogiskt ledarskap och skolutveckling [Pedagogical leadership and school development] (pp. 121–140). Studentlitteratur. Frostenson, M. (2015). Three forms of professional autonomy: De-professionalisation of teachers in a new light. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2, 20–29. https://doi. org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28464 Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802412669 Hansen, D.  R., & Frederiksen, L.  F. (2017). The ‘crucified’ leader: Cynicism, fantasies and paradoxes in education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 36, 425–441. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11217-­016-­9539-­y Heikkinen, H.  L. T., Wilkinson, J., & Bristol, L. (2021). Three orientations for understanding educational autonomy: School principals’ voices from Australia, Finland, and Jamaica. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 53(3–4), 198–214. https://doi.org/10.108 0/00220620.2020.1849060 Karppinen, K., & Moe, H. (2011). What we talk about when we talk about document analysis. In N. Just & M. Puppis (Eds.), Trends in communication policy research: New theories, methods and subjects (pp. 1–20). Intellect. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning: A review of research for the learning from leadership project. The Wallace Foundation.

7  Principals’ Autonomy in the Nordic Countries: Governing Positions…

113

Levacic, R. (2002). Efficiency, equity and autonomy. In T. Bush & L. Bell (Eds.), The principles and practice of educational management (pp. 187–206). Paul Chapman Publishing. March, J. G. (1984). How we talk and how we act: Administrative theory and administrative life. In T. Sergiovanni & E. J. Carbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational cultures (pp. 18–35). University of Illinois Press. Ministry of Children and Education. (2021a). (Danish) Bekendtgørelse af lov om folkeskolen [Act on Primary and Lower Secondary Schools]. LBK nr 1887 af 01/10/2021. Ministry of Children and Education. (2021b). (Danish) Bekendtgørelse af lov om friskoler og private grundskoler [Act on Free and Private Schools]. LBK nr 1656 af 09/08/2021. https:// www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/1217 Ministry of Children and Education (Danish). (2020). Bekendtgørelse om formål, kompetencemål, færdigheds- og vidensområder og opmærksomhedspunkter for folkeskolens fag og emner (Fælles Mål). [Act on Purpose, Competence Goals, Skills and Knowledge Areas and Points of Attention for the Folkeskole’s Subjects and Topics (Common Objectives)]. BEK nr 1217 af 19/08/2020. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/1217 Ministry of Children and Education (Danish). (n.d.-a). Den daglige skoleledelse [Day-to-day school management]. https://www.uvm.dk/folkeskolen/organisering-­og-­ledelse/skolens-­ledelse/ den-­daglige-­skoleledelse Ministry of Children and Education (Danish). (n.d.-b). On national goals. https://www.uvm.dk/ folkeskolen/folkeskolens-­maal-­love-­og-­regler/nationale-­maal/om-­nationale-­maal Ministry of Education and Culture (Finnish). (n.d.). Basic education act 628/1998. https://okm.fi/ en/legislation-­general-­education Ministry of Education and Research (Norwegian). (n.d.). Core curriculum – Values and principles for primary and secondary education. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/verdier-­ og-­prinsipper-­for-­grunnopplaringen%2D%2D-­overordnet-­del-­av-­lareplanverket/id2570003/ Ministry of Education and Research (Norwegian). Education act. https://www.regjeringen.no/ en/dokumenter/education-­act/id213315/ Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (Icelandic). (2014). The Icelandic national curriculum guide for compulsory schools –With subject areas. https://www.government.is/library/01-Ministries/Ministry-of-Education/Curriculum/adalnrsk_greinask_ens_2014.pdf Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (Icelandic). (n.d.). Compulsory school act 2008 No 9119 June. https://www.government.is/media/menntamalaraduneyti-­media/media/law-­and-­ regulations/Compulsory-­School-­Act-­No.-­91-­2008.pdf Møller, J. (2016). Kvalifisering som skoleleder i en norsk kontekst: Et historisk tilbakeblikk og perspektiver på utdanning av skoleledere [Qualification as a school leader in a Norwegian context]. Acta Didactica Norge, 10(4), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.3871 National Agency for Education (Finnish). (2014). National core curriculum for basic education. https://www.oph.fi/sv/utbildning-­och-­examina/grunderna-­laroplanen-­den-­grundlaggande-­ utbildningen; https://www.oph.fi/ National Agency for Education (Swedish). (2019). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare. https://www.skolverket.se/publikationsserier/ styrdokument/2018/curriculum-­for-­the-­compulsory-­school-­preschool-­class-­and-­school-­age-­ educare-­revised-­2018?id=3984 National Agency for Education (Swedish). (n.d.). Skollag [Education act]. (2010:800). https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-­l agar/dokument/svensk-­f orfattningssamling/ skollag-­2010800_sfs-­2010-­800 Neeleman, A. (2019). The scope of school autonomy in practice: An empirically based classification of school interventions. Journal of Educational Change, 20, 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10833-­018-­9332-­5 Rautalin, M., Alasuutari, P., & Vento, E. (2019). Globalisation of education policies: Does PISA have an effect? Journal of Education Policy, 34(4), 500–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093 9.2018.1462890

114

A.-S. Smeds-Nylund et al.

Saarivirta, T., & Kumpulainen, K. (2016). School autonomy, leadership and student achievement: Reflections from Finland. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(7), 1268–1278. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-­10-­2015-­0146 Smeds-Nylund, A.-S., & Autio, P. (2021). Utbildningsledarskap som ett flernivåfenomen [Educational leadership as a multi-level phenomenon]. In A.-S.  Holappa, A.  Hyyryläinen, P.  Kola-Torvinen, S.  Korva, & A.-S.  Smeds-Nylund (Eds.), Kasvatus- ja koulutusalan johtaminen [Leadership in education and pedagogy] (pp. 28–45). PS-kustannus. Sydholm, I. (2022). Att vara rektor: De kommunala styrdokumentens innehåll formar uppdraget [Being a principal: The content of municipal steering documents forms the mission]. Åbo Akademi. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-­fe202201111859 Uljens, M. (2014). Pedagogik, Filosofi och Politik – Studier i Pedagogisk Handlingsteori [Pedagogy, philosophy and politics– Studies in pedagogical intervention theory]. Åbo Akademi. Uljens, M. (2018). Understanding educational leadership and curriculum reform: Beyond global economism and neo-conservative nationalism. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 2(2–3), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.2811 Uljens, M. (2021). Pedagogiskt ledarskap av pedagogisk verksamhet [Pedagogical leadership of pedagogical activities]. In M. Uljens & A.-S. Smeds-Nylund (Eds.), Pedagogiskt ledarskap och skolutveckling [Pedagogical leadership and school development] (pp. 37–99). Studentlitteratur. Uljens, M., & Nyman, C. (2015). En historisk rekonstruktion av pedagogiska ledarskapsdiskurser i Finland [A historical reconstruction of pedagogical leadership discourses in Finland]. In M.  Uljens (Ed.), Report 38/2015, Pedagogical leadership—Theory, research and school development (pp. 13–40). Åbo Akademi. Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Blackwell Publishers.

Chapter 8

Principals’ Roles in a Nordic Education Context: Shared Responsibility and Pedagogical Engagement Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen

and Ulf Leo

Abstract  The purpose of this paper is to examine and discuss the role of Nordic school principals in a cross-national context and to highlight the implications for the leadership roles in research and practice. The data builds on the country-wide reports in this book, the findings in the TALIS report (2018), and the perspectives of pedagogical leadership. The ways in which school leadership roles are perceived and dealt with are relatively similar across national school contexts. Nordic school principals seem to experience their practice with shared responsibilities, providing opportunities and educational engagement by acting as pedagogical leaders with a collective approach to their leadership role, even though there are differences in Nordic education policy contexts. Pedagogical leadership in a Nordic context means leadership tasks primarily related to curriculum, teaching activities, and the core values of schooling. Power, trust, control in the form of governance and leadership in the Nordic countries needs high attention. Keywords  Pedagogical leadership · TALIS · Shared responsibility · Nordic education policy · Trust · Control

A. E. Gunnulfsen (*) Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] U. Leo Centre for Principal Development, Department of Political Science, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. E. Gunnulfsen et al. (eds.), Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries, Educational Governance Research 21, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4_8

115

116

A. E. Gunnulfsen and U. Leo

Introduction Leadership responsibilities at the school level are currently more vital than ever. Studies have shown that the role of school principals has become less predictable and more unsettled during the last 10–15 years, with a strong focus on managerial practice, policy reform demands, and external accountability. According to Uljens et al. (2013), understanding leadership as primus inter pares (a first among equals), was often recognized by principals as a romanticized, old-fashioned view of leadership in schools. Nordic school leaders today, like their colleagues in other countries, have taken on many administrative and managerial tasks, and their superiors, teachers, and the parents expect more of school leaders and their leadership roles than ever before (Moos et al., 2020; Gunnulfsen & Møller, 2021). These perspectives on the changing roles of school leadership in Nordic education contexts reveal a need for additional knowledge about Nordic school leadership. Building on the national reports in this book, the findings in the TALIS report (2018), and the perspectives of pedagogical leadership, the purpose of this paper is to examine and discuss the role of Nordic school principals in a cross-national context and to highlight the implications for leadership roles in research and practice. According to the TALIS report of 2018, school principals in all Nordic countries spend a relatively large part of their working time on administrative tasks rather than on tasks related to direct pedagogical activities. When asked the question, “What percentage do you think you have spent as a principal at your school on the following tasks during a school year?” principals in Nordic countries answered that they spent between 46% and 62% of their time on managerial tasks. Managerial tasks include pedagogical management tasks and meetings related to strategic planning, management, and the control of activities such as the preparation of competence development plans and personnel matters such as the employment of staff. In contrast to the findings on managerial tasks, the results related to curriculum and teaching activities equated to 11% and 14% of their time spent, with the Norwegian principals at the lowest percent of time use. The picture is somewhat nuanced, in that a large proportion of principals make sure that the teachers feel responsible for the students’ learning results. Similarly, a fairly large proportion state that they support collaboration between teachers aiming to develop new teaching practices and that collaboration with teachers is imperative to solve the problems of classroom noise and student disturbance (TALIS, 2018). Extended international research on the relationship between leadership values, practices, broader social and school-specific conditions, and student outcomes in different countries has been conducted (Day & Gurr, 2014; Moos et  al., 2011). Concerns that schools gradually will lack energic and positively engaged pedagogical leaders with leadership tasks related to curriculum, teaching activities, and the core values of schooling are growing internationally and, in the Nordic countries, job turn-over and low recruitment for school principals are similarly a cause for concern. The ripple effects of burnout due to increased management tasks is a central issue, since previous research has shown that there is a clear connection between

8  Principals’ Roles in a Nordic Education Context: Shared Responsibility…

117

school leadership and school quality and, thus, students’ learning and results (Bjørnset & Takvam Kindt, 2019). It is evident that school principals, as with any other member of a work force, need proper organizational preconditions, motivation, and good health in order to perform (Persson et al., 2021). According to Moos et al. (2020), it is apparent that the governments in the Nordic countries interpret and make use of global advice regarding school purposes and leadership roles in different ways, while remaining to some degree “Nordic” at their core. Moos et al. (2020, p. 246) outlined a picture of contrasting discourses of democratic bildung and outcome-orientation in education and education research. They demonstrated how such discourses are reflected in development programs for school leaders and emphasized the need for critical research in the area of school leadership in Nordic countries. In consideration of this, and when understanding the broader perspective on the Nordic educational system and the policy context that has recently undergone changes, it seems that excessive external expectations related to school principals may be a contributing factor to the school leaders’ health and performance (Leo et al., 2020). The purpose of the study was to examine and discuss the role of Nordic school principals in a cross-national context and to highlight the implications for the leadership roles in research and practice. The following research questions guided the study: 1. How can shared responsibility and pedagogical engagement be identified in the principals’ role from a Nordic perspective? 2. What are the implications for the research and practice of pedagogical leadership in a Nordic education policy context? There are many similarities between the principals’ roles in a national policy context within a Nordic perspective. This chapter additionally identifies some differences and contrasts. This paper is positioned in the field of educational leadership and governance.

Methodology This study comprised the analysis of the results from the TALIS report of 2018, the analysis of the national reports following this book, and a conceptual framework of pedagogical leadership (Törnsén & Ärlestig, 2014; Leo, 2015; Møller et al., 2005). From an analytical approach, we undertook separate deductive thematic analyses of the TALIS data (Braun & Clarke, 2019). The deductive thematic analysis required us to read and re-read the data to manually generate a shared understanding of the overarching themes and patterns of meaning. The initial themes of, for example, pedagogical leadership, wellbeing, and responsibility were generated by the two researchers separately after having agreed on a digital direction for the data search due to the COVID restrictions on physical collaboration and the distance between the researchers geographically. The researchers then negotiated and refined a final

118

A. E. Gunnulfsen and U. Leo

set of themes. The main analysis reported within this chapter was guided by the final deductively generated themes of shared responsibility and pedagogical engagement. The reports in the country chapters about similar issues were examined through the primary analytical lens of the TALIS report, identifying possible shared responsibilities and pedagogical engagement. The following discussion is structured around these two topics supported by the theoretical framework.

Conceptual Framework In this chapter we make use of the perspectives of pedagogical leadership as an analytical framework in the examination and discussion of the Nordic school principals’ shared responsibility and pedagogical engagement.

Pedagogical Leadership Pedagogical leadership is a concept used in relation to school development, especially in the Nordic countries (Leo, 2015; Møller et al., 2005). One point of departure in this chapter is that the principal’s most important task is to lead pedagogical work related to learning and development and to guide and inspire teachers to develop schools in alignment with the society’s democratization process. This includes that individual teachers have the right to design the teaching in their classroom. This right has, of course, created challenges for both principals and teachers and there is still an ongoing debate concerning how pedagogical leadership is defined. Most definitions are linked to both transformational and instructional leadership. In school leadership research, the terms “transformational leadership” and “instructional leadership” are used in the context of research on school improvement and successful school principals. Transformational leadership focuses on schools’ development, which means, for example, building a vision for the school, setting goals, providing intellectual stimulation and individual support, showing concrete examples of good performance, having high expectations, creating a culture of school improvement, and incorporating everybody’s influences into decisions regarding the school (Leithwood et  al., 2002). Instructional leadership shares many similarities with transformational leadership, but with a sharper focus on what happens in the classroom. The leader works closely with teachers and students to discuss and evaluate teaching and ensures that instructional time is protected and that a favorable climate for learning exists (Hallinger, 2005). Successful principals use both “transformational” and “instructional leadership,” and Day and Leithwood (2007) indicate four domains of leadership practices for these principals, as identified in the International Successful School Principalship Project: defining the vision, values, and direction; improving conditions for teaching and learning; restructuring the organization and redesigning roles and responsibilities;

8  Principals’ Roles in a Nordic Education Context: Shared Responsibility…

119

and enhancing teaching and learning. Recently, a fifth dimension was added (Leithwood, 2021), securing accountability, which includes building staff members’ sense of internal accountability and meeting the demands for external accountability. Leithwood (2021, p. 3) also included practices not typically part of an integrated leadership model. These are practices associated with “equity-oriented” or “culturally-responsive” leadership. These additional practices include, for example, building productive relationships with families, enhancing the school’s connection with its wider community, collaborative decision making, the distribution of leadership among the school’s stakeholders, staffing the instructional program, and the alignment of resource allocation with the schools’ goals. Regarding the notion of accountability and responsibility, the cultural and moral dimensions of professionalism are less apparent in both the American and the European context (Solbrekke & Englund, 2011). Perspectives developed in the Anglo-American context have also gained relevance as an analytical backdrop for the current conditions of professional responsibility in more socially democratic contexts, such as those of Norway and Sweden, even though the social democratic welfare system still can be regarded as a common denominator. The principals’ role in school improvement can be linked to a type of pedagogical leadership that is often described from a holistic point of view. The holistic understanding of pedagogical leadership consists of a range of leadership and development processes, including professional responsibility built on the cultural and moral purpose of education (Törnsén & Ärlestig, 2014; Møller et al., 2005; Leo, 2015). Törnsén and Ärlestig (2014) constructed a model for pedagogical leadership partly based on the factors of successful principals identified in the International Successful School Principalship Project (Day & Leithwood, 2007). They argued that pedagogical leadership can be summarized in three main parts: creating conditions for learning and teaching; leading learning, and teaching; and linking the everyday work of teaching and learning with organizational goals and results. The three elements are linked to the management of goals, processes, and results. The elements interact with each other and form a whole for the leadership. Törnsén and Ärlestig (2014) give concrete examples of what pedagogical leadership can include. Goal orientation is about pedagogical leaders creating conditions for learning and teaching with a starting point in the school’s mission and goals for students’ learning. In this model, the principal has special goals and a vision for the school and high expectations of students and teachers, and they work to develop the school’s internal organization. Process orientation means that pedagogical leaders lead learning and teaching through classroom observations, supervision and feedback, or discussions about teaching methods, didactics, and relationships. Result orientation means that the pedagogical leader connects the school and the pupils’ results with the daily tasks of learning and teaching. Principals need to analyze the results, investigate what explains the results, and work on improvement. With these perspectives on pedagogical leadership, in the next section we will present and discuss the findings from national reports and the results in TALIS, 2018 on how shared responsibility and pedagogical engagement can be identified in the principals’ role from a Nordic perspective. We will also discuss the implications

120

A. E. Gunnulfsen and U. Leo

for research and practice regarding pedagogical leadership in a Nordic education policy context.

Results, Analysis, and Discussion In this section we will present the results from the Nordic education context in TALIS 2018 highlighting the perspectives of pedagogical leadership. First, we will present and analyze the findings regarding shared responsibilities, followed by the findings regarding the school principals’ role. Finally, we will present the findings regarding the school principals’ role and pedagogical engagement, including engagement with parents and the surrounding society.

