Comparison paper
Comparison of Subsystems of a school district
1.
Top of Form
Adolfsson & Alvunter (2017) explored how different subsystems of a school district must work together in order to improve student achievement.
Write a 1,050- to 1,400-word paper that addresses the interconnectedness of elements of the organization