School Principals’ Role and Shared Responsibilities School leadership, as enacted by principals, is an important factor influencing teachers’ development and practices. Together with governance, school leadership has been identified as a key factor of professionalism (Guerriero, 2017). Identifying the core dimension of school leadership has become an important issue in national educational contexts across the world. In Table 8.1 we have chosen two statements from the TALIS report (2018) that we believe represent some of the essence of the dimensions of school leadership regarding sharing responsibilities and making important decisions. As shown in Table  8.1, the percentage of Nordic lower secondary school principals who either agree or strongly agree that their school has a culture of shared responsibility for school issues is at the same level or above the TALIS average

Table 8.1  Percentage of lower secondary school principals who “agree” or “strongly agree” with the following statements (TALIS table II.5.9)

Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden OECD average-30

This school has a culture of shared responsibility for school issues % 95.6 93.5 87.0 86.2 90.5 87.5

I make the important decisions on my own % 25.6 40.6 68.5 6.8 13.4 29.3

EU total-23 TALIS average-47

84.4 88.7

22.0 29.3

8  Principals’ Roles in a Nordic Education Context: Shared Responsibility…

121

(TALIS, 2018). On one hand, these results might be explained with the perception that the “social trustee” and shared responsibility (Solbrekke & Englund, 2011) still seem to be at the core among Nordic school principals at a time when managerial thinking has progressively become part of the Nordic education context. On the other hand, the perspective of sharing responsibilities might be represented in the low percentage of school principals in Norway and Sweden regarding the results that reported on “making important decisions on their own.” This is not to say that a high score on school leaders’ making important decisions by themselves is similar to a lack of responsibility-sharing. The opposite results from Iceland and Finland might just as well mean that the school principals make the final decisions after having had plenary discussions with their teacher colleagues or that important decisions might also be of a type that is not regarded within a pedagogical perspective that directly influences the teachers’ working conditions, motivations, or trust. Also, school principals in all Nordic countries spend a relatively large part of their working time on administrative tasks and the Norwegian principals were among the highest percentage regarding managerial tasks, but the low score regarding “making important decisions on their own” might indicate that the Norwegian school principals perceive managerial tasks as unimportant. The decision-making regarding important tasks might also represent an accountability perspective where the principal is, first and foremost, the one who legally and pedagogically is responsible for the school’s practice. The results regarding the relatively high score of principals in Iceland and Finland making decisions on their own can also be understood in opposition to shared leadership and responsibilities and imply a leadership role closer to the managerial accountability perspective with a stronger focus on hierarchy and responsibility to superiors. It must be considered that there could be different perceptions of what sharing responsibility means to each respondent and that national and local cultural and contextual factors have implications for the principals’ reports. For example, in certain contexts and situations, being a principal can be perceived as being the person with the role “in front,” taking the responsibility alone and shielding the teachers from the burden of certain tasks. One example of such tasks might be the responsibility of reporting on and defending school results and student test results to the local or national authorities. Reporting on and defending a school’s student results is, obviously, a “school issue,” but is still a responsibility understood to be a part of the principal’s role. The principal needs to represent the school with a “public face” and the public identity of a school principal is multifaceted and subjectively constructed (Møller, 2012). Balancing all the demands might result in some actions needing to be individually addressed or incompatible with responsibility-sharing. Pedagogical issues, such as discussing the values and purpose of schooling and/ or setting the direction for teaching and assessment practices, may just as well be a matter of what the school principals had in mind when responding to the statements. In Table 8.1, it is interesting that Norway and Iceland are below the TALIS average, while Sweden, Denmark, and Finland report significantly higher. The school principals in Denmark are the at top of the percentage score, with 95.5% stating that their school has a culture of shared responsibility for school issues. The results regarding

122

A. E. Gunnulfsen and U. Leo

shared responsibilities get even more interesting when taken together with the principals’ responses to the second statement in Table 8.1: “I make important decisions on my own.” Again, it is a matter of definition to understand what it means to make important decisions and what it means to make them “on your own.” The results vary between the Norwegian principals’, of whom 6.8% agreed or strongly agreed that they make the important decisions on their own, and the Icelandic principals, of whom 68.5% agreed or strongly agreed that they make the important decisions on their own. Moreover, 13.4% of the Swedish school leaders reported that they make important decisions on their own, while the rest of the principals in the Nordic countries were either around or slightly above the TALIS-average of 29.3%. When a school principal reports that he/she doesn’t make important decisions individually, this might, on the one hand, mean that he/she values shared responsibility for important school issues. This means that he/she chooses not to play the role of a “heroic” leader, but, instead, seeks a collective, distributed understanding of leadership in the local school. On the other hand, when a school principal reports that he/she does make important decisions on his/her own, this might mean that she takes the individual responsibility and accountability for important issues to shield the teachers from work overload and stressful accountability attention. Compared to many other countries in the Western world, Norway and the other Nordic countries have been slow to introduce policies for monitoring student performance and the accompanying accountability of school actors to boost improvement. According to Møller et  al. (2005), the Norwegian education context differs from what can be understood as high-stake accountability contexts in, for example, the UK and the US.  We would add most Nordic countries to this statement. From the national reports, we find that, in the Norwegian and Icelandic context, virtually nothing is at stake if schools do not perform as expected by the authorities. Despite the low stakes, the publicity in the media surrounding results may cause schools and school professionals to be shamed and blamed if they do not conform (Elstad, 2009; Camphuijsen & Levatino, 2021). The threat of being publicly shamed may result in a leadership practice where the school principals try to avoid media attention regarding student results and school principals may make individual decisions “on their own” when responding in the media or in meetings with the local authorities to shield the teachers from the potential negative attention and experiences. From the national reports, we have gained knowledge that in the Icelandic education context, the school principals in compulsory schools are intended to act as professional leaders. Still, their role as administrators is evident at all local school levels. It is not clear in their legal act for compulsory education that their principals are meant to follow the legislative framework that is explicitly included in the acts for the other school levels. School leaders and teachers have almost complete autonomy in professional development in Iceland, which largely removes professional development from the school principals’ authority. Seen in connection to the results in Table  8.1, it is perhaps easy to understand that 97.0% of the Icelandic school principals report that their school has a culture of shared responsibility for school issues. Shared responsibility is actually a part of the complete autonomy of teacher professionalism and out of the school principal’s authority. However, it is somewhat

8  Principals’ Roles in a Nordic Education Context: Shared Responsibility…

123

interesting that 68.5% of the Icelandic school principals do make important decisions on their own, but it is difficult to interpret the results as there is no clear definition of what important questions might be. In the Norwegian context, the national report illuminates a need for school principals to engage more directly in the core tasks of the schools, for instance, by supporting teachers’ planning of teaching and providing feedback on teachers’ work (Helstad & Møller, 2013). To support principals, there is a recent trend in both Norway and Sweden to establish mid-level leaders and to delegate specific tasks and responsibilities to teachers (Abrahamsen & Aas, 2016; Abrahamsen, 2018; Norqvist & Ärlestig, 2021). In the Danish education context as many as 95.6% of the school principals reported that they either agreed or strongly agreed that their schools have a culture of shared responsibility for school issues. According to Krejsler and Moos (2021), the Danish school and education policy is increasingly governed by transnational education policy collaborations. To an increasingly extent, consensus is built on standards and best practices that involve performance indicators and international comparisons. Although Denmark claims a uniqueness of its school and education system, comparisons such as the PISA surveys make participating countries either winners or losers in rankings (Krejsler & Moos, 2021). Consequently, political expectations for school leaders have been accentuating the governance aspect of leadership, meaning leaders now set the goals, monitor the practices, and measure the outcomes of teacher practices in classrooms (Moos et al., 2020). Following the analysis from the Danish country chapter in this book, the Danish school principals have the primary responsibility for the development of school practices, ensuring students’ academic achievement and well-being. Simultaneously, there is an expectation regarding collaborative leadership practices. Danish school principals are expected to demonstrate their ability to take individual action regarding their responsibilities and what they consider as important, but that does not require collective decisions. The increasing governing aspects of school principals’ individual task to monitor and measure the outcomes of teacher practices stand in contrast with the TALIS-findings that almost every Danish principal in the survey agreed that their school had a culture of shared responsibility. The findings show that Danish education leadership and policy context to some degree confirms the picture of contrasting discourses of democratic bildung (shared responsibilities) and outcome-­ orientation, even when still being “Nordic” at their core (Moos et al. 2020, p. 246). In Sweden, the national report illuminates that principals in larger municipalities work in a hierarchical system with layers of leadership between the principal and the superintendent. This sometimes leads to tensions because of different interpretations and priorities on each hierarchical level (Leo et al., 2020; Ärlestig & Johansson, 2020). Principals increasingly feel distanced from the decisions made in the chain from local politicians to superintendents to the managers for each school type, and, finally, to the principals (Leo et al., 2020). The growing number of leaders in the chain of command complicates decision-making and discussion on responsibility and accountability. The growing number of leaders in the chain also means a change in the principals’ role and work. Interestingly, the results in Table  8.1 show that 90.5% of the school principals in the Swedish context agree or strongly agree that

124

A. E. Gunnulfsen and U. Leo

their school has a culture of shared responsibility for school issues, and only 13.4% report that they make important decisions on their own. Despite the hierarchical system demand in the Swedish education context, it seems that the school principals still hold their leadership roles as a significantly collective organizational practice. In Finland, the school principals are required to teach 4–20 h weekly (Uljens & Nyman, 2015). The school principals’ educational leadership of teachers’ pedagogical work, that is, teaching, involves insights in the theory of teaching in general, in order to be able to understand and analyze those principles of teaching that are included in the national curricular guidelines. Further, principals’ need to understand how teachers’ professional development occurs and formulate ideas of how this development can be supported. Thus, one of the principals’ objectives is to create and ensure a supportive and positive working environment for teachers (Saarivirta & Kumpulainen, 2016). In the national reports there is a report regarding the central idea that a school culture dominated by trust. However, the responsibilities and the workload are increasing, and there are rarely enough administrative personnel to support the work of the principal. The increased scope of assignments is not something potential successors perceive as an attractive line of work. Taking the results in Table 8.1, the need to understand how teacher professional development occurs can be explained by the collective statement that 93.5% of the Finnish school principals reported that their schools have a culture of shared responsibility for school issues. Teachers are viewed as competent and professional actors and accountability is based on the proficiency of teachers and is displayed through teachers’ self-­ evaluation (Uljens & Nyman, 2015). This can be seen as one of the central keys for understanding the Finnish success in the PISA rankings (Sahlberg, 2016). A collective principals’ role was, however, less obvious in the Table 8.1 results, showing that 40.6% of the school principals in the Finnish education context reported that they made important decisions on their own. Especially interesting is the relatively high percentage of school principals’ individual decision-making, when compared to the knowledge that the intensification of the principal’s role as a pedagogical leader is not easy to square with the autonomous status of teachers, especially as the relationship between teachers and principals is rarely hierarchical (Risku & Pulkkinen, 2016; Hargreaves et al., 2007.) Seen together, the responses to the statements in Table  8.1 illuminate the dilemmas of school leadership as both individual and collective practices, where the perspectives of accountability and autonomy define the relationship of the responsibilities between different actors at the local school level. Having a good leadership network is important. School principals who work in small schools often have few fellow leaders to work with and experience a great amount of individual responsibility. Also, this has a connection to organizational trust, which will be further discussed in the next chapter focusing on school principals’ roles and the issue of autonomy.

8  Principals’ Roles in a Nordic Education Context: Shared Responsibility…

125

 chool Principals’ Role in Providing Opportunities S for Development Trust is considered a keystone of leadership in order to establish successful interpersonal relations and successful organizations (Leo et al., 2020; Møller 2009). Consequently, interpersonal relations are vital to influence the goal orientation of pedagogical leaders, and creating conditions for learning and teaching with a starting point in the schools’ mission and goals for students’ learning (Törnsén & Ärlestig, 2014). In Table 8.2 we examine support and influence as factors for providing opportunities for development and pedagogical engagement in the role of Nordic school principals. A consistently high percentage of the Nordic school principals reported that they are satisfied with the support that they receive from the school staff. It is, however, important to take into consideration that the concept of the validation of staff might be different among the five local contexts. Based on the various national cultural school contexts, the staff can, for example, be understood as the teachers, the economy managers, the office staff, or the maintenance staff. The results are above or equivalent to the TALIS average, except for those from Finland. A percentage of 87.6 of the Finnish school principals reported that they are satisfied with the support from the staff; the TALIS average is 92.3%. In Norway and Denmark, about 95% of the school principals reported that they are satisfied with the support from the staff in school. It seems that the Finnish school principals might be in a situation in which they have more autonomy and freedom in their practices, but also in which they feel that they would profit from receiving more support from the staff. School principals’ emphasis on providing teachers with opportunities for development has been reflected in research (Donaldson, 2013). In the following Table 8.2  ™Principals’ support™. Results based on responses of lower secondary principals (TALIS Table II.5.25)

Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden OECD average-30 EU total-23 TALIS average-47

Percentage of principals who “agree” or “strongly agree” with the following statements I am satisfied with the support I cannot influence that I receive from the staff in I need more support decisions that are this school from authoritiesa important for my work % % % 95.1 29.5 17.4 87.6 45.4 31.6 90.3 72.0 51.1 95.5 46.4 14.6 90.0 51.2 41.9 91.2 66.5 32.7 90.9 92.3

70.8 71.2

36.9 34.2

126

A. E. Gunnulfsen and U. Leo

section we have chosen two issues with regard to Nordic school principals’ provision of opportunities for teacher development, observation of instruction in the classroom, and provision of feedback to teachers. According to Glickman (2002), one way of garnering first-hand information about the quality of teaching in the classrooms is by observation, and observation is one way for school leaders to develop and control teaching quality. According to the results in Table 8.2, there is a great variation between principals in the Nordic countries, with 26.5% of the principals in Sweden compared to 7% of the Norwegian principals reporting on observing instruction in the classrooms. These differences might be explained in the different methods for controlling or surveilling teacher practices in schools to obtain knowledge about or gain a sense of the quality of the teaching and learning practices in the school organizations. The differences might also be related to the school principals’ notion of the different ways to gain control and trust, which is considered a keystone to establishing interpersonal relations and successful organizations (Leo et al., 2020; Møller, 2009). Many aspects of teacher practices can be observed and discussed by school leaders, for example, teacher plans and behaviors, teacher-student interactions, and teaching demonstrations (Glickman, 2002). The process for school principals to decide what to look for is just as important as the communicating feedback and suggestions for further improvement. What is essential is that both parties understand what the purpose of the observation is (Glickman, 2002). Regarding the increasing trend for accountability, control, and observation to be tools for quality insurance and development, it is vital for school leaders in the Nordic context to be engaged in the legitimation and explanation of why observation is needed for working with quality development in schools. There are, undeniably, some power structures and a sense of control that the teachers will perceive as threats to their own autonomy. In Finland and Norway, there are fewer school principals who report on observing instruction in the classrooms, however, a larger percentage of them give feedback to the teachers. The results from Finland and Norway might demonstrate the practice of feedback without observing as representing a context of strong teaching and trust, where the principals still have close contact with the teachers. In the national reports, there is a challenge in the Finnish context regarding developing the school and implementing so-called twenty-first century skills, where a contradiction is reported between collaboration and autonomy. Teachers in Finland enjoy a high degree of individual autonomy and prefer to work individually, but the kind of autonomy a principal has in leading a school is determined by the local authorities. In the national report from Norway, there are statements that indicate that, although professional autonomy was still emphasized in the curriculum reform from 2006, the Knowledge Promotion (K06), there was a shift in how trust in education was communicated. Trust in the profession itself was replaced by trust in the results. Consequently, student results count as a point of departure to build school leadership trust and autonomy in the Norwegian education context. In Iceland and Denmark, the results show that there is little feedback from principals to teachers. The highest percentage is represented by the school principals in Sweden, where 26.6% reported on observing classroom instruction and 37.9%

8  Principals’ Roles in a Nordic Education Context: Shared Responsibility…

127

reported on providing feedback to teachers based on observation. All the results from the Nordic school principals are significantly lower than the TALIS average, where 51.7% of the school principals in the 47 countries reported on conducting observation of the instruction in classroom and 58.5% reported on providing feedback based on the observations. These results might illustrate a higher degree of trust in the profession, teacher autonomy, and collaborative and relational leadership roles. The Finnish education policy context is known for its culture of trust. However, national evaluations do exist. These evaluations are mainly conducted by the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC). From the schools’ perspective, the evaluations are not regular, as they are sample-based. It is a so-called enhancement-led evaluation and focuses on the self-evaluation of schools and education providers. The tests are not summative, public, or standardized, thus avoiding the disadvantages associated with test-based accountability (Hautamäki & Kupiainen, 2014). The high percentage of providing feedback in a Finnish school context might be explained by the fact that school principals base their observations and feedback on factors other than classroom observations: for example, dialogue and trust in the relationship between teachers and principals that is rarely hierarchical. To analyse the results in Table 8.3, it is important to consider the knowledge that the school principal role in Norway has gone from being “a galleon figure to a work overloaded all-rounder” (Møller, 2012, p. 453). Administrative and short-term work tasks are forced to the fore at the expense of the pedagogical tasks. Over the last 20 years, surveys among school principals have reported on the increasing administrative tasks and tensions related to the time needed to prioritize development work (Møller et al., 2005; Seland et al., 2012). Classroom observation simply takes too much time. However, leadership research in the Norwegian education context emphasizes the need for school principals to engage more directly in the core tasks of the schools, for instance, by supporting teachers’ planning of teaching and providing feedback on teachers’ work (Helstad & Møller, 2013). Providing feedback as

Table 8.3  Percentage of principals who have “often” or “very often” engaged in the following activities in their schools in the 12 months prior to the survey

Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden OECD average-30 EU total-23 TALIS average-47

Observing instruction in the classroom % 17.9 9.5 14.0 7.2 26.5 40.9 39.6 51.7

Providing feedback to teachers based on principal’s observations % 17.4 38.4 19.4 25.4 37.9 50.1 51.5 58.5

128

A. E. Gunnulfsen and U. Leo

a support of teaching seems, however, to be conducted without a main emphasis on observing instruction practices in the classroom. In the Icelandic context, the national reports elucidate that upper secondary school leaders complain about a strict framework for the professional development of teachers when implementing change (Ragnarsdóttir, 2018). The strict framework prevents the school principals from developing the schools they lead, as they cannot fully organize the core activities of school development and the professional development of teachers. Several studies show that school leaders’ work is busy and fragmented, that they tend to be overwhelmed with administrative tasks, and, as a result, neglect activities related to professional and educational leadership. Hence, providing feedback as a support of teaching seems, with regard to the Icelandic results in Table 8.2, to be conducted without a main emphasis on observing instruction practices in the classroom. In the national reports, we identified that the Swedish principals have much room to navigate. They have the ability to recruit their own personnel and decide on the length of teachers’ working days and in-service training. Traditionally, they are expected to be involved in everyday decisions and to strive to work more closely to classrooms (Ärlestig et al., 2016). The deteriorated results raised expectations from national bodies, agencies, and actors on the municipal level regarding increased accountability for principals and local schools (Ärlestig et al., 2016). Accountability for learning outcomes and a focus on pedagogical leadership at the school level seems to be more important than ever in Sweden. A dominant focus is to raise student results. Principals expend great effort to develop good routines for quality assurance. Analyzing results and connecting those results to teaching and learning has been a priority in most schools and municipalities. The structure and methods have changed over time and, today, rising rates of reported self-evaluation is a regular goal in principals’ work. This demand for more self-evaluation might be an explanation for the high percentage of Swedish school principals reporting in Table 8.3 on both observing teacher instruction in classrooms and providing feedback based on the observation. Regarding the Danish education context, the results in Table 8.3 are quite similar to those of the Icelandic school principals. However, in the national report from the Danish context, it is reported that the pathway to improvements in students’ results goes through, at least partly, the individual principal’s ability to influence the practice of the professional teachers, which is a dominating understanding also displayed in the Danish discursive policy constructions. In the Danish policy constructions, the reforms create tensions that will affect school leaders’ tasks and roles between autonomy and accountability within a single school. School leaders are positioned in a strategic room for leadership formed by the marketized, public organisation (see country chapter page xxx). The test-based accountability goals are in the policy text discursively supported by purposefully selected educational research related to the school-effectiveness tradition (Hallinger, 2005). Still, the test-based accountability system does not seem to have influenced the relatively low percentage of observation of classroom practices and providing feedback to the teachers based on the observations.

8  Principals’ Roles in a Nordic Education Context: Shared Responsibility…

129

Concluding remarks In this section we will sum up the analysis and discussion with the aim to reflect on the implications for enhancing practices regarding pedagogical leadership in the Nordic education context and for searching for what we can learn from this thematic chapter.

 imilarities and Differences in the Nordic School S Leadership Role According to Moos et al. (2020), it is apparent that the governments in the Nordic countries interpret and make use of global advice in different ways, while remaining, to some degree, Nordic at their core. A common issue is the transnational influence on school policies together with the relations between state, private sector, and marketplace influences on education, professionals, and students. Our discussion, especially in the autonomy and shared responsibility categories, but also in the policy category, reveal combinations of the interpretations of the relationships between agencies and authorities and the school principals’ experiences when they enact policy (Ball et al., 2011). Moos et al. (2020) stated that school leaders in the Nordic education context seem to be less in agreement or compliant than assumed and appear to be more interested in the micro-processes in schools than anticipated. From our study, we argue that the role and practice of school principals across the Nordic countries is a complex phenomenon and that the differences seem just as striking as the similarities. For example, the similarities are prominent considering the recognition of the main purpose of schooling including equity and free education for all children. We find the differences most striking in the country chapters, especially regarding education policy contexts and increasing focus on result-based practices. However, according to TALIS 2018 and the national country chapters in this book, Nordic school principals seem to experience their practice with shared responsibilities, autonomy, and pedagogical engagement by acting as autonomous pedagogical leaders with a collective approach to their leadership role, regardless of the differences in the Nordic country education policy contexts.

 rust and/or Control – A Dilemma in the Nordic School T Leadership Role Our analyses have revolved around school principals’ roles and pedagogical leadership as a concept used in relation to school development, especially in the Nordic education context. Pedagogical leadership in the Nordic context translates to leadership tasks primarily related to curriculum, teaching activities, and the core

130

A. E. Gunnulfsen and U. Leo

values of schooling. It is vital for school leaders in the Nordic context to be engaged in the legitimation and explanation of why classroom observation, being a way the get first-hand information on the quality of teaching, could be a part of working with quality development in schools. There is also a need for increased knowledge about the power structures and sense of trust and control in school leadership and teacher practices. The question is what kind of information the school leaders need to give necessary or relevant feedback to teachers. Power and trust are also related to the issue of shared responsibility for the core values and purpose of education and how school leaders perceive their roles regarding decision-making. This study has revealed a need for further studies about Nordic school leaders and their sense-making of what are important tasks and what kinds of tasks school leaders find unimportant. Also, school leaders’ micro policy-making regarding the influence of national and transnational agencies in all the Nordic systems is an important issue to investigate in future research about the “Nordic model” of school leadership, where social welfare, equality, trust, and the core value of school purpose should be focal points. Future research should also focus on the support from the local or national authorities given to Nordic school leaders in the Nordic education policy context and the increased attention that quality assessment and quality development have been given in globally inspired education policy reforms. Future research might contribute to enhanced knowledge of the Nordic perspective of school leadership and shared responsibility, autonomy, and pedagogical engagement. The school principal’s pedagogical practice, contextual knowledge and community engagement becomes increasingly important for school quality and results, which in turn call for more focus on in-depth qualitative data.

References Abrahamsen, H. (2018). Redesigning the role of deputy heads in Norwegian schools–tensions between control and autonomy? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(3), 327–343. Abrahamsen, H., & Aas, M. (2016). School leadership for the future: Heroic or distributed? Translating international discourses in Norwegian policy documents. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 48(1), 68–88. Ärlestig, H., & Johansson, O. (2020). Educational authorities and the schools: Organisation and impact in 20 states. Springer. Ärlestig, H., Nihlfors, E., & Johansson, O. (2016). International School Principal Research. In H. Ärlestig, C. Day, & O. Johansson (Eds.), A decade of research on school principals: cases from 24 countries. Springer. Ball, S.  J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2011). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. Bjørnset, M., & Takvam Kindt, M. (2019). Fra gallionsfigur til overarbeidet altmuligmann? Rekruttering av skoleledere i norsk skole (From galleon figure to work-overloaded all-­ rounder?). Fafo-rapport. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597.

8  Principals’ Roles in a Nordic Education Context: Shared Responsibility…

131

Camphuijsen, M. K., & Levatino, A. (2021). Schools in the media: Framing national standardized testing in the Norwegian press, 2004–2018. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 43, 1–16. Day, C., & Gurr, D. (2014). Leading Schools Successfully. Routledge. Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (2007). Successful principal leadership in times of change. An international perspective. Springer. Donaldson, M. L. (2013). Principals’ approaches to cultivating teacher effectiveness: Constraints and opportunities in hiring, assigning, evaluating, and developing teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(5), 838–882. Elstad, E. (2009). Schools which are named, shamed and blamed by the media: School accountability in Norway. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(2), 173–189. Glickman, C. D. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed.. ASCD. Guerriero, S. (Ed.). (2017). Pedagogical knowledge and the changing nature of the teaching profession. Educational research and innovation. OECD Publishing. Gunnulfsen, A.  E., & Møller, J. (2021). Production, transforming and practicing ‘what works’ in education–The case of Norway. In Moos & Krejsler (Eds.), What works in Nordic school policies?: Mapping approaches to evidence, social technologies and transnational influences (Series no. 15). Springer. Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221–239. Hargreaves, A., Halász, G., & Pont, B. (2007). School leadership for systemic improvement in Finland – A case study report for the OECD activity improving school leadership. OECD. Hautamäki, J., & Kupiainen, S. (2014). Learning to learn in Finland: Theory and policy, research and practice. In Learning to learn. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203078044-­9 Helstad, K., & Møller, J. (2013). Leadership as relational work: Risks and opportunities. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(3), 245–262. ISSN 1360-3124. Krejsler, J.  B., & Moos, L. (2021). Danish–and Nordic–school policy: Its Anglo-American connections and influences. In What works in nordic school policies? (pp. 129–151). Springer. Leithwood, K. (2021). A review of evidence about equitable school leadership. Education Sciences, 11(8), 377. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (2002). Changing leadership for changing times. Open University Press. Leo, U. (2015). Professional norms guiding school principals’ pedagogical leadership. International Journal of Educational Management., 29(4), 461–476. Leo, U., Persson, R., Arvidsson, I., & Håkansson, C. (2020). External expectations and wellbeing, fundamental and forgotten perspectives in school leadership: A study on new leadership roles, trust and accountability. In L. Moos, E. Nihlfors, & J. M. Paulsen (Eds.), Re-centering the critical potential of Nordic school leadership research: Fundamental, but often forgotten perspectives (pp. 209–229). Springer International Publishing. Møller, J. (2009). School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between managerial and professional accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 10(1), 37–46. Møller, J. (2012). The construction of a public face as a school principal. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(5), 452–460. Møller, J., Eggen, A., Fuglestad, O.  L., Langfeldt, G., Presthus, A.-M., Skrøvset, S., & Vedøy, G. (2005). Successful school leadership: The Norwegian case. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 584–594. Moos, L., Johansson, O., & Day, C. (Eds.). (2011). How school principals sustain success over time. Springer. Moos, L., Nihlfors, E., & Paulsen, J. (2020). Re-centering the critical potential of Nordic school leadership research: Fundamental, but often forgotten perspectives (1st ed.). Springer International Publishing. Norqvist, L., & Ärlestig, H. (2021). Systems thinking in schools, perspectives from various levels. Journal of Educational Administration., 59(1), 77–93.

132

A. E. Gunnulfsen and U. Leo

Persson, R., Leo, U., Arvidsson, I., Nilsson, K., Österberg, K., Oudin, A. & Håkansson, C. (2021). Svenska skolledares arbetsmiljö och hälsa: En lägesbeskrivning med förslag på vägar till förbättringar av arbetsmiljön (Swedish school leaders’ work environment and health: A description of the situation with suggestions for ways to improve the work environment). AMM-Rapport 4/2021. Ragnarsdóttir, G. (2018). School leaders’ perceptions of contemporary change at the upper secondary school level in Iceland. In Interaction of actors and social structures facilitating or constraining change (PhD). University of Iceland, Reykjavík. Risku, M., & Pulkkinen, S. (2016). Finland: Finnish principal. In H. Ärlestig, C.  Day, & O.  Johansson (Eds.), A decade of research on school principals: Cases from 24 countries (pp. 61–75). Springer International Publishing. Saarivirta, T., & Kumpulainen, K. (2016). School autonomy, leadership and student achievement: Reflections from Finland. International Journal of Educational Management., 30(7), 1268–1278. Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on schooling. In The handbook of global education policy. Wiley. Seland, I., Olsen, M. S., Solem, A., Lysø, I. H., Aamodt, P. O., & Røsdal, T. (2012). Spørsmål om tid. En studie av arbeidsbetingelser og tidsbruk for ledere av skoler og sykehjem. (A question of time. A study of work conditions and time use for leaders in schools and nursing homes). NIFU Rapport 18/2012. 12. Solbrekke, T. D., & Englund, T. (2011, November). Bringing professional responsibility back in. Studies in Higher Education., 36(7), 847–861. TALIS. (2018). Results (Volume II): Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals, TALIS. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-­en Törnsén, M., & Ärlestig, H. (2014). Pedagogiskt ledarskap, mål, process och resultat (Pedagogical leadership, goals, processes and results). In Framgångsrika skolor: Mer om struktur, kultur, ledarskap. Studentlitteratur. Uljens, M., & Nyman, C. (2015). En Historisk Rekonstruktion av Pedagogiska Ledarskapsdiskurser i Finland (Rapport 38/2015, Pedagogiskt Ledarskap – Teori, Forskning och Skolutveckling). Åbo Akademi. Uljens, M., Møller, J., Ärlestig, H., & Frederiksen, L. F. (2013). The professionalisation of nordic school leadership. In L. Moos (Ed.), Transnational influences on values and practices in nordic educational leadership (Studies in educational leadership, vol 19). Springer.

Chapter 9

Policy Demands, Expectations, and Changed Leadership Roles During the COVID-19 Crisis: Critical Comparative Case Studies from Denmark and Iceland Guðrún Ragnarsdóttir and Merete Storgaard Abstract  The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education has been considerable and Nordic countries were not excluded. The everyday operations and practises of almost all the organisations within education were disrupted. The pandemic threatened the health of students and school staff at all school levels as, well as the financial, operational, and reputational situation of the majority of schools. School leaders played a significant role in the process of deinstitutionalisation of traditional schooling and adapting to the new reality of crisis management e.g., by communicating and coordinating actions with all stakeholders, mediating the information given by school authorities and managing the various dilemmas repeatedly occurring during the pandemic. The aim of this chapter is to present a historical timeline for a one-year period that reflects the policy demands that were imposed on school leaders in compulsory education in Denmark, and upper secondary education in Iceland, by analysing formal policy-instructions sent via e-mails to the school leaders. In particular, the chapter critically analyses the roles and demands placed on school leaders when facing everchanging social structures and ambiguous policy expectations stipulated by the educational authorities from both countries. This we did by drawing on theoretical concepts from neo-institutional theories, critical discourse analysis, and critical policy theory. Three role categories were evident in the data with substantial sub-categories explaining the complex processes of deinstitutionalisation taking place during the research period and new and changed role of school leaders; the first traditional crisis management roles, the second contemporary safety management roles, and the third is linked to e­ ducational G. Ragnarsdóttir (*) School of Education, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland e-mail: [email protected] M. Storgaard Municipality of Svendborg, Svendborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. E. Gunnulfsen et al. (eds.), Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries, Educational Governance Research 21, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4_9

133

134

G. Ragnarsdóttir and M. Storgaard

roles conventionally guiding the education systems. The identified leadership roles are related to an overall social order defined by the crisis. Here, the traditional, Nordic democratic values that uphold the education system, such as social deliberation, decentralisation, and trust between school leaders, professionals, students, and their families, were challenged as well as various issues of social justice. Keywords  Covid-19 pandemic · School leaders · Nordic comparison · Governance · Deinstitutionalisation · Leadership roles · Crisis management · Critical policy study

Introduction During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was considerable disruption and uncertainty within education around the world. The pandemic’s influence was far-reaching and stipulated significant challenges for school leaders (Harries & Jones, 2020; Huber, 2021). In early 2020, teaching and learning were transformed from onsite teaching into emergency remote teaching (Gestsdóttir et al., 2020). School leaders needed to translate and enact ever-changing policy demands to ensure as little disruption to school practices as possible. At the same time, they needed to lead one of the most extensive changes in education in history and be specialists in crisis management and health measures (Harris & Jones, 2020; Ragnarsdóttir & Jónasson, 2022). The aim of this chapter is to explore the roles, demands, and expectations on school leaders as stipulated in pandemic policies at the compulsory school level in Denmark and upper secondary school level in Iceland during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. We collected policy documents from both counties and used an international critical comparative approach (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017) and critical policy analysis (Fairclough, 1992) when working with the data. We studied the policy context and relational constructs between the state and the school leaders to reveal the immanent modalities of governance in crisis situations within the two national school systems and as a Nordic governance phenomenon. The knowledge emerging from this study should be useful for national and international stakeholders as along with researchers and practitioners.

Theoretical and Analytical Approach In this chapter, we draw on ideas from neo-institutional theories (Scott, 2014), critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1992), and a critical comparative case approach (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017; Storgaard, 2019b). This is done to understand the interactions and effects of various policy instructions as discursive power formation that facilitates or constrains social change in times of global crisis. Taking this empirical approach allows us to study the formation of leadership roles and subject positions,

9  Policy Demands, Expectations, and Changed Leadership Roles During…

135

social relations, and governing understandings generated by crisis management as centrally imposing actions advocated by the health sector in Denmark and Iceland. Several scholars within the field of education research rely on neo-institutional theories to understand crisis and disruption (Rowan et al., 2006; Wiseman & Chase-­ Mayoral, 2014). The studies distinguish between the term’s organisations and institutions. Schools can be understood as organisations as they are hierarchically structured and designed around tasks related to teaching and learning. In contrast, education is an institution that forms the background of schools as organisations and controls what happens within them. Within educational institutions, similar ideas, norms, and frameworks guide human behaviour and mechanisms. Institutions are complex, long-lasting, and socially constructed (Scott, 2014). Scholars point out that a strong institutionalised education system is monitored by diverse external and internal actors often constraining change (Coburn, 2004; Ragnarsdóttir, 2020). A complex interplay of individuals, groups, and policies controls much of this, and inertia is often explained by that interplay. These effects have been referred to as institutionalisation. Institutions often loosen up due to a variety of external or internal influences. The external influences can occur during crisis situations like the COVID-19 pandemic. In such circumstances, a process of deinstitutionalisation begins, and change happens (Kraatz & Moore, 2002; Scott, 2014). Using the terminology above, this chapter looks at the external crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the process of deinstitutionalisation and social change on subjects, social relations, and hegemonic values within education in Denmark and Iceland. In this process, we study the social changes as discourses, formed in policy texts to be organised and negotiated in historical and local leadership situations of policy enactment in schools (Ball et al., 2012; Fairclough, 1992). We approach policy as a practise of power and a set of laws and normative guidelines, that, as governing texts, are circulated through a social field with varying success in connecting people – school leaders and professionals – to their mandates. In this approach, the COVID-19 policies are a form of social practice of power, where the policy, as a normative discourse, “may be what we call officially authorized, that is, backed by enforcement mechanisms of government” (Levinson et  al., 2009, p. 770). Thus, policy orders the social. The historical situation and the need for enactment of contemporary regulation during a crisis are hereby formed by the policy demands for school leaders. They affect the regulative forces of schools as institutions and can be seen in this study of the policy demands and role expectations for school leaders produced by the urgent need of crisis management in the global pandemic.

 ethods: Studying Roles and Demands in Two Distinct M Policy Landscapes From the comparative research field with studies travelling reforms and governance ideas in education (Carney, 2016), we know that the nation as an educational unit can no longer be studied as a unified, closed system of policy, laws, and governance.

136

G. Ragnarsdóttir and M. Storgaard

Due to education being a globalized field, the national education policy context in the Nordic countries is related to global and transnational flows of ideas. At the same time, national and local phenomena developed culturally, historically, and closely connected to the democratic and social values of a society (Moos, 2013; Jónasson et al., 2021). Based on these assumptions, we trace the phenomenon at interest horizontally, vertically, and transversally “by both comparing how similar policies or phenomena unfold in distinct locations and at multiple levels, that are socially produced … and complexly connected” (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017, p.14). This allows us to compare two different school levels in two different countries. Simultaneously, we transversally compare the historically situated leadership relations of school leaders and processes of deinstitutionalisation formed in policy-­ demands for education and the role of educational leaders. This critical comparative case study draws on empirical data from 1 March 2020 until 4 March 2021. In the Danish education governance context, the examined documents are policy and special legislation specifically constructed to govern the crisis management of the folkeskole in regard to the COVID-19 pandemic (for further explanation of folkeskole, see Chap. 2 in this book). They were published by the Danish Ministry of Children and Education (hereafter MoE). These documents are often discursively connected to policy instructions from the Danish Ministry of Health (hereafter MoH) through intertextual referencing. When this is the situation, the policy from the MoH has been included in the critical discourse analysis. The documents were sent by e-mails to the school leaders from the national state level in the historical period chosen for this study and sampled in cooperation with school principals. In the Icelandic context, the policies were gathered from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (hereafter MoESC) in two separate e-mails sent to the first author including one pdf file in each e-mail. The first file contains the information sent to school leaders during the spring term of 2020 and the second file holds the e-mails sent during the autumn of 2020 and spring of 2021. The documents are e-mails to school leaders, advertisements, laws and regulations, and posters from the national level, chiefly from the MoESC and the Minister of Health. Hereafter, these e-mails will be referred to as Document 1 and Document 2 (Reynisdóttir, 2020; Málsnúmer: MMR20030005 Málalyklar: 9.0). The policy discourse was critically analysed (Fairclough, 1992) based on the data we collected with the purpose of building discursive orders as phases framing the historical process of crisis management and deinstitutionalisation. Afterwards, the documents were sorted into phases. The next step revolved around coding within the phases as discursive orders, inductively revealing the social leadership roles and policy demands on school leaders. Traditional governing structures within both countries are highly decentralised and the main emphasises is on democratic values (see Chaps. 2 and 4). Nevertheless, the COVID-19 crisis seems to have formed a contemporary social order in education, where the existing laws and regulations were put on hold. The predominant terminology in relation to school leadership differs between the countries In Denmark, the term principal and assistant principals are used, while

9  Policy Demands, Expectations, and Changed Leadership Roles During…

137

in upper secondary education in Iceland the term is school director (Icel. Skólameistari/rektor) and assistant school director (Icel. aðstoðarskólameistari/conrektor). For clarity, the term school leaders will be applied for both countries from here on. The Danish case will start the presentation of the findings, followed by the Icelandic case. In the end, the cases will be critically compared and discussed.

 he Findings from Denmark: The Historical Process T of Deinstitutionalisation Overall, the management of the COVID-19 pandemic seen in education policies formed a centralized power relation between the minister of education and local schools. This relation started at the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis and is enabled by contemporary law giving the minister of education formal power to deviate from previously existing laws and regulations in education until 1 March 2021 (MoE, 2020f). The period from 1 March 2020 to 4 March 2021 formed a cycle that can be divided into four phases of de-institutionalisation beginning with a full lock down of compulsory schools as the first phase. Phases two and three were characterised by controlled re-openings while phase four can be defined as a stay of execution. In the fourth phase, the management of the crisis returns to the cyclical start with another lock down. The following text will elaborate on the timeline and the policy roles and expectations for the school leaders in these phases.

Phase One: The Lock-Down In the period from 12 March to 9 April 2020, Danish elementary and lower secondary schools were locked down and all students were sent home. The Danish prime minister announced the lock down in a direct broadcast from the State Ministry on Wednesday, 8 March 2020. For the two  days after this official announcement, schools stayed open for students so that parents would have time to find ways to stay at home with their children. From Monday, 12 March, the schools fully closed, and teaching professionals were expected to transfer their instructional practices to emergency remote teaching. Emergency remote teaching was discursively constructed in policy in an order that forms a relation of accountability between the performance of emergency teaching and the learning needs of individual students. Specifically, the social order constructs in the policy demand that school leaders are accountable for providing instruction for the needs of students in vulnerable positions with specific learnings needs or second language learners and their parents (MoE, 2020a). In the lock-down phase, school leaders enacted the national policy demands in the local practise context of the school. From 17 March 2020, school

138

G. Ragnarsdóttir and M. Storgaard

leaders were also required to organise and manage emergency day-care for students between the ages of six and nine. Emergency day-care was provided for the children of parents working in critical societal functions, such as, nurses, police, and doctors. It was also established to support the youngest students in families with parents who were not allowed to stay home from work and for children in socially vulnerable positions in their families. The policy related to the regulations during the first lock down presents a variety of demands for school leaders and professionals. First, school leaders were expected to perform as policy translators and pedagogical negotiators. In this period, professionals, students, and families were positioned in different pedagogical fields where none have any previous experience nor were prepared pedagogically. The pedagogical negotiator role was formed as a relationship between the school leaders and the professionals, where the emergency act created a demand for emergency remote teaching. In the policy text, emergency remote teaching is defined as both a phenomenon that can be performed through online teaching tools and a phenomenon that can include tangible teaching materials and teacher defined assignments for the students and their families (MoE, 2020a). This ambiguity leaves space for discursive negotiation and struggle in the balancing of pedagogical quality expectations between instruction transformed into online distance education and instruction as a traditional phenomenon performed through paper assignments and tangible materials supplied to students and families. School leaders became not only policy translators and pedagogical negotiators in this situation, but also quality insurers and protectors of the academic purpose of the folkeskole. The policy demands of the lock down furthermore positioned school leaders as protectors of students and staff by requiring them to managing health regulations in the onsite emergency day-care or by sending the rest of the students and staff home (MoE, 2020a). This policy demand presumably formed an ambiguous social and moral dilemma due to the dangers of the pandemic and the local demand for organising and staffing the onsite emergency day-care. In this situation, school leaders were the leading actors and protectors of all in the school by being safety managers (MoH, 2020a, b). Within the same social order, the leading actors are also positioned as subjects who expose selected professionals and young students to potential infection (MoE, 2020a).

Phase Two: Controlled Re-opening Part One The second phase started on 14 April 2020 with a policy change that demanded a contemporary reframing of the organization of the school day and the curriculum. As the schools reopened, the students in grades zero to five returned physically to school, and grades six to ten continued emergency remote teaching within the legislative framework of the emergency act (MoE, 2020a). The regulations from the Ministry of Health provided a reframing of the local school day where the students were taught in small groups as half classes due to the COVID-19 restriction of a

9  Policy Demands, Expectations, and Changed Leadership Roles During…

139

one-meter distance between students in the classroom. In this period, all schools were expected to enact the national curriculum expectations and goals through outdoor, onsite teaching. Furthermore, the outdoor onsite teaching included a reduction in the number of lessons taught. These temporary policies contained several demands for the school leaders to adapt the reduced and transformed school curriculum to the local financial and staffing possibilities. First, the school leaders acted as quality negotiators in the social leadership relations with teachers. The discursive negotiations were framed by the policy demands and the process of pedagogical transformation of teaching from distance learning to outdoor, onsite teaching. The role of the school leaders was to negotiate the demand for quality teaching based on the learning needs of the individual students. The contemporary emergency act formed an interdiscursive connectivity to Danish school reform (MoE, 2013) and the education system as a competitive, social order with academic and well-being performance demands and systems of accountability (see Chap. 2). The question is whether the market-­oriented student performance expectations for the Danish public schools were disrupted during national crisis management. If not, the school leaders are positioned in the roles of performance accountability according to the performance results of the school within academic fields and student well-being, and as academic protectors and pedagogical negotiators in relation to the balancing of expectations for the pedagogical performance of the teachers within the framework of the emergency act. As was also seen in policy instructions in the first phase, school leaders are ongoingly positioned in roles as someone who exposes teachers and other staff to the COVID-19 by demands for teachers’ physical presence during the second phase. This complex policy demand is expanding as more staff is returning to the school. In the second phase, the school leaders were also positioned as bureaucratic risk assessors. In this phase, school leaders evaluated and negotiated which professionals were in specifically vulnerable positions and should not be exposed to COVID-19 by returning to school (MoE, 2020d; MoH, 2020b). Being ill with COVID-19 and/ or having long term side-effects is in policy now recognized as a work-related damage and gives the right to compensation if it can be proved that the COVID-19 was contracted in the workplace. It can be assumed that enacting the above-mentioned policy demands positioned the school leaders in moral dilemmas by putting them in the position of protectors of staff in vulnerable positions.

Phase Three: Controlled Re-opening Part Two In this phase of the controlled re-opening, students aged 12–15 (grades six to nine) also returned to onsite teaching at school by the 14 May 2020. All grades were now allowed to be taught in physical classrooms. The demands of the emergency act and the ministerial policy (MoE, 2020b, c) predominantly required out-door learning activities for the students in grade zero to nine and a one-meter distance between students and staff. Furthermore, the schools had to reorganise breaks and arrival

140

G. Ragnarsdóttir and M. Storgaard

times for students to prevent the spread of infection. Online teaching could still be used as an instructional form based on the local situation (MoE, 2020b). The second part of the controlled reopening left new ambiguous spaces for policy enactment. The second part of reopening created leadership relations of negotiations between teachers and leaders to discuss the instructional paths. In this situation, the instructions left a pedagogical room for decision making whether the instruction should be performed as indoor teaching in classrooms or outdoor teaching. Finally, the teaching could also be performed as online distance education. The policy also formed the sociality by stressing that the school leaders were responsible for the quality of instruction, putting them in the roles of quality assurance manager and academic protector. The leadership responsibility for the pedagogical quality is discursively constructed as leadership processes that shall be enacted in cooperation with the employees with respect to the health regulations. Furthermore, the performance expectations were created between a need for emergency teaching and academic performance expectations for the instructional practises ‘to the greatest extend possible to live up to the regular, academic demands’ (MoE, 2020c). For the third time, the reconstruction of the practical organization of the curriculum at the schools led to an unprecedented situation where school leaders and professionals were enacting policy by balancing the policy expectations in relation to quality issues and the instructional forms of performing the curriculum. The third phase also positioned school leaders as both protectors from and exposers to COVID-19, along with being controllers of the physical presence of students. This is seen in the extraordinary instructions sent to schools with health recommendations for the organising the school (MoE, 2020e). In this period, all students and professionals were physically back at work. The return of all the students was regulated in the policy, which positioned school leaders as controllers, who registered the physical presence of the students. Moreover, the return to school potentially exposed students, teachers, and administrative staff to COVID-19. In order to minimize the spread of the infection, the Ministry of Health made a recommendation that leaves a room for negotiation within the social order of pandemic risk, “The Ministry of Health recommends that students are taught by as few teachers as possible, but they have no delimited number. This depends on local possibilities” (MoE, 2020e). The ambiguity is constructed in the text between stating that students be taught by ‘as few teachers as possible’ but having “no delimited number”. This leaves room for negotiation between the school leaders and the professionals depending on the “local possibilities”. As more students and teachers are exposed to each other, the degree of risk taking determined the social- risk order of the school.

Phase Four – Stay of Execution and the Second Lock Down From August 2020 and the beginning of the new school year, the schools returned to a social order characterised by adjusted normality. In the sociality of the school, the regulations on the instructional practices framed by the emergency act and the

9  Policy Demands, Expectations, and Changed Leadership Roles During…

141

health regulations related to the one- meter distance between students were cancelled. Only in situations with a high number of infected, isolated students and professionals, could the school organise the curriculum in relation to the emergency act. At the beginning of phase four, the schools’ social order and organisation were close to that of the time before COVID-19. In this period, the school leaders enacted the role of student-segregators responsible for segregating and eventually isolating students that were in close contact with infected family members. Furthermore, the school leaders became punishers. The school leaders were again responsible for enacting the legal regulation on student school attendance (MoE, 2019) that fined parents if they choose to keep their children at home (MoE, 2020d). The school leaders were also in the role of punishers in the relation to families, who, in the first three phases of the pandemic, were allowed to protect their children by keeping them at home without consequences. In this policy, the governing chain was further tightening the demand for student attendance. On 23 September 2020, the first changes started to appear, as the number of COVID-19 incidents increased in society. In the first changes in September, all school activities with social purposes, such as, parent meetings, school celebrations and overnight field trips were cancelled. On 11 December, 38 municipalities in Denmark closed down all of their educational operations, and on 21 December, all Danish students and families were again in full lock down. The Danish education system provided emergency teaching after the Danish Christmas holidays from 5 January 2021 until 8 February 2021. During the four phases of de-institutionalisation, the demands and leadership roles derived from policies evolved in various ways and positioned school leaders in governance processes in conflicting and moral dilemmas. The Icelandic context and process reveal both similar and different demands for school leadership, which we will account for below.

 he Findings from Iceland: The Historical Process T of Deinstitutionalisation The closure of upper secondary schools in Iceland and the existence of distance setups was more or less the situation for a whole year or from 13 March 2020 until beginning of January 2021, with several exceptions and periods of onsite teaching. The following sections discusses three phases drawn from policy documents during the first year of the pandemic. The first phase is the preparation period, taking place before the first infection was identified in Iceland. Soon after, the second phase was introduced with emergency remote teaching via distance settings and lockdown of all upper secondary schools. The third phase occurred during the autumn term and continued through the beginning of the new year. At this time, school leaders faced an ever-changing reality.

142

G. Ragnarsdóttir and M. Storgaard

The First Phase During Spring 2020: Preparation Period The first COVID-19 infection was diagnosed in Iceland on 28 February 2020 (Document 1). Significant communication took place behind the scenes two weeks prior to the actual school lockdown on 13 March and various communication channels were established between the MoESC and school leaders in upper secondary schools. The first e-mail came 2 March. In it, school leaders were asked to forward a letter from The National Commissioner of Police Civil Protection Department to the staff members, students, and parents stating the stage of danger. At this moment, and throughout the pandemic, the school leaders were positioned as information carriers for the health sector and the Chief of Civil Protection and Emergency Management. The letter reaffirmed the importance of everyone following the given instructions related to travelling and quarantine. Thus, school leaders were indirectly positioned in the role of exposers. School leaders were addressed in the e-mail and asked to monitor further information on a webpage from the Directorate of Health and pay a specific attention to individuals who did not have Icelandic as their mother tongue. In this request, they were particularly made accountable for the second language learners and their parents. Through this, the school leaders also became watchmen and protectors of second language learners. The following day, the school leaders received information about the possibility of closing the schools. For this reason, the MoESC was gathering information from school leaders about their future plans if school closure would become a reality: For this reason, the Ministry of Education and Culture wants information on how the school intends to respond to minimise disruption to students’ teaching and learning. You are also requested to send in information on how the school intends to organise the whole term, if the closure will last for a long period.

The school leader’s role as crisis managers became evident, and they were required to prepare for the coming crisis. The third e-mail was sent on 9 March 2020. The e-mail contained solutions for communication channels during the crisis. First, the e-mail addressed access to The Directorate of Health. At this moment, the school leaders became connectors to external stakeholders, particularly the health sector and the MoESC. Second, a stronger connection was announced between the MoESC and the school leaders through an online consultation platform (Workplace), and they became peer supporters and more active users of online communication tools. In another e-mail sent later, the MoESC placed great emphasis on schools to care for students’ mental well-being and the schools were encouraged to make more use of their professional staff like psychologists and career and guidance counsellors. At the same time, they were asked to make sure that all information about schools’ support systems were easy to access through online channels. With this, they became accountable for students in vulnerable positions. Thus, their responsibility and accountability extended. This took effect through the increased emphasises on care taking and the protection of vulnerable groups. Furthermore, internal bridging was

9  Policy Demands, Expectations, and Changed Leadership Roles During…

143

added to the scope of their role as connectors. Emphasis was also placed on a good flow of information and the school leaders were asked to: –– have the school’s response plan visible on the website, –– provide clear information on the website to parents and students regarding teaching, learning, and other activities … as well as providing links to the [Directorate of Health and the Civil Protection] and –– publish online information about the organisation of the studies and the mental welfare. Here, the crisis management role of school leaders expanded, all controlled by the external environment and leaving the school leaders with little freedom, agency, or power. The MoESC then forwarded an e-mail from the police on 11 March 2020. The e-mail included eight bullet points of instructions that highlighted the school leaders’ health care role and safety responsibilities, along with their community building role and trust building. The same day, 11 March, another e-mail came with answers from The Directorate of Health to questions that the MoESC had sent about infections, symptoms, transmission routes, and connections between people within and between schools. This gave the school leaders the additional role of pandemic experts. Concurrently, the ministry sent the school leaders information from The City of Reykjavík on guidelines related to employees at risk. The suggestions included solutions like working from home, changed tasks for staff, unpaid leave, sick leave, and guidance about employees who needed to protect at-risk relatives. In the document, salaries and wage agreements were also discussed. Support related to staff members’ wellbeing and welfare was not at all discussed in the letter. The letter made technical demands on school leaders as they were asked to think outside of the box and find solutions. The letter positioned them as bureaucratic risk assessors, salary experts and labour specialists, protectors, and negotiators in sensitive matters along with being evaluators of individual risk-levels. As is evident here, the emerging roles were contradictory. On one hand, leaders were asked to be protectors and negotiators, and on the other, they were asked to be accountable for salaries and exposing individuals to risks.

 he Second Phase: Total Lockdown and Emergency Remote T Teaching via Distance Settings The government first announced the closure of upper secondary schools on 13 March 2020. The schools had to change their operations from on-site settings to distance settings over one weekend. On 4 May 2020, upper secondary schools could open again with substantial restrictions. Most of the traditional academic schools kept the existing form of distance learning until the end of the term. Many of the comprehensive schools did the same for academic courses but opened for students

144

G. Ragnarsdóttir and M. Storgaard

with intellectual disabilities attending self-contained programmes and students attending vocational education and training. No new roles were visible in the e-mail at that time.

The Third Phase: Ever Changing Reality The third phase demonstrated a weak attempt to keep school buildings open during the autumn term 2020 (Document 2). Face masks were introduced in schools for the first time. In the beginning, it was only necessary to use a face mask when the two-­ meter distance rule could not be guaranteed. The school leaders had to organise on-site teaching in that way that each student interacted as little as possible with other students and the blending between student groups was minimal. The conditions for the schools in terms of space, system, number of students, and number of entrances into the school premises were very different. This emphasis positioned the school leaders as logistics experts. The paths the school leaders took to organise the on-site teaching varied. Most had a blend of on-site and distance teaching. It was not until 17 August 2020 that the first regulations took place directly addressing school practises. Before these, the schools were regulated through so-­ called public notice. The regulation stated that, during the 2020–2021 school year, the school leader could ‘decide, after consultation with the school council and general teachers’ meeting, how the activities of the active teachers’ work were divided between preparations, teaching, and assessment’. This rule positioned the school leaders as pedagogical negotiators as they were given more pedagogical autonomy. The regulation was the first respecting school operations directly and gave the school leaders, teachers, and school councils a little more freedom by loosening up the centralised actions made by the external authorities, particularly the health sector. In August 2020, a rule was announced that the schools were responsible for complying with pandemic prevention rules, with the safety and well-being of students, teachers, and staff in mind. This was the first time that the whole school community was addressed. The role of school leaders as health protectors and safety managers was stronger than ever before. They were asked to guarantee that their school operated in accordance with national curriculum and the school curriculums, but the organisation of the studies could change in line with the defined risks stage and given limitations. Compared to the spring term, it was clear that more focus was placed on the quality of teaching and learning. Thus, the school leaders retained their previous roles as quality controllers within the field of education. As before, they were told to closely monitor the well-being of their students and have an overview of those who need special support. This indicates a stronger emphasis on school leaders monitoring vulnerable groups of students, not only those having another mother tongue and those in fragile situations. The rule also strengthened their roles as crisis managers by guaranteeing a good flow of information to students, parents, teachers, and staff about the situation, including available resources and support available within the school. Each school was told to create a plan for

9  Policy Demands, Expectations, and Changed Leadership Roles During…

145

cases of actual or suspected infection. This rule strengthened the focus on disease control measures, social distancing, and the number of persons per space. As is evident here, school leaders also became disease preventors and exposers and their pandemic expertise role expanded. Another similar document was sent on 7 September, stressing the importance of taking ‘special precaution towards students, teachers, and staff in high-risk groups’. The information became more humane at this point as compared with the previous instructions. In mid-September 2020, the government attempted to change regulations for social gatherings again. Masks where now obligatory for school staff and students during teaching and at meetings, and school leaders received several instructions in written form, posters, videos, and by social media links explaining the proper use of masks. School leaders were asked to make the information accessible. At this time, the school leaders’ roles evolved again, and they became infection preventers, guards, and online influencers. It did not take many days until the third infection wave began. A new regulation was issued on 5 October, two  weeks before the September rule was due to expire. The schools were locked once again, and all teaching was transferred online. In the beginning of November, the schools reopened for a maximum 25 freshmen in a space, excluding the older students from onsite teaching. Just after the middle of November, all student groups could count 25 students. A reduction to 25 students in one group were difficult for many schools, particularly the large comprehensive schools that normally had up to 30 students in a group. From the beginning of November 2020, the regulations repeatedly stated that the schools could hold on-site teaching for vocational and art students, as well as students with intellectual disabilities. Masks covering both the mouth and nose were always obligatory. The upper secondary schools were now allowed to hold ‘meaningful exams’ for 30 people in a space with the required distance limits and the most extreme disease control measures, but each school implemented this in its own way. The increased demand for on-site exams shows how high stake examines became important again. On 7 December 2020, a colour-coded alert system was implemented for all schools at all levels. The day after, a new regulation was announced. School staff were now allowed to transfer between groups and different groups could mix. This was most likely done to ease the burden on complex comprehensive schools. Yet, many schools kept their online teaching system for most of the students. The period continued until 13 January 2021. Then on-site teaching was allowed. As shown, the restrictions on schools were constantly changing during the term. School leaders were given complex and contradictory roles throughout that time. They needed to organise school activities based on ever-changing messages from the authorities with the aim of protecting the health of students and staff. They also often had to share complex information with staff, students, and parents and enact complex ideas stipulated into the policies into school practises. The regulations that were stipulated on 13 January 2021 were in effect until 4 March. They characterise a social order of adjusted normality. Most upper secondary schools opened again in a relatively traditional form. In total, 30 students could be in the same space with

146

G. Ragnarsdóttir and M. Storgaard

two meters social distance. In the second half of February, the restrictions were eased to 150 people and the distance limit was 1 m. It is evident in the timeline for Iceland that the decentralisation and the freedom that has been the leading governing force for upper secondary education for some time was disrupted during the pandemic through processes of deinstitutionalisation. The authorities took rigid control, showing top-down power relations.

Discussion and Conclusion Through critical discourse analysis, various policy expectations during the pandemic became visible in the data. School leaders in both countries faced a challenging crisis, demanding management tasks (Ball et  al., 2012), and new and ever-changing roles. The roles the school leaders were positioned in changed as the pandemic progressed. At the beginning, the roles mainly evolved around traditional crisis management and health related issues. They then became closer to educational matters. The 19 policy roles can be divided into three main categories: traditional crisis roles, contemporary safety roles, and educational roles (see Table 9.1). The country codes are identified in column thee in Table 9.1. When both countries are marked in the same cell, then the identified roles were relatively similar between the countries. The scope and nuances of the roles also varied between the countries. In some cases, roles only appeared in the policy texts of one country. There were three traditionally defined crisis roles that focussed on mediating information from the health sector to the staff, students, and parents addressed (see Table 9.1). In the policy documents school leaders were expected to act as crisis managers, build trust, and reduce fear. Yet, the emotional dimensions of crisis management were not directly addressed (Smith & Riley, 2012). Ten different categories were constructed from the data in relation to contemporary safety management roles (Table 9.1). Through those roles, school leaders were expected to protect students and staff from the threat caused by the coronavirus. Some of these roles were ambiguous and contradictory, and moral dilemmas may have occurred. School leaders were, on the one hand, positioned as safety mangers, pandemic specialists, care takers, and protector of students, and staff. On the other hand, they were expected to expose infected teachers, students, and families. We identified six different educational roles, particularly in Denmark. Many link to educational quality and pedagogy (see Table  9.1). The policies predominantly positioned school leaders as being responsible for ensuring the quality of education, following national curriculum demands, and continuing with high stakes testing and exams. In Denmark, academic performance was more explicitly addressed in policy, and Danish school leaders were held accountable for educational quality. This was not as explicit in Iceland. Therefore, it may be deduced that teachers and schools were more autonomous in Iceland as compared to Denmark. This could also be because of the differing school levels. Many studies show that the autonomy of the teaching profession increases as the grade level increases (see Hargreaves &

9  Policy Demands, Expectations, and Changed Leadership Roles During…

147

Table 9.1  Summary of the roles and the related leadership tasks identified in the policy documents

Traditional crisis roles

Contemporary safety roles

Policy roles Crises managers

Country cases DK IS

Information carriers Connectors

DK IS

Watchman

DK IS

Protectors

DK IS

Online influencers

IS

Peer supporters Safety managers

DK IS

Pandemic experts Infection preventers

DK IS

Exposers

DK IS

Bureaucratic risk assessors

DK IS

Logistic experts

IS DK

DK IS

DK IS

DK IS

Role related leadership tasks Guarantee fluid and transparent flow of information. Plan for short- and long-term solutions and communicate actively. Protect the health of staff members and students Transmit information from the national authorities to students, parents, and staff members Connect and build tighter bounds to external and internal stakeholders. Build trust Monitor information from external stakeholders such as health care authorities and departments of civil protections Protect vulnerable groups within the student and staff populations Influence students and staff through online channels and make sure that the professional support given by the psychologists and career and guidance counsellors are visible for online for stakeholders Support peers through online communications and meetings Apply pandemic prevention rules. Solve problem for those at risk. Monitor the wellbeing of staff and students. Segregate and eventually isolate students and staff who had close contact with infected family members Study transmission routes and adapt to ever changing pandemic information Supply and distribute prevention tools such as masks and disinfection resources. Guarantee their use and ensure cleaning Expose students, parents, teachers, and other staff to COVID-19 infections Act as salary experts, labour specialists, negotiators, and problem solvers in sensitive matters. Assess the level of vulnerability by judging the risk level of the individual professional in relation to the policy demand of increasing physical presence at the school Organise the on-site teaching in terms of space, system, number of students, and entrances (continued)

G. Ragnarsdóttir and M. Storgaard

148 Table 9.1 (continued)

Educational roles

Policy roles Quality insurance Policy translator Academic protector Controller Punisher

Pedagogical negotiator

Country cases DK IS DK IS DK DK DK

DK IS

Role related leadership tasks Ensure quality and monitor pedagogical practises and accountable for high stake exams Translate policy from the national level into the local school context Be accountable for the academic performance and results of the school Register student attendance Enact the legal regulations on student school attendance and fined parents if they choose to keep their children at home Negotiate the quality expectations for the pedagogical performance of teachers

Goodson, 2006; Levin, 2013). The same may be said for school leaders’ autonomy and their freedom to organise the school practices. Financial issues were not at all addressed in the public documents sent to school leaders in Iceland while in Denmark the school leaders were positioned as punishers when monitoring students’ attendance and a return to physical presence at school. School leaders were expected to enact the policy and inform the municipal control-­ system that had the legal power to finance parents if their child did not attend school. This indicates stronger emphasis of high-stake accountability in the Danish governance system compared to Iceland. Thus, market orientation governance and New Public Management seem to be stronger in Denmark (Storgaard, 2019a, 2020). The processes of deinstitutionalisation (Scott, 2014) took place within the education systems and various centralised governing forces were dominated during the first year of the pandemic. The centralisation was at odds with the decentralisation and freedom that school leaders usually have within the Nordic education systems (Moos, 2013). The policies extensively disrupted traditional educational practises and threatened the schools’ stability, norms, and values that generally guide the education systems. In this perspective, further empirical research could investigate the interplay between the forthcoming, external policy regulations and the ongoing, internal relational changes within an overall, contemporary crisis order. In this situation the question would be how the changes in the governing relations following the policy messages between the state and the school actors display a contemporary centralisation of power in educational systems traditionally characterised by decentralisation and low social hierarchies? And, in what way have the contemporary processes of deinstitutionalisation of the social relations affected the democratic sociality of schools in the Nordic countries? The actions in both countries were centrally controlled by a health sector that mediated information to school leaders through the ministry of education in Iceland and the municipalities in Denmark. Afterwards, the school leaders needed to pass on the information and enact it in school practises through discursive sensemaking

9  Policy Demands, Expectations, and Changed Leadership Roles During…

149

in the micropolitical field of the school (Ball et  al., 2012; Storgaard, 2019b). As noted, the centralised actions are at odds with the decentralised governance in the countries. Normally, the focus in Denmark and Iceland is on social equality and democratic leadership practises. It can be assumed that the centralised government order forms contemporary hierarchical steering relations and potentially conflictual relations and struggles of power in social leadership relations. According to Fairclough (1992), relational conflicts and discursive struggles at the micro level are often related to discursive conflicts at higher levels of society. This points to the need of further investigating the ways in which the contemporary processes of deinstitutionalisation have influenced the democratic and social relations of governance and leadership. Further research would present insights into the long-term effects of crisis management in the Nordic traditions of organising through equal relations, trust, and traditions of deliberation in education as democratic institutions. The findings presented in this chapter are important contributions to addressing future global crises, whether they are related to a pandemic like COVID-19 or other possible threats in schools. The cases from Denmark and from Iceland highlight the learning processes of policy makers in the countries. The research findings can help policymakers select future actions in crises. In Iceland, school leaders where part of the preparation period, unlike in Denmark. At the same time, they had to submit a long-term action plan to the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture if school closures would last for a long period. Therefore, it can be assumed that school leaders in Iceland were more ready and better prepared to organise distance education. It is important to actively include school leaders in the decision-making process from the beginning. The direct connections and short communication paths between school leaders in Iceland and the Minister of Education, Science and Culture as along with the online communication platform launched before school closures could be interesting for other countries. Additionally, the roles constructed in Table 9.1 could be helpful for the future as they can save time and pinpoint what to avoid, particularly the contradictions and moral dilemmas that some of the roles brought. In future crises it will be important to build a comprehensive and professional support net for school leaders to assist them in navigating and understanding the demands and expectations placed on them during crisis. There is a need to further study the nature and the scope of the process and effect of deinstitutionalisation caused by the coronavirus on education from the perspective of school governance and leadership and cooperation between the health and the education sectors. These empirical studies will eg. contribute to knowledge of how the role of the school principal as mediator of ongoing policy changes and key role in crisis management was put under pressure and enacted in practice. This can be carried out by conducting comprehensive empirical studies on leadership during disruptive times in the Nordic countries with a particular focus on crisis management, trust, and system cooperation. Such studies will better map the similarities and differences between the Nordic countries.

150

G. Ragnarsdóttir and M. Storgaard

References Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Comparative case studies: An innovative approach. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 1(1), 5–17. Carney, S. (2016). Global education policy and the postmodern challenge. In The handbook of global education policy (p. 504). Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity. Gestsdóttir, S. M., Ragnarsdóttir, G. Björnsdóttir, A., & Eiríksdóttir, E. (2020). Fjarkennsla í faraldri: Nám og kennsla í framhaldsskólum á tímum samkomubanns vegna COVID-19. Netla – Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun. Sérrit: Menntakerfi og heimili á tímum COVID-19. https:// doi.org/10.24270/serritnetla.2020.25 Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3–41. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID 19  – School leadership in disruptive times. School Leadership & Management, 40(4), 243–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479 Huber, S.  G. (2021). Schooling and education in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: Food for thought and reflection derived from results of the school barometer in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 49(1), 6–17. Jónasson, J.  T., Ragnarsdóttir, G., & Bjarnadóttir, V.  D. (2021). The intricacies of educational development in Iceland: Stability or disruption? In L. Moos & J. B. Krejsler (Eds.), School, the Nordic dimension and the turn towards ‘evidence’. Springer publication. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­66629-­3_4 Kraatz, M. S., & Moore, J. H. (2002). Executive migration and institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 120–143. Levin, B. (2013). Improving secondary schools. In A.  Luke, A.  Woods, & K.  Weir (Eds.), Curriculum syllabus design and equity. A primer and model (pp. 129–143). Routledge. Levinson, B.  A., Sutton, M., & Winstead, T. (2009). Education policy as a practice of power: Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23(6), 767–795. MoE. (2013). Aftale mellem regeringen om et fagligt løft af folkeskolen. [Governmental agreement on academic achievements in the public school]. https://www.uvm.dk/-­/media/filer/uvm/udd/ folke/pdf14/okt/141010-­endelig-­aftaletekst-­7-­6-­2013.pdf MoE. (2019). Bekendtgørelse om elevers fravær i folkeskolen. BEK nr 1063 af 24/10/2019. [Law on student absence in the public school]. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2019/1063 MoE. (2020a). Bekendtgørelse om nødundervisning. BEK nr. 242 af 19/03/2020. [Law on emergency teaching]. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/242 MoE. (2020b). Dagtilbuds- og nødundervisningsbekendtgørelsen. BEK nr 629 af 15/05/2020. [Law on daycare and emergency teaching]. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/629 MoE. (2020c). Retningslinjer for fase 2 i genåbningen for skoler og uddannelsesinstitutioner på BUVM‘s område. [Regulations of the second phase of the re-opening of public schools and education institutions]. https://www.uvm.dk/-­/media/filer/uvm/aktuelt/pdf20/maj/200523-­ retningslinjer-­for-­skoler-­oguddannelsesinstitutioner-­ua.pdf MoE. (2020d). Retningslinjer for grundskoler samt ungdoms- og voksenuddannelser på MoEs område ifm. Forebyggelse af smittespredning af COVID-19. [Regulations of the public schools and youth education institutions in relation to the prevention of spread of COVID-19 infections]. https://www.uvm.dk/-­/media/filer/uvm/aktuelt/pdf20/jun/200619-­retningslinjer-­for-­ grundskoler-­samt-­ungdoms-­og-­voksenuddannelser-­ua.pdf

9  Policy Demands, Expectations, and Changed Leadership Roles During…

151

MoE. (2020e). EKSTRA: Nyhedsbrev til grundskolesektoren ifm. COVID-19 (uge 20). [Extra: Newsletter for the public schools in relation to Covid-19 (week 20)]. https://www.uvm. dk/-­/media/filer/uvm/aktuelt/pdf20/maj/200519-­ekstra-­nyhedsbrev-­til-­grundskolesektoren-­ ifmcovid-­19-­uge-­20.pdf MoE. (2020f). Lov om midlertidige foranstaltninger på børne- og undervisningsområdet og folkehøjskoleområdet og for den frie folkeoplysende virksomhed til forebyggelse og afhjælpning i forbindelse med covid-19. LOV nr 241 af 19/03/2020. [Law on contemporary initiatives within the child- and education field and adult education to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 infection]. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2020/241 MoH. (2020a). Instruks til personale i forbindelse med genåbning af skoler og fritidsordninger. [Instruction for staff in relation to the re-opening of schools and daycare institutions]. https:// www.skolelederforeningen.org/media/44254/instruks-­til-­personale-­i-­skoler-­og-­fritidsord ninger.pdf MoH. (2020b). Personer i øget risiko. [Persons at increased risk]. https://www.sst.dk/da/corona/ personer-­i-­oeget-­risiko Moos, L. (2013). Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership. Springer. Ragnarsdóttir, G. (2020). School leaders’ actions and hybridity when carrying out reform and confronting teachers’ responses: Institutional and organisational perspectives. Education Inquiry, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2021.1950272 Ragnarsdóttir, G., & Jónasson, J. T. (2022). Stofnunareðli framhaldsskóla í faraldurskreppu. Ný reynsla og breytt umboð skólastjórnenda [The institutional nature of upper secondary education during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis: New experience and changed agency of school leaders]. Icelandic Review of Politics & Administration, 18(2), 183–312. https://doi.org/10.13177/ irpa.a.2022.18.2.6 Rowan, B., Meyer, H., & Rowan, B. (2006). The new institutionalism and the study of educational organizations: Changing ideas for changing times (pp. 15–32). The New Institutionalism in Education. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations. Ideas, interests and identities (4th ed.). Sage. Smith, L., & Riley, D. (2012). School leadership in times of crisis. School Leadership & Management, 32(1), 57–71. Storgaard, M. (2019a). ‘High stakes’ eller ‘low stakes’? I Usynlige’ glidninger i uddannelse og pædagogik (red. Moos, L). Aarhus Universitetsforlag. https://edu.au.dk/fileadmin/edu/ Udgivelser/E-­boeger/Ebog_-­_Glidninger.pdf Storgaard, M. (2019b). Mening og magt i skoleledelse: konstruktioner af styring i højtpræsterende skoler i et internationalt komparativt perspektiv (Sensemaking and power in school leadership. Contructions of governance in high achieving schools in an international comparative perspective). Doctoral dissertation, Aarhus University, Copenhagen. https://ebooks.au.dk/aul/catalog/ book/357 Storgaard, M. (2020). Local and global? Challenging the social epistemologies of the educational leadership field. In Re-centering the critical potential of Nordic school leadership research (pp. 53–68). Springer. Wiseman, A. W., & Chase-Mayoral, A. (2014). Shifting the discourse on neo-institutional theory in comparative and international education. In Annual review of comparative and international education 2013. Emerald Group Publishing, Ltd.

Chapter 10

Principals’ Preparation and Professional Development in Nordic Countries Sigríður Margrét Sigurðardóttir

, Guri Skedsmo

, and Helene Ärlestig

Abstract  Principals in Nordic countries face increasing and changing demands in their work that have transformed the expectations of their knowledge and skills. This transformation has focused on the need for high-quality preparation programmes and continuous professional development opportunities for principals. In this chapter, we investigate and compare principal preparation and professional development in the five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. We  reflect on the variation in professional development opportunities across the Nordic countries and discuss how professional development for novice and in-post school principals might be organised in the future. A cross-case study is applied, making use of document analysis to find, select, appraise and synthesise data and policy documents, legislation and current research. A range of similarities and differences between the Nordic countries that concern both formal expectations, required education for becoming a principal and possibilities for continuous professional development were identified. With many governing levels and a changing society, it seems that professional development is historically and nationally situated rather than being a strategic incitement to use, keep and build competence. Preparation and continuous development for principals in the Nordic countries vary both between and within countries. This is a concern for principals, as well as the

S. M. Sigurðardóttir (*) School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Akureyri, Akureyri, Iceland e-mail: [email protected] G. Skedsmo Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Institute for Research on Professions and Professional Learning, Schwyz University of Teacher Education, Goldau, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] H. Ärlestig Centre for Principal Development, Department of Political Science, Umea University, Umea, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. E. Gunnulfsen et al. (eds.), Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries, Educational Governance Research 21, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4_10

153

154

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

national and local authorities responsible for their preparation and continuous professional development. Keywords  Principal preparation · Principal education · Principal training · Professional development · Professionalisation · School leadership · Competence providers · Competence building

Introduction Internationally, studies have shown that principals’ and teachers’ competences and daily actions are the most influential factors on students’ learning after parents’ education level and socioeconomic status (SES) (Grissom et al., 2021; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011). Being a school principal requires knowledge, competencies and experience in a broad range of areas. Over the past two decades, new forms of educational governance have developed in the Nordic countries (Blossing et al., 2014; Skedsmo et al., 2021; Wallenius, 2020). There is an increased focus on student performance data, school inspections and other types of external and internal evaluations to assure educational quality and form a basis for improving school practice. At the same time, greater emphasis is placed on compliance with legal regulations to address issues related to inclusion, equity and social justice (Novak, 2017; Sivesind et al., 2016). In addition to responding to policy expectations and legal requirements, schools face ongoing challenges in society and in the local community. They also represent important sites for developing ‘soft’ skills, and they have a particular mandate to promote societal values and prepare children and youth for participation in a democratic society (Larsen, 2021). These complex tasks of schools have altered expectations for what school principals need to know, how they spend their time and the outcomes they pursue (Larsen, 2021). It is widely accepted that a school principal requires specific leadership and management skills above what is required of teachers, and those skills need to be systematically developed and contextually sensitive (Bush, 2018). Preparation and development opportunities need to be shaped in ways that prepare future principals for their principalship and support them in continuing to learn and improve their skills under the needs of the school’s organisation (Brauckmann et al., 2020). Such professional development refers both to formal learning processes, including university courses, conferences and workshops, and to informal processes, such as personalised reading and research, discussions and implicit and explicit forms of workplace learning (Evans, 2014). The ways in which the programmes in various countries systematically address and integrate such learning opportunities vary across countries (Bush, 2018; Huber & Schneider, 2022). Even if the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have similar education systems emphasising the Nordic model of schooling, there are similarities and differences in how principal preparation and professional development are conducted and what universities, national and local authorities offer to support school

10  Principals’ Preparation and Professional Development in Nordic Countries

155

principals’ professional development. In this chapter, we investigate and compare principal preparation and professional development across the Nordic countries, which provides an opportunity to reflect on the variations across the countries as a basis for learning and to discuss how professional development for novice and inpost school principals might be seen in the future. Our analysis focuses on principals, but we also consider other school leaders, as the professional development of principals and other school leaders is often integrated into the same programmes. We focus on the following questions of enquiry: How is the preparation and professional development of principals conducted in the Nordic countries considering the following key aspects? • The formal expectations and requested education for becoming a principal • principals’ possibilities for preparation and continuous professional development; and • who takes responsibility for conducting and providing relevant professional development for principals.

Following this introduction, we first provide a short overview of relevant previous research on principals’ professional development. Second, we explain the methodological approach used for the analysis. Third, we describe and compare the formal requirements for taking on a principal’s position, as well as the kind of preparation programmes offered in each country. Fourth, we explain how continuous professional development for principals is offered for experienced principals from state agencies, universities, municipalities (or other school owners) and various other actors. Fifth, we discuss our findings related to a changing society and what implications this might have for providers, principals and research.

Professional Development for Principals The role of a principal has developed over time, depending on national culture and history. Before the Second World War, it was common for principals (also referred to as headteachers) in the Nordic countries to take on the administration of the school on top of full-time work as teachers (Uljens et al., 2013). This has changed under the augmented role of principals. In one of the reports about school leadership in the Nordic countries, the editors identified five main tasks for principals (Moos et al., 2000): –– –– –– –– ––

To lead teaching and learning To lead teachers’ learning To lead through language, values, and culture To lead community relations To lead themselves through reading, thinking, reflecting, and learning as a basis for their actions

These tasks highlight principals’ leadership and the need to focus on students, teachers and their own learning besides their administrative tasks. These tasks are

156

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

still largely valid. In their role as leaders, principals are responsible for the school organisation and for organising teaching and learning – the core tasks of schools – for the benefit of the students and society. However, with new output-oriented school governing, principals are to a greater degree held to account for student achievements and other performance indicators, student results and handling of everyday problems while at the same time being true to their pedagogical core (Svedberg, 2019). An increased focus on control, as well as digital technologies, implies increased transparency and an emphasis on being a broker between administrative levels in the school system. On the one hand, increased transparency can imply more interference in decision-making processes. On the other hand, it can lead to new ways of interaction across hierarchical levels that create new opportunities to reflect and learn together to handle complex challenges (Wenger, 1998; Johansson & Ärlestig, 2022). Such interactions between administrative levels are important in a democratic society, since municipalities traditionally represent arenas for local governments and democratic decision-making (West Pedersen & Kuhnle, 2017). To live up to such responsibilities and expectations, education for principals has become increasingly important. In the Anglo-Saxon world, there is generally a longer tradition of school leadership programmes compared to Nordic countries, where principal preparation is still a diverse and under-researched area (Baldursdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2016). School leaders often feel that they continuously learn by handling new situations in their daily practice. The challenge regarding such informal learning settings is that it proves difficult to find time to reflect on and systematise this type of learning to make tacit knowledge explicit. Moreover, there is a need to support principals in developing insights from research that deepens and challenges current knowledge (Brauckmann et al., 2020; Bush, 2018). Professional development can be seen as an individual good for gaining new knowledge. As such, it can be an individual gain to enhance a sense of self-efficacy and better task solving or a steppingstone for new career paths that can provide new tasks and responsibilities within the current position or opportunity to move to other positions (Pashiardis & Johansson, 2020). However, studies have shown that learning is more sustainable when it is shared collectively and connected to school development (Aas & Skedsmo, 2014; Jensen & Vennebo, 2016). Considering these perspectives, principals’ professional development is also a concern of the educational authorities and school owners, who must see that school principals have the necessary qualifications to fulfil their responsibilities (Baldursdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2016; Bush, 2018; Sigurðardóttir, 2018). At the same time, professional development can represent a governing tool for national and local educational authorities (Danzig & Black, 2019; Skedsmo & Aas, 2017). Through leadership programmes, authorities can target specific areas that align with other national policies or political priorities (Ärlestig & Johansson, 2020; Aas & Skedsmo, 2014). As the providers of the leadership programmes can be universities, school agencies, school owners and private companies, this flexibility opens for ‘an epistemic drift where discipline-based concerns are redefined by the exertion of influence upon academics by policy makers’ (Danzig & Black, 2019,

10  Principals’ Preparation and Professional Development in Nordic Countries

157

p.  10). Furthermore, transnational organisations, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) consultancies (e.g. McKinsey), influence national policies, where a growing policy-based evaluation culture shapes what is valued and expected. This again affects what kind of research is acknowledged, as well as what is taught in professional development programmes (Baldursdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2016; Moos et  al., 2000; Young & Crow, 2017). However, it also means that expectations with respect to what a principal is required to know can vary greatly among key stakeholders, influencing how and what is offered regarding preparation and continuous professional development for principals.

Methodological Approach In this chapter, we investigate and compare principal preparation programmes and continuous professional development for principals in the five Nordic countries. For this purpose, we applied a cross-case study to compare similarities and differences in principal preparation programmes and professional development within and across countries (Yin, 2018). Key data sources include policy documents, legislation and research, making use of document analysis to find, select, appraise and synthesise the data (Bowen, 2009). This analysis was conducted within each country and then cross-examined between the countries. When analysing the findings, we integrated data from the five countries based on the key concepts that emerged. In this way, we sought to understand, and compare, how principal preparation and continuous professional development are processed in each country. We present our findings in two main themes. The first theme relates to formal expectations and requested education for becoming a principal. The second concerns professional development for experienced principals; what kind of professional development is offered and by whom.

 ecoming a Principal: Formal Expectations B and Offered Education In all Nordic countries, formal requirements are attached to the principal position. The requirements adhere to being a pedagogical leader responsible for core school activities, including teaching and learning, and handling administrative tasks. In Finland and Iceland, principals are required to have a teaching licence. In Norway and Denmark, this is not a clear prerequisite, but it is required that the person appointed has pedagogical qualifications (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2021). In Sweden, the Education Act declares that principals are required to have ‘pedagogical insight’ (SFS, 2010: 800), and it is up to the municipalities or

158

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

private organisers to define what this means. Nevertheless, most principals, including those in Norway and Sweden, have teaching licences and experience. Being a teacher in Nordic countries does not always demand the same level of education. In Sweden and Denmark, a bachelor’s degree is required in compulsory education, while a master’s degree has been required in Finland since 1974, Iceland since 2015 and Norway since 2017. Having teaching experience as a principal is mandatory only in Finland. In Iceland, principals need to either have teaching experience or an additional degree in administration and, since 2019, have certain sets of competence (i.e. in school development, management, operation and administration) (The Act on the Education, Competency and Recruitment of Teachers and Administrators of Preschools, Compulsory Schools and Upper Secondary Schools no. 95/2019). Iceland is the only Nordic country with no educational preparation programme for principals or novice principals initiated or required from the governance (state or municipality) level. However, universities have offered degrees in school management and leadership since 1988 as a diploma and since 1997 as a master’s degree (120 ECTs). The programmes are intended for school leaders in leadership positions and teachers adding to their formal education aspiring to be school principals or senior leaders (Baldursdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2016; Jóhannsson, 2011; see further discussion in a later section). Although principals in Iceland are not required to have specialised education, it is presently difficult to get a job as a compulsory school principal in bigger towns without further education in school leadership and management from a university (Wildy et al., 2014). The costs of such a programme are covered on an individual basis. As mentioned, in Sweden, a principal is required to have ‘pedagogical insight’, which means that there are no formal requirements in the Education Act on specific education or teaching experience when entering principalship. However, seven universities (7.5 ECTs) offer a national recruitment programme for teachers interested in becoming principals. As soon as a new principal is hired, it is mandatory that they participate in the national principal programme at one of the selected universities, financed by the Swedish National School Agency. The programme is equivalent to 30 ECTs at the start of a master’s degree, and the principal needs to finish the 3-year programme within 4 years of the date they were hired as a principal. The Swedish National Principal Programme is open and voluntary for deputy principals, which means that it is difficult to obtain a principalship at the most attractive sites without an exam from the programme. The programme has national objectives, which include three courses: School Law, School Leadership and Quality and the School’s Inner Organisation. The programme became mandatory in 2009 and had, before that, a long tradition of focusing on school improvement. Since the Education Act requires that school activities be based on science and proven experience, research is an important component. From the perspective of the Swedish Agency, the programme is expected to affect the participants’ organisations positively and represents, in many ways, a governing tool to implement national policies. The programme is generic and invites principals for all schools’ forms, which contribute to a heterogenic group of participants. Ambitious national aims and the requirements for combining both theoretical and practical perspectives suit participants with leadership

10  Principals’ Preparation and Professional Development in Nordic Countries

159

experience, which means that participants without earlier leadership experience find the programme challenging (Jerdborg, 2022). Denmark has a general education for aspiring and experienced leaders at the compulsory school level taught at university colleges as a Diploma of Leadership. The programmes largely focus on general management and leadership, targeting all public and private administrators based on the assumption that leading all public institutions, as well as private enterprises or companies, requires the same skills (Moos et al., 2000). Due to a strong wish for a formal national school leadership programme expressed and supported by the national principal’s association and by the Danish government, specific courses for the educational leadership field as part of the general diploma in leadership (60 ECTs) have been in place as part of a new national school leadership programme since 2018. Until 2017, Danish school leaders were therefore not educated in leadership orientations and methods specifically related to educational or pedagogical institutions, as seen in, for example, the international research tendencies of educational leadership as instructional or pedagogical leadership with a focus on school improvement (Brazer & Bauer, 2013; Hallinger et al., 2020). The recommendations for the formal national programme for school leadership are closely related to the changes in policy understanding. As discussed in Chap. 2, due to the emphasis on decentralisation in the governance system, taking national school leadership courses to hold a formal principal position is not obligatory. In Norway, it is not compulsory to have formal leadership training, but when applying for a principal position, it is an advantage. Like Sweden, Norway has had a national principal programme since 2009. Currently, there are seven providers of this programme. Requirements are defined by the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, and the institutions respond to them by considering their own programme profiles (Aamodt et  al., 2019). One key requirement is practice orientation and leadership skills training, which means that the programmes offered differ in their organisation of content, working methods, study requirements and assessment forms. Higher education institutions apply for an open tender invitation that includes a set of formal and content-oriented requirements to become providers of the national programme. The 30-ECT programme spans over 1.5  years and includes various topics that aim to increase the participants’ understanding of their leadership role and what it means to lead a school, with a particular focus on leading change and development. The prioritised areas for the period 2020–2025 include (1) leading and developing local curricula and learning opportunities, (2) the school environment, (3) digitalisation and (4) professional communities (Norwegian Directorate for Teaching and Training, 2020). The first area is linked to the national curriculum that was introduced in 2020. The second is a target area for the school inspection system and relates to schools’ responsibility to provide a good school environment, as stated in §9a of the Education Act. The third area represents an ongoing challenge, and the fourth aims to build a strong professional community for sharing knowledge and experience as part of daily work. The institutions are free to bring in other topics according to the participants’ needs, as a central aim of the programme is the improvement of school quality. The study requirements are

160

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

closely linked to the participants’ daily work, ongoing development work and leadership challenges. Finland sets the highest prerequisites for taking on a post as principal by demanding a university exam on an advanced level, teacher education for the specific school form, experience as a teacher and a national educational leadership certificate worth 25 ECTs. It is also possible to obtain the principal certificate by taking an exam on the National Education Board (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2022) or by taking university courses. Unlike Sweden and Denmark, the principal preparation programme in Finland have mainly focused on administrative tasks and leadership issues in developing and maintaining relationships with teachers, students and parents. This has caused a divergence between expectations and the reality of school leadership (Saarivirta & Kumpulainen, 2016).  However, universities are increasingly offering those principal preparation programmes and their popularity is growing. Their  programmes tend to emphasis more  pedagogical and educational leadership. If teachers or principals want to take principal preparation programmes to acquire the 25 ECTs, they need to cover all costs themselves.

Professional Development for Experienced Principals In this section, we provide an overview of the similarities, differences and changes regarding professional development other than the principal preparation programmes previously described. As there are various programmes and providers of the services, it is a challenge to both give examples and compare them between countries. None of the countries has clear requirements or policy documents that describe what is expected or offered. Since professional development is related to national reforms and needs on regional, local and individual levels, little is known about the overall picture of principals’ professional development. Increased central and/or local steering with expectations about change due to inspections, official reports, performance data measured by national tests or other indicators defined in quality management systems indicate that the landscape for professional development may have changed. Higher mobility among principals makes it even more important to map examples of what is offered (Thelin, 2020).1

Professional Development Initiated at the National Level Education has been a key factor in building Nordic welfare and democratic societies (see the introductory chapter). Therefore, schools and schooling are important national concerns. With this in mind, the governance system for the five countries

 https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=7326

1

10  Principals’ Preparation and Professional Development in Nordic Countries

161

differs considerably (see the country chapters in this volume). In turn, this means that the national qualification systems and support of principals differ. In Finland, Norway and Sweden, national agencies initiate professional development programmes, and even where principals’ participation is voluntary, it is usual to join in such programmes. National agencies offer such programmes in Denmark as well, but it is uncommon for school principals to enrol in them. Such national agency-driven developmental opportunities hardly exist in Iceland. The Swedish National School Agency is active in promoting professional development for both principals and teachers, offering courses and guiding documents. Some of the courses are held by civil servants working at the agencies, and some are held by universities as commissioned training. The agency also offers a growing number of self-instructed courses online, which principals can take by themselves or as a group activity together with other principals or teachers. Often, the focus is on current policy changes and how to transform policy into practice. The recommendations and content are general overviews and simplified towards best-practice examples with the aim to improve teaching and learning directly or indirectly. A new white paper suggests a national framework for professional development for principals and teachers connected to a merit system. The new structure shall be in place in 2023 and hosted by the national agency (Skolverket, 2021). It has also been increasingly more common for the Swedish National Agency to have development projects offered directly to specific municipalities with schools with low academic results over time2 or to a large group of newly arrived immigrants. Projects that involve both monetary and competence resources through universities become offers that are hard to refuse (Johansson & Ärlestig, 2022). The development project offers professional development in agreement with the involved actors with the clear purpose of increasing students’ academic learning. In Finland, the ministry has commissioned courses through the universities’ professional development centres (SE, fortbildningscentraler). One example is ‘Toppkompetens’, a collaboration project for Finnish–Swedish school improvement.3 In Denmark, the Ministry of Children and Education offers 1-day seminars about implementing policy changes. The learning consultants at the ministry offer support to schools with low academic results. As part of the Danish school reform programme, the learning consultants also support the school principal in implementing the policy changes through longer action-learning processes with the staff. The Norwegian agency provides large programmes for professional development targeted at school actors in a range of areas. At the same time, the agency provides a range of thematic courses that can be taken after completing the national programme. In 2017, a new model for professional development was launched, named the Decentralised Organisation for Competency Development (Dekomp) (White Paper No. 21, 2017). The model provides for the choice of development areas to be

 https://www.skolverket.se/publikationsserier/regeringsuppdrag/2020/uppdrag-om-sam verkan-for-basta-skola-2020?id=6598 3  https://peda.net/porvoo-borg%C3%A5/ku/toppkompetens#top 2

162

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

decentralised, leaves room for local interpretation, strengthens partnerships between school owners, universities/university colleges and schools, and accentuates the focus on local needs. The Icelandic national state has seen professional development for preschool and compulsory school principals as municipalities or principals’ own responsibility since the educational system was decentralised in the mid-1990s (see Chap. 4). This includes upper secondary principals, even though upper secondary schools adhere directly to the Ministry of Education and Children. Since 2012, major stakeholders in education  – the Ministry of Education and Children, Icelandic Association of Local Authorities, Icelandic Teacher Union, Directorate of Education and universities involved in school leaders and teacher education  – have systematically worked together for solutions for professional development (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2019). One of the outcomes has been a web that gathers available professional developmental opportunities in the country. Although this was originally a bottom–up approach initiated by researchers and other interest groups, it indicates increased interest at the ministry level in professional development at the school level. The newest action is a national initiative by the Ministry of Education and Children in partnership with the universities that offers various free courses to teachers and a course on pedagogical leadership and change intended for school leaders at all levels to strengthen schools as professional learning organisations. The courses are partly inspired by the Swedish National Agency’s development programmes. However, it is voluntary for school leaders to take this course in addition to other work as principals, and it does not give ECT units. The funding for this developmental project has been guaranteed only for the next couple of years (Menntamiðja, 2022).

 rofessional Development Initiated at the Municipality or P Independent School-Owner Level Due to the decentralisation of education in Nordic countries and the independence of municipalities, it is usual for municipalities or independent school providers to initiate professional development opportunities for principals. In Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Denmark, those opportunities can both be mandated or voluntarily for principals to participate in, while in Finland, this is mainly voluntary. The opportunities are, however, different within each country depending on municipalities or independent school providers’ financial and professional capacity, their size and whether they are rural or urban municipalities. Some have established departments that organise and hold more structured courses and processes for professional development, while others do not. This leaves principals in smaller or more rural municipalities with much fewer options and relying on national offers and support, which again differ between the countries. Most municipalities in Iceland are rural, and while some municipalities have set up their own school offices with their own professional staff or networks with other

10  Principals’ Preparation and Professional Development in Nordic Countries

163

municipalities, others have not had the financial or professional capacity to do so. As such, some larger municipalities arrange conferences, workshops, programmes or professional meetings for school leaders, while other municipalities neglect this task and leave it up to the principals to organise their professional development. Either way, the support is unsystematic and limited (Sigurðardóttir, 2018; Wildy et al., 2014, see Chap. 4). In Norway, some municipalities (smaller municipalities sometimes form networks) have provided professional development for their school leaders in collaboration with universities or university colleges. For instance, the Oslo municipality has a long tradition of organising its own principal training in partnership with BI Norwegian Business School. With Dekomp, this decentralised offer for professional development is strengthened. Besides the National Programme for Principals targeting participants already in leadership positions, universities and university colleges provide master’s programmes that are quite popular among teachers and school leaders. In Sweden, the municipalities and independent school (SE, fristående) owners are probably the most active among the Nordic countries and regularly meet their principals for information; some of these meetings can count as professional development. In Sweden, the municipality chooses a theme or area to work with, and sometimes it engages with university lecturers or consultants to contribute to professional development. In Sweden and Denmark, it varies whether the courses are specific to the school sector or connected to the governance of the whole municipality, but for Iceland and Finland, the courses are usually targeted at school leaders. The courses tend to be short, practical courses related to administration, such as regulations in the working environment, budget and human relations and employment issues, as well as policy enactment and reforms. They less often offer longer courses with a critical perspective or offer systematic training or career paths for principals (Risku & Pulkkinen, 2016, Sigurðardóttir, 2018).

Professional Development Initiated at the University Level Universities in all Nordic countries offer diploma or master’s programmes (with ECT units) in administration and leadership, although in Denmark, the targeting group is usually all leaders independent of whether they are at schools or private companies. Some municipalities in Denmark offer to pay for a master’s degree in public management (90 ECTs). Furthermore, leadership programmes at the master’s level have in recent years been established at more Danish universities specifically focusing on educational leadership dimensions. University courses are often open to school leaders and teachers, which means that there is often a mix of principals and teachers. In all four countries that offer national courses in principal preparation programmes, it is rare for principals to participate in university courses or longer university collaborations above the preparation programmes. In Iceland,

164

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

where there are no national principal preparation programmes, it seems more common for principals to take university courses, a diploma or a master’s degree. The university education for school leaders in Iceland has, from the start, been based on the ideology of the principal as a professional and pedagogical leader with a focus on school improvement, although in later years, administrative courses have been added following an increased emphasis on school leaders dealing with financial issues and budget planning (Baldursdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2016; Jóhannsson, 2011). Furthermore, school leaders and aspiring leaders can seek studies in public administration provided by universities. Whatever the reason, preschool principals, compulsory school principals and aspiring school leaders tend to study for a master’s degree in school management and leadership, but upper secondary principals tend to study for public administration (see Chap. 4). Municipalities in Iceland usually  support their principals by allowing them to attend university classes without them being withdrawn from their salaries. However, their schoolwork awaits when they return (Baldursdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2016). Recently, bargaining agreements for principals have included a motivation for school leaders in preschools and compulsory schools to promote their professional development. They can now increase their salaries by seeking university-­ based courses throughout their professional lives (Icelandic Association of Local Authorities and the Association of Headteachers, 2021). Still, the specifications and content of courses are undefined, and the courses do not need to adhere specifically to their work as principals. In Norway, the first master’s programmes (90–120 ECTs) were established in 2003 after a national initiative was launched for universities and university colleges to apply for funds to support the development of the programmes financially. The first year of the master’s programme is equivalent to the National Principal Programme (launched in 2009) to provide opportunities to enter the master’s programme after completing the national programme. The programmes are part-time, and they differ according to profile, the emphasis on research methodology and the work required for the master’s theses (20–30 ECTs). In Norway, higher education institutions can apply for funding to develop new modules for topics that are considered important for education policy and the recently introduced reform (e.g. Law and Local Curriculum Development). These modules are expected to be integrated into the current master’s programmes, but participants can also take them as single modules. Besides principal preparation or qualification programmes, there are specialist qualifications in management programmes and professional development programmes in Finland. University-level programmes for principals are a recent phenomenon. Previous courses were normally short and mainly focusing on administrative tasks (Shantal et al., 2014; Tapio et al., 2019). Taken together, school principals acquire their leadership practices from four main sources of their training: theory, practice, leadership and networking. Still, professional development training is an area for improvement. In Denmark, it is unusual that principals in compulsory and lower secondary schools attend courses on their own initiative. Instead, they rely on offers from the

10  Principals’ Preparation and Professional Development in Nordic Countries

165

municipality. It is more frequent for upper secondary principals to participate in university courses. In Sweden, it is unusual that principals take a master’s degree in educational administration, even if they can use their credits from the national principal programme. One reason is that it is difficult to find time within their working day to keep the phase of learning that a university course requires. Instead, there is an emphasis on collaboration with universities in action research and professional development, with the health sector as a role model. The focus is on building cooperation and good structures that encourage action research among teachers and principals. The project, called the ULF, has economic support from the government.4

Other Opportunities for Professional Development Besides the more traditional university courses, national initiatives and municipality seminars, there are other options for professional development. There seems to be a growing number of organisations and actors who want to influence principals. As we cannot mention all offers, in this chapter we give examples of offers that are common in more than one country or usual and unique to a specific context. Besides the professional development directly offered to principals, they are expected to participate in local school improvement projects or professional development for teachers. This is for their own learning and to support their teachers’ learning and development. How much they participate and the aim of participating differ within and between countries. Principals need to learn from and together with other principals. Networking in Finland is a common way to manage professional development despite underfinances. In Denmark, there are also many examples of networks and collaboration among principals. Some are free, while others are not. In Sweden, Iceland and Denmark, schools and municipalities engage consultants and individual researchers to conduct school improvement projects, which is also seen as professional development (Baldursdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2016; Jarl et al., 2021). In all five countries, the principal unions play a role in principals’ development (i.e. by arranging conferences). The main content differs from working conditions and salary to support and guidance. One example from Denmark is a 3-day course for novice principals, which is often the first time they meet peers at the regional and national levels and discuss practice. In Iceland, school leaders (and teachers) at the compulsory and upper secondary school levels are granted the possibility to apply once during their career life for a sabbatical for up to 1 year for career development. Such sabbaticals are not granted in other countries. The sabbaticals are financed by funds paid for by the school owners (state and municipalities) and distributed in collaboration with unions (Icelandic

 The acronym stands for Utveckling, Lärande, Forskning (Development, Learning, Research). Read more on https://ulfavtal.se/ 4

166

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

Association of Local Authorities, 2022; Rannís, 2022). However, principals’ rights to sabbaticals at the upper-secondary level are richer than those at the compulsory school, and compulsory school principals  must account for full-year (60) ECT units while this is not a request for upper-secondary principals. Regulations do not grant preschool principals this sabbatical, but they have had some right to sabbaticals through bargaining agreements. The sabbaticals have been found to be valuable for principals’ professional development in preschool and compulsory schools in Iceland, and they encourage principals to take on a master’s study in school management and leadership and support them in finishing the degree (Baldursdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2016; Ragnarsdóttir, 2018). However, getting such leaves of absence can be difficult, especially for preschool principals who get shorter leaves of absence. One way of supporting principals in their professional development is to make easier access to those leaves of absence and to offer them more than once during their career life (Baldursdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2016).

 iscussion and Conclusion: The Need for Continuous D Professional Development Our analysis identified a range of similarities but also differences between the Nordic countries that concern formal expectations, educational requirements for becoming a principal and possibilities for continuous professional development after their initial preparation. In addition to the variation between the countries, there is variation within some of the countries. Even if many stakeholders on different governing levels share an interest in principal training and the programmes aim to cover topics related to changing society, the professional development programmes tend to be historically and nationally situated rather than being a strategic incitement to build competences to serve particular interests. The knowledge base is multidisciplinary and aims to provide insights and develop competences to handle a variety of responsibilities and tasks. The societal mandate to provide educational opportunities for all children and youths is at the core of the programmes. As we started our analysis, we discovered that professional development is defined and conducted somewhat differently in various countries. These differences made the comparison more challenging, but at the same time, they revealed the importance of such an attempt. Regarding the first research question, the formal national requirements for becoming a principal generally build on the assumption that teacher education and experience are important and necessary bases for the position. Even if concrete requirements are formulated at local levels, for instance in terms of advertisements for principal positions, there are some variations within the Nordic countries. Preparation programmes for entering principalship or during the first years as a novice principal are mandatory only in Finland and Sweden. In all five Nordic

10  Principals’ Preparation and Professional Development in Nordic Countries

167

countries, there is an offer for school leaders, often organised as formal leadership programmes provided by universities or university colleges. In all countries except Iceland, national agencies also initiate such programmes in cooperation with higher education institutions. In Sweden, the target group for the national programme is novice principals, while Norway also enrols deputy principals and other school leaders (e.g. heads of departments). All the professional development programmes provided by higher education institutions, as well as the national programmes assigned by national agencies, have both a theoretical and practical focus in terms of enabling the participants to apply their knowledge in their own work contexts. This means that the programmes aim to balance insights from research and theoretical knowledge, and they exchange participants’ experiences to develop their ability to analyse situations and find alternative strategies and actions (Baldursdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2016; Brauckmann et al., 2020). Moos et al. (2000) identified five main tasks for principals connected to leadership and learning. This thematic focus is still evident in the educational programmes in the Nordic countries. However, some differences between the countries were noted with respect to thematic profiles. While Iceland emphasises school leadership and improvement, Norway and Sweden to a higher extent include school improvement linked to policy expectations about data-informed decision-making. In comparison, Finland and Denmark seem to a higher degree to accentuate administration and general leadership. Regarding target groups for the programmes provided at universities/university colleges, they are usually attended by novice or aspiring school leaders. In all countries, there is an expectation (but not necessarily a compulsion) that principals should have advanced university courses. However, it seems that state and municipal authorities or other school owners do not promote additional university education as a necessary base for principals’ further education. Moreover, school owners’ interest in supporting school leaders in terms of time and resources who want to complete a master’s degree in school leadership varies. A lack of support is likely to discourage school leaders or challenge them to finish a master’s besides working full time. Instead, principals are encouraged to take shorter professional courses with more practical activities and skill training. This is of concern, as theoretical knowledge provides the necessary underpinnings of principals’ professional actions and boosts their self-esteem as principals (Baldursdóttir & Sigurðardóttir, 2016; Brauckmann et al., 2020). There is a range of actors that provide professional development for principals, such as higher education institutions, municipalities and state departments or agencies. In all countries, we identified increasing collaboration among these actors. The aim is not only to create individual opportunities for professional development but also to link insights about school development in light of current research in this field. Further ambitions regarding such collaboration are to share and build knowledge across levels in the school system to legitimate decisions and improve educational quality. Consequently, this strategy might benefit school leaders’ professional development.

168

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

Still, from the providers’ perspectives, there are different approaches regarding content matter, methods and views of learning. While the scientific community aims to provide learning opportunities that support critical reflections on practice in which theory and research take centre stage, educational authorities on national and local levels have a stronger focus on policy implementation and solving current problems. As employers, the municipalities organise and provide time and prerequisites for principals’ development, and their aim with professional development is foremost to create organisational gains and focus on generic issues that can have content other than what an individual principal needs based on their earlier knowledge and situation. For future work in this area, it is important to be aware that policymakers’ decisions are increasingly based on a policy-based evaluation culture (Uljens & Smeds-­ Nylund, 2021). OECD and other global organisations, as well as national governing instruments, influence what is valued and expected from school actors. The pressure of efficiency and visible results can affect what kind of research or knowledge is acknowledged as well as the content of professional development programmes, which might lead to instrumental models and best practice approaches taking centre stage in professional development programmes, thus fostering compliant principals rather than critical-reflective actors. States and municipalities both have interpretive precedence over what is seen as ideal and accepted. The risk is that professional development might become a reactive initiative to solve current problems rather than a strategic tool for the individual principal to build independent competence for long-term development. It is also difficult to see what incitements there are for experienced principals to continue to have a more systematic learning experience. There are a few examples of how experienced principals’ knowledge is used or how more educated principals get specific tasks or development possibilities. Giving principals a sabbatical, as in Iceland, is an exception that can foster new ideas and time for an individual principal to excel in their knowledge. In this chapter, we have concentrated on providers and variations in offered principal professional development options, structure and working methods. Schools are important arenas for negotiation, persuasion, power and conflict (Blase & Anderson, 1995; Gunnulfsen, 2020). Even if there are internal differences within and among the Nordic countries, it is necessary to see professional development as a powerful initiative that can be used in several ways. There is a need for more knowledge about the content of principal training and professional development and how it connects to expectations of principals’ responsibilities and tasks, especially since expectations and governance forms change. Our analysis indicates that all countries have programmes for principal preparation and initial training. However, there seems to be a loose coupling between principals’ prerequisites and those programmes and a lack of more advanced programmes targeting experienced principals. As Nordic countries have a strong belief in national aims and frameworks to create equal educational opportunities for all children and youth, municipalities and the role of schools in local communities are important arenas for local democracy. It is therefore crucial that principals act as professional, independent and critical reflecting leaders. Their education and professional development require both basic

10  Principals’ Preparation and Professional Development in Nordic Countries

169

knowledge in several areas and an ability to understand and learn along societal, political and organisational development and change. To create good opportunities for well-educated leaders, it is important to be aware that cooperation between the national level, universities, municipalities and individual principals can create both tensions and possibilities. One of today’s major challenges is to invest in individual actors who are willing to work for sustainable and ethical school organisations. This will require working conditions that allow time for both practical and theoretical reflections and long-term development. Finally, there is a need for continuous development courses on advanced levels in various topics.

References Aamodt, P. O., Hybertsen, I. D., Røsdal, T., Stensaker, B., Caspersen, J., & Federici, R. A. (2019). Evaluering av den nasjonale rektorutdanningen 2015–2019 (Evaluation of the national principal programme). Sluttrapport. NIFU. https://samforsk.no/uploads/files/Publikasjoner/ Rektorutdanningen-­2015-­2019-­WEB.pdf Aas, M., & Skedsmo, G. (2014). Kollektiv kunnskapsbygging og profesjonalisering av lederteam (Collective knowledgebuilding and professionalisation of leadership teams). In E. Elstad, & K. Helstad (Eds.), Profesjonsutvikling i skolen (pp. 278–298). Universitetsforlaget. Act on the Education, Competency and Recruitment of Teachers and Administrators of Preschools, Compulsory Schools and Upper Secondary Schools No. 95/2019. Ärlestig, H., & Johansson, O. (Eds.). (2020). Educational authorities and the schools: Organisation and impact in 20 states. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­38759-­4 Baldursdóttir, A. Þ., & Sigurðardóttir, S. M. (2016). Reynsla skólastjóra af meistaranámi í stjórnun skólastofnana (Principals’ experience of a master’s program in school management and leadership). Netla – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. https://netla.hi.is/greinar/2016/ ryn/05_ryn_arsrit_2016.pdf Blase, J., & Anderson, G. (1995). The micropolitics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment. Teachers College Press. Blossing, U., Imsen, G., & Moos, L. (2014). The Nordic education model. ‘A school for all’ encounters neo-liberal policy. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­7125-­3 Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Brauckmann, S., Pashiardis, P., & Ärlestig, H. (2020). Bringing context and educational leadership together: Fostering the professional development of school principals. Professional Development in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1747105 Brazer, S.  D., & Bauer, S.  C. (2013). Preparing instructional leaders: A model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(4), 645–684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13478977 Bush, T. (2018). Preparation and induction for school principals: Global perspectives. Management in Education, 32(2), 66–71. Danzig, A., & Black, W. R. (2019). Who controls the preparation of education administrators? Information Age Publishing. Evans, L. (2014). Leadership for professional development and learning: Enhancing our understanding of how teachers develop. Cambridge Journal of Education., 44(2), 179–198. Finnish National Agency for Education. (2022). Vanliga frågor (Common questions). https://www. oph.fi/sv/vanliga-­fragor/rektors-­behorighet-­0 Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools. A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. . https://www.wallacefoundation.org/

170

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

knowledge-­center/pages/how-­principals-­affect-­students-­and-­schools-­a-­systematic-­synthesis-­ of-­two-­decades-­of-­research.aspx Gunnulfsen, A. E. (2020). Utdanningsledelse som mikropolitisk praksis: Forhandling om mening, makt og posisjonering (Educational leadership as micropolitical practice: Negotiation of meaning, power, and positioning). Universitetsforlaget. Hallinger, P., Gümüş, S., & Bellibaş, M. Ş. (2020). ‘Are principals instructional leaders yet?’ A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940–2018. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1629–1650. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-­020-­03360-­5 Huber, S. H., & Schneider, N. (2022). Developing school leadership: Trends, concepts, approaches and impact. eJournal of Education Policy, 22(1). https://in.nau.edu/wp-­content/uploads/ sites/135/2022/02/Huber-­et-­al.pdf Icelandic Association of Local Authorities. (2022). Námsleyfasjóður kennara og stjórnenda grunnskóla (Fund for teachers and school leader’s sabbatical). https://www.samband.is/ verkefnin/fraedslumal/sjodir/namsleyfasjodur-­kennara-­og-­stjornenda-­grunnskola/ Icelandic Association of Local Authorities and The Association of Headteachers. (2021). Kjarasamningur Sambands íslenskra sveitarfélaga og Kennarasambands Íslands vegna skólastjórafélags Íslands. (Bargaining agreements between the Icelandic Association of Local Authorities in Iceland and the Association of Headteachers). https://www.ki.is/media/lhkgbdqt/heildarkjarasamningur-­s%C3%AD_sns-­2020-­2021_lok.pdf Jarl, M., Andersson, K., & Blossing, U. (2021). Organizational characteristics of successful and failing schools: A theoretical framework for explaining variation in student achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 32(3), 448–464. https://doi.org/10.108 0/09243453.2021.1903941 Jensen, R., & Vennebo, K. F. (2016). How school leadership development evolves: Crossing timescales and settings. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28(6), 338–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JWL-­06-­2015-­0048 Jerdborg, S. (2022). Learning principalship: Becoming a principal in a Swedish context: A study of principals in education and practice. University of Gothenburg. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/handle/2077/70566/Avhandling_E_version.pdf?sequence=2 Jóhannsson, Ó. H. (2011). Stjórnendanám við Kennaraháskóla Íslands/Menntavísindasvið Háskóla Íslands (Management and leadership education at the Iceland University of Education). University of Iceland Press. Johansson, O., & Ärlestig, H. (2022). Democratic governing ideals and the power of intervening spaces as prerequisite for student learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 60(3), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-­04-­2021-­0079 Larsen, E. (2021). Mission and mandates: School leaders’ and teachers’ professional discretion in enacting education for democracy. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.1893390 Leithwood, K., & Seashore-Louis, K. (2011). Linking leadership to student learning. Wiley. Menntamiðja. (2022). Menntafléttan 2022–2023 (Professional development opportunities). https:// menntamidja.is/menntaflettan/ Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. (2019). Samstarfsráð um starfsþróun kennara og skólastjórnenda: Skýrsla til mennta- og menningarráðherra (Co-operation council on the professional development of teachers and school leaders: Report). https://www.stjornarradid.is/ lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=349b2e00-­ef44-­11e9-­944e-­005056bc530c Moos, L., Carney, S., Johansson, O., & Mehlby, J. (2000). Skoleledelse i Norden: En kortlægning af skoleledernes arbejdsvilkår, rammebetingelser og opgaver: En rapport til Nordisk Ministerråd (School leadership in the Nordic countries: A study of school leaders’ working conditions, prerequisites and tasks: Report). Nordisk Ministerråd. Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2020). Kort om rektorutdanningen (Short about the Principal Education). https://www.udir.no/kvalitet-­og-­kompetanse/ etter-­og-­videreutdanning/rektor/kort-­om-­rektorutdanningen/

10  Principals’ Preparation and Professional Development in Nordic Countries

171

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2021). Tilsetting og kompetansekrav (Appointment and competence requirements). https://www.udir.no/regelverk-­og-­tilsyn/ skole-­og-­opplaring/saksbehandling/larerkompetanse/ Novak, J. (2017). Juridification and education. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory (pp. 1200–1205). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­287-­588-­4 Pashiardis, P., & Johansson, O. (Eds.). (2020). Successful school leadership: International perspectives. Bloomsbury Academic. Ragnarsdóttir, G. (2018). School leaders’ perceptions of contemporary change at the upper secondary school level in Iceland. In Interaction of actors and social structures facilitating or constraining change (PhD). University of Iceland, Reykjavík. https://hdl.handle. net/20.500.11815/2530 Rannís. (2022). Námsorlof kennara og stjórnenda framhaldsskóla (Sabbatical for teacher and school leaders in upper secondary schools). https://www.rannis.is/sjodir/menntun/ namsorlof-­kennara-­og-­stjornenda-­framhaldsskola/ Risku, M., & Pulkkinen, S. (2016). Finland: Finnish principal. In H. Ärlestig, C.  Day, & O.  Johansson (Eds.), A decade of research on school principals. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­23027-­6_4 Saarivirta, T., & Kumpulainen, K. (2016). School autonomy, leadership and student achievement: Reflections from Finland. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(7), 1268–1278. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-­10-­2015-­0146 SFS 2010:800 Skollagen (Education Act. In Swedish). Fritzes. Shantal, K.  M. A., Halttunen, L., & Pekka, K. (2014). Sources of principals’ leadership practices and areas training should emphasize: Case Finland. Journal of Leadership Education, 13(2), 29–51. Sigurðardóttir, S.  M. (2018). Stuðningur við skólastjóra í námi og starfi (Personal and professional support for principals). Netla – Online Journal on Pedagogy and Education. https://doi. org/10.24270/netla.2018.8 Sivesind, K., Skedsmo, G., & Hall, J. (2016). Et felles nasjonalt tilsyn: Om rammeverk og reformbaner gjennom historien (A joint national supervision: On frameworks and reform trajectories throughout history). In K. Andenæs, & J. Møller (Eds.), Retten i skolen. Mellom pedagogikk, juss og politikk (pp. 99–122). Universitetsforlaget. Skedsmo, G., & Aas, M. (2017). Selvvurdering og gruppecoaching: Nye muligheter for refleksjon og læring for skoleledere (New opportunities for reflection and learning for school leaders). In J. M. Paulsen & M. Aas (Eds.), Ledelse i fremtidens skole (pp. 333–356). Fagbokforlaget. Skedsmo, G., Rönnberg, L., & Ydesen, C. (2021). National Testing and accountability in the Scandinavian welfare states: Education policy translations in Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. In A. Verger, S. Grek, & C. Maroy (Eds.), World yearbook of education – Accountability and datafication in the governance of education (pp. 113–129). Routledge. Skolverket. (2021). Professionsprogram för rektorer, lärare och förskollärare (Professional programs for principals, teachers and preschool teachers, Sweden). Report Nr. U2021/03373. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-­dokument/departementsserien-­och-­promemorior/2021/07/ professionsprogram-­for-­rektorer-­larare-­och-­forskollarare/ Svedberg, L. (2019). Pedagogiskt ledarskap och pedagogisk ledning: Teori och praktik (Pedagogical leadership and pedagogical management: Theory and practice). Studentlitteratur. Tapio, J. L., Raisa, S. A., & Niina, L. (2019). Finnish principals: Leadership training and views on distributed leadership. Educational Research and Reviews, 14(10), 340–348. Thelin, K. (2020). Principal Turnover: When is it a problem and for whom? Mapping out variations within the Swedish case. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 5(2), 417–452. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2020.2.4 Uljens, M., & Smeds-Nylund, A. S. (2021). Pedagogiskt ledarskap och skolutveckling (Pedagogical leadership and school development). Studentlitteratur.

172

S. M. Sigurðardóttir et al.

Uljens, M., Möller, J., Ärlestig, H., & Fredriksson, L. F. (2013). The professionalisation of Nordic school leadership. In L. Moos (Ed.), Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership (pp. 133–157). Springer. Wallenius, T. (2020). Schools, performance and publicity: Contrasting the policy on publicising school performance indicators in Finland with the other Nordic countries (PhD). University of Helsinki. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press. West Pedersen, A., & Kuhnle, S. (2017). The Nordic welfare state model. In O.  P. Knutsen (Ed.), The Nordic models in political science: Challenged, but still viable? (pp.  249–272). Fagbokforlaget. White Paper No. 21. (2017). Lærelyst – Tidlig innsats og kvalitet i skolen (Motivation to learn – Early intervention and quality in school) (2016–2017). Ministry of Education and Research. Wildy, H., Sigurðardóttir, S. M., & Faulkner, R. (2014). Leading the small rural school in Iceland and Australia: Building leadership capacity. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213513188 Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Young, M. D., & Crow, G. M. (2017). Handbook of research on the education of school leaders. Routledge.

Chapter 11

Making Sense of Nordic School Leadership – Four Perspectives on Similarities and Variations Ann Elisabeth Gunnulfsen

, Helene Ärlestig

, and Merete Storgaard

This book can be regarded as a follow up to the series of Springer-editions about the Nordic perspectives on studies in educational leadership. Lejf Moos is a prominent forerunner with the first “Nordic” edition of Transnational Influences on Values and Practices in Nordic Educational Leadership: Is there a Nordic Model? published 10 years ago. In his edition, Moos (2013) stated that the Nordic countries are similar in many respects. The similarities are expressed through their differences from the UK and USA, where democratic thinking is built upon so-called liberal democracy, which values the idea that the purpose of society is to advantage the individual in her/his development (Louis, 2003). In contrast, Nordic social democracies focus on the welfare state perspective of social rights and equality (Andersen et al. 2007), a unified society where democracy and social welfare systems build on the necessity of a strong state that is willing and able to redistribute some of the wealth. This is combined with ideas of free speech and participation where citizens in a society are expected to participate in conversations on matters of mutual interest as a mean to strengthen all individual’s rights and well-being. This current book aimed to

A. E. Gunnulfsen Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] H. Ärlestig (*) Centre for Principal Development, Department of Political Science, Umea University, Umea, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] M. Storgaard Municipality of Svendborg, Svendborg, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. E. Gunnulfsen et al. (eds.), Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries, Educational Governance Research 21, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4_11

173

174

A. E. Gunnulfsen et al.

examine perspectives of contemporary school leadership1 practices and thinking based on the premise that schools play a vital role in forming societies. Moreover, the purpose of this book is to address and discuss principal prerequisites and work within democratic welfare states in Nordic countries. Throughout this book, we focused on schools as formal institutions that work for the benefit of individual students based on public good. This focus entailed a series of theoretical frameworks, educational leadership, and policy research to provide multiple comparative perspectives of school leadership in Nordic countries, such as the moral purpose of schooling, school governance and power relations, expectations towards school leadership, handling of crises, and cultures of trust. The chapters range from in depth-case studies and policy document analysis to analysis of large-scale data sets and literature reviews. The country chapters function as a base for the thematic chapters. Our discussion developed throughout our collaboration with ten researchers from the five Nordic countries. In the introductory chapter, we asked how the ‘welfare state’ concept in Nordic school leadership can be understood relative to the general perception that small states have a distinctive predisposition to operate in a socially solid, consensual, and open fashion. Combined with the purpose of discussing principals’ prerequisites and work within democratic welfare states, in the summary chapter, we reflect upon the concept of a specific “Nordic” approach. By discussing similarities and differences, as well as contemporary possibilities and challenges for school leaders in a Nordic education context, we encourage and value the knowledge that there are various ways to meet challenges, support individual students (as long as there is a common understanding), and strive to work towards transparency, participation, and equity. By problematizing the variations in the five Nordic countries, we reveal contemporary and historical phenomena in the school leadership field. The perspectives we reflect on for historical and temporary social patterns inform both practitioners, researchers, and policymakers of the current state of the school system and school leadership in the Nordic countries. We have identified four main perspectives: 1. School leadership and governance that is historically situated and transnationally related, 2. Educational leadership and democracy, 3. Nordic school principals as pedagogical leaders in collectively educational engagement, and (4) governance and room to maneuver in everyday work and crises management. 4. Lastly, a section of concluding remarks will point to future perspective for research, policy, and practice.

 School leadership is a concept with various definitions. In this book we have a broad definition where educational leadership and school leadership are interchangeable and include leadership of and in schools as well as leading and managing pedagogical and educational purposes and practices. 1

11  Making Sense of Nordic School Leadership – Four Perspectives on Similarities…

175

 chool Leadership and Governance – Historically Situated S and Transnationally Related Depending on how we compare and use educational leadership narratives with policy and research, we can create a professional language that constructs school reality (Eggen, 2011). While writing this book and during Nordic network meetings, we were able to observe both similarities and variations among the countries in how schools are constructed, led, and governed. The similarities and variations within each country depend on school form, school size, school ownership, and local authorities. In the introductory chapter, we presented the notion that schools are governed from the outside to a higher extent than before. Everything that happens in the world today, including national and local politics, has direct and/or indirect effect on schools and school leadership practices. Globalization, economics, and market-oriented logics have changed society in general and educational institutions in particular for centuries (Jarvis, 2007; Mundy et al., 2016). There are many consequences of globalization processes. The need for economic growth positions the education field and building of future citizens as central in the ongoing development and growth of nations (Moos, 2017a, 2017b). The globalization processes also entail exportation of deterritorialized knowledge solutions that infect local schools such as successful educational leadership or governance approaches travel across national education systems (Verger et  al., 2019; Sahlberg, 2016; Røvik & Pettersen, 2014). The country reports in this book demonstrate that the mechanisms of globalization and transnational ideas related to accountability and new public management are present in Nordic education systems and in daily school leadership practices. For example, more of the Nordic school systems, except for Finland, are positioning schools and school leaders in governance relations between the school and the state where they are made accountable for the academic performance of students though a national testing system. Furthermore, governance through decentralization has historically been part of governance traditions in most of the Nordic countries. This creates both relations of trust and freedom and plenty of room for school leaders and professionals to maneuver. However, when decentralization is closely related to market-based competition between schools, it seems to create social inequality between schools, as shown in the Danish and Swedish country chapters (Chaps. 2 & 6). According to studies of policy borrowing in education, the international tendency of governance through test-based accountability and competition influences the social relations in public institutions in various ways (Carney, 2008; Steiner-­ Khamsi, 2014). This development tendency is seen in Nordic school systems and has been followed by the same governance paths as the international education systems in the UK and USA. In spite of a growing tendency of homogenization and standardization, including a focus on academic results as an effect of globalization in education (Fuller & Stevenson, 2019; Moos, 2013), it has become evident that the democratic values and the strive towards inclusion and “bildung” are seen as important on all levels in the Nordic school systems (Tröhler et al., 2022; Moos, 2013;

176

A. E. Gunnulfsen et al.

Arlestig et  al., 2016). This emphasis in itself creates tension and challenges and illuminates the complexity of the Nordic approach. Most Nordic school leaders seem to be accountable for students’ academic results in various ways and influenced by the international governance trend of test-based accountability and market-­ based competition (Verger et  al., 2019). All of the chapters confirm that school leaders deal with national emphasis on outcomes, measures, and accountability. National testing in the Nordic education policy context is not high stakes and is devised differently throughout the Nordic countries. For example, in Denmark, national testing has been periodically voluntary (Chap. 2). At the same time, bildung and social equality has advanced legally and is valued as part of the democratic formation of the Nordic welfare society. The different Nordic education contexts seem to become a contextual filter formed by historical development in strong welfare states consisting of specific national, municipal and local contexts of education governance, into which neoliberal ideas seem to be ‘sliding’ (Moos et al., 2011; Moos, 2019).

Educational Leadership and Democracy Traditionally strong belief and interest in schooling has contributed to high complexity and to many actors becoming involved in school governance. Schools are key to building a society that supports individuals and their right to learn based on public good and strong welfare systems. This engages national politicians and civil servants, as well as principals, teachers, students, and parents. The countries have a similar challenge due to the belief that national policy and reform can solve today’s challenges and problems within schools. At the same time, it is obvious that the local school context and prerequisites differ; therefore, it is not possible to have the same general solutions everywhere. Policy and reforms need to be interpreted and customized to fit the needs of students and teachers in local schools. The chapters show that principals in Nordic countries first and foremost focus on an ambition for their work as pedagogical leaders with local schools as their main concern. In the country chapters, we identify academic knowledge as their main focus. It is important to have highly educated citizens in democracies. At the same time, there is a need to discuss if controlling students’ academic learning and standards of school quality take time and focus away from other important parts of the local schools’ work to educate democratic citizens. In a democratic society, it is crucial that the voices of actors in local schools meet the voices of actors on municipal and national levels. To create meaningful meetings and intervening spaces where prerequisites, learning, results, future visions and goals are discussed, it is necessary to combine this work with individual good and public good (Johansson & Ärlestig, 2021). By analyzing TALIS data from 2019, Gunnulfsen and Leo (Chap. 8) illustrate that diverse tasks and high ambitions can contribute to work overload. Work overload can be seen in relation to increased leadership tasks, such as being responsible

11  Making Sense of Nordic School Leadership – Four Perspectives on Similarities…

177

for teachers’ professional development. Following the notion of work overload, the chapter written from the Norwegian education context (see Chap. 5) states that the government announced that school leaders are responsible for providing direction and facilitating pedagogical and professional collaboration between teachers in the renewal of the Norwegian curriculum (LK20). In Norway, the definition of responsibility for teacher development has currently been moved from an individual principal to a policy expectation of school leadership as a collective practice consisting of several formal leader roles in the school organization. The distribution of responsibility that this policy expectation represents might contribute by causing tensions to rise regarding the formal responsibility when the status of collaborative practice on professional development between teachers must be settled. This means that being a broker whose role is to support relations and communication between the inside and the outside becomes a significant aspect of leadership. Exchanging information, ideas, and knowledge is an important feature of not only running but also developing schools no matter how good they are. Schools are important for a stable society from many perspectives. Therefore, it is necessary for school leaders who are actors with a broad network and good opportunities to continue to learn. The thematic chapters on principals’ professional development indicate that the infrastructure is too weak to encourage principals to continue to learn through academic courses. Simultaneously, there are no findings regarding the ways in which principals’ professional experience and knowledge can be used in a more generic way. As Sigurðardóttir, Skedsmo and Ärlestig pointed out in chapter 10, professional school leader development in Nordic countries primarily seems to be phenomena built around historical and national trends and tendencies. This means that, from an overall Nordic perspective, school principals’ professional development do not seem to be predominantly strategic incitements to build leadership skills and competencies in relation to specific national aims of governance. In fact, the country reports seem to indicate that the national governing ambitions to improve school quality have not only increased the number of reforms, but also the focus on professional and collective development of teachers more than leaders. Although all the countries report on offering national principal preparation programs to school principals, mid-level leaders and aspiring school leaders, these programs are not mandatory. Furthermore, more of the Nordic initiatives for principal preparation programs embrace academic content from both normative and instrumental perspectives.

 ordic School Principals as Pedagogical Leaders N in Collectively Educational Engagement The chapters in this book have displayed perspectives on Nordic school principals as pedagogical leaders in various ways regarding aims of support, follow ups on teachers’ professional work, and safeguards for democratic values. We have defined

178

A. E. Gunnulfsen et al.

pedagogical leadership as leadership tasks primarily related to curriculum, including teaching activities and engaging with the core values of schooling. There is no doubt that one of principals’ most important tasks is networking and relation building, which is time-consuming in and of itself. Another common feature beyond pedagogical issues is administrative tasks that need more attention. In addition, it is necessary for school leaders to have power and influence to make decisions. The influence on important decisions requires principals to have the legitimized power to influence decisions on a municipality and national level besides the work inside schools. Altogether, the complexity and variety of requirements and tasks generate a heavy workload and tendencies that can make it difficult to convince teachers to take the next step and become a principal. Stress and work overload seem to be primarily related to a connection between principals’ working capacity and their ambitions to execute their pedagogical leadership aims. There seems to be a general practice at the municipal level in the Nordic countries where the democratic values are safeguarded through professional autonomy combined with distributing leadership roles in both municipalities and schools. The distribution of leadership tasks might even be related to local authorities’ aim to reduce school principals’ workload. The combination of internal responsibility and external accountability could increase stress for school principals because the autonomy seems to be pervasive in organizations consisting of partly different professional interests. This pervasive autonomy creates leadership pressure regarding power, trust, and control. Through their formal role as the head of a school organization, principals are inevitably responsible and accountable for school development, student learning and school quality on the municipality level. This makes them an important actor to solve problems in local everyday school activities, particularly in situations where leadership cooperation and distribution of power are more important than governance. One emphasis in our book has been on the ambition and intentional work of Nordic school principals as autonomous, pedagogical leaders where the attention has been on their effort to advance highly educated citizens into a well-functioning social democracy. Simultaneously, we have identified that practices of monitoring and controlling students’ and a performance-based dimension to school quality is prominent. We recognize this development as part of an Anglo-Saxon educational policy influence. These findings highlight possible tensions between working for democracy and public good versus marketization and competition in some of the countries’ education system (e.g., Sweden and Denmark) and possible implications for principals’ leadership. An important question to consider is whether this Anglo-­ Saxon development has altered the work of principals in those countries or not. The thematic chapters and the country chapters do not illuminate decisive differences in leadership practices regarding for example autonomy. There is also a need to clarify whether the development of private schools and stronger focus on performance-­ based and marketized education system is more or less prominent in more of or all the Nordic other countries, as the country chapters do not clarify these issues correspondingly. Undoubtedly, the value of pedagogical leadership and building of

11  Making Sense of Nordic School Leadership – Four Perspectives on Similarities…

179

democracy is facing ethic challenges in a growing marketization of society increasingly dominated by economic rationales and competition.

 overnance and Room to Maneuver in Everyday Work G and Crises Management In chapter (3), Smeds-Nylund and Mäkiharju discuss the kind of autonomy school principals have in Nordic countries. The authors take school leaders’ need for a certain amount of autonomy while acting as pedagogical leaders as a point of departure. The amount of autonomy especially relates to school leaders’ involvement in enhancing teachers’ professional development and creating and ensuring supportive working environments for teachers. Smeds-Nylund and Mäkiharju state that the Finnish education system has a culture of trust that seems to combine strong autonomy with no visible status differences between the school principal and the teachers in daily practice. For example, inspection visits in schools were abolished in the 90 s and there are no national tests in basic education. School principals and teachers are regarded as having equal roles and responsibility for student learning and school quality. Consequently, the distribution of responsibility and leadership seems to not be organized formally as a type of delegation; however, the distributed practice arises naturally in the school organization. Despite the culture of trust and strong autonomy, more than 80% of Finnish school principals report being over-­ stressed and more than half considered switching to another profession. The Swedish country chapter reveals a perception of the complexity of school principals as pedagogical leaders or conveyors of knowledge and directives (Chap. 6). In the Swedish education policy context, high ambitions to improve school quality are prominent. School leaders in Sweden experience strong expectations from various policy directions combined with demands for accountability. The demands are likely to create stress among principals and affect pedagogical leaders’ room to maneuver. School principals’ autonomy is also a tension point in the Danish education context because every local Folkeskole has its own politically elected school board with the power to determine local pedagogical leadership principles for the school. The school principal is the secretary for the local school board and the link between the local school board and the policymakers at the municipal level. The school principal’s connection to the school board and the practice of using the principal as a link between the system levels contributes to leadership dilemmas regarding autonomy, responsibility, and sense of trust and loyalty to both the school level and the municipal level. The Iceland country (Chap. 4) explains that school leaders and teachers have almost complete autonomy in teacher professional development, which essentially removes professional development from the school principals’ authority. In Iceland, the school principal role changes rapidly and consists of complex and multilevel relations. The authors claim that principals’ capacity to act as

180

A. E. Gunnulfsen et al.

pedagogical leaders is reduced because the distribution of leadership roles currently dominates the leadership structure. Although structure and work with governance, distribution, and autonomy varies in Nordic countries, these factors are crucial for how principals understand and execute their work. In turbulent times, they become even more important. The relational orders constructed due to actions in a pandemic governance chain changed the existing, historical approaches in school leadership. Ragnarsdóttir and Storgaard’s comparative analysis on policy demands, expectations, and changed leadership roles during the COVID-19-pandemic between Denmark and Iceland is one example of this (Chap. 9). The first year of the COVID-19-pandemic challenged the adaptability of school principals in crisis management and placed new dilemmas related to autonomy, pedagogical leadership, and administrative workload on school principals. Further empirical research will reveal whether the period of deinstitutionalization of traditionally distributed leadership roles and the decentralized governance approaches have fundamentally changed the democratic sociality of schools.

Concluding remarks and Directions for the Future The chapters reveals that the Nordic countries have many similarities, despite the variations in how governance and leadership are executed. Even if schools and leadership are similarly affected by the global trends, there are still contextual differences in how national traditions and history contribute to school leaders’ choices and values. The chapters in this book also show that we can learn a lot from each other, including how to structure and realize common visions and values that strive towards democracy and a society where all children have equal right to free public schools and education. Distributed leadership roles and trust management are the currently preferred and recommended solutions to solve leadership dilemmas regarding crisis management, stress, increased workload, well-being, pedagogical leadership, school development, and societal responsibilities. Despite these trends, the reports on school leadership in the Nordic countries express increased distribution of school leadership roles and explain that the complexity in work tasks still seems to be sustained and might have even increased. Recruiting of school leaders is a challenge in all the Nordic countries. This complexity points towards that challenges cannot be solved with one sort of solution or leadership perspective. It is necessary to combine macro as well as micro perspective where both structural and cultural aspects are included. The questions spawned by this comparative discussion include how and why the overall democratic purposes of the educational systems in Nordic countries are constantly changing. The increased complexity creates a need for further studies of the similarities in contemporary challenges and the prerequisites of school leadership in Nordic countries and their relation to democracy and a strong welfare system. Studies of how the democratic and shared values of social equality are balanced and

11  Making Sense of Nordic School Leadership – Four Perspectives on Similarities…

181

ascribed in Nordic schools will contribute to understanding the depth of the changes to the Nordic welfare state. Our publication illustrates the importance of identifying important common features and challenges in the Nordic context and compares how these are handled in all five countries. By combining policies and other documents with empirical data such as surveys and interviews, we can understand more about school leaders’ choices and possibilities. Since the heterogeneity is not only between countries, but also within each country, issues such as rural schools, social justice, immigration, and schools’ inner organization and improvement can be seen in new and extended perspectives. Our work has awoken more questions about principals’ power and power relations. There is a need to continue to investigate the role of school leaders as pedagogical leaders in the Nordic countries regarding the combination of trust and support, such as room to maneuver in an expanding and complex governing chain. As a research group, our next step will be to understand more about how school leaders work with crises and tensions, what are seen as controversial issues, and what kind of support and control are present when the unexpected occurs, issues that are also related to social justice, equity, and socio-economic contexts. School principals in collaboration with teachers are important actors in schools and can be seen as fundament for building coming societies. Therefore, it becomes even more important to communicate and raise critical awareness on the inner life of schools and how they are lead and governed. It is also important to understand what kind of environment attracts well-educated principals and teachers to this important work to educate future citizens.

References Andersen, T.  M., Holmström, B., Honkapohja, S., Korkman, S., Tson, S.  H., & Vartiainen, J. (2007). The Nordic model. Embracing globalization and sharing risks. ETLA B. Ärlestig, H., Day, C., & Johansson, O. (2016). International school principal research. In H. Ärlestig, C. Day, & O. Johansson (Eds.), A decade of research on school principals (pp. 1–9). Springer. Carney, S. (2008). Negotiating policy in an age of globalization: Exploring educational “policyscapes” in Denmark, Nepal, and China. Comparative Education Review, 53(1), 63–88. Eggen, A. B. (2011). Agency as the ability and opportunity to participate in evaluation as knowledge construction. European Educational Research Journal, 10(4), 533–544. Fuller, K., & Stevenson, H. (2019). Global education reform: understanding the movement. Educational Review, 71(1), 1–4. Jarvis, P. (2007). Globalization, lifelong learning and the learning society: Sociological perspectives. Routledge. Johansson, O., & Ärlestig, H. (2021). Culture, structure and leadership in Sweden: National accountability and local trust. In The Cultural and Social Foundations of Educational Leadership (pp. 45–65). Springer. Louis, K. S. (2003). Democratic schools, democratic communities: Reflections in an international context. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 2(2), 93–108. Moos, L. (2013). Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic Educational Leadership: Is there a Nordic Model? (Vol. 19). Springer. Moos, L. (2017a). Dannelse. Kontekster, visioner, temaer og processer. Hans Reizels Forlag.

182

A. E. Gunnulfsen et al.

Moos, L. (2017b). Neo-liberal governance leads education and educaltional leadership astray. In M.  Uljens (Ed.), Bridging educational leadership, curriculum theory and didactics (pp. 151–180). Springer International Publishing. Moos, L. (2019). Glidninger–‘Usynlige’ forandringer inden for pædagogik og uddannelser [Slidings–‘Invisible’transformations in education]. DPU ebooks. Moos, L., Skedsmo, G., Hoog, J., Olofsson, A., & Johnson, L. (2011). The hurricane of accountabilities? Comparison of accountability comprehensions and practices. In How school principals sustain success over time (pp. 199–222). Springer. Mundy, K., Green, A., Lingard, B., & Verger, A. (2016). Introduction: The globalization of education policy-key approaches and debates. In The handbook of global education policy (pp. 1–20). Wiley. Røvik, K. A. & Pettersen, H. M.(2014). Masterideer. (Master ideas). In Røvik, K. A., Eilertsen, T. V. & Miksnes, E. (Eds.), Reformideer i norsk skole. Spredning, oversettelse og implemetering (Master ideas in Noregian schools. Spreading, translation and implementation). Cappelen Damm Akademisk. Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on schooling. The handbook of global education policy, 12(4), 128–144. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2014). Cross-national policy borrowing: Understanding reception and translation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(2), 153–167. Tröhler, D., Hörmann, B., Tveit, S., & Bostad, I. (2022). The Nordic education model in context: Historical developments and current renegotiations. Taylor & Francis. Verger, A., Parcerisa, L., & Fontdevila, C. (2019). The growth and spread of large-scale assessments and test-based accountabilities: A political sociology of global education reforms. Educational Review, 71(1), 5–30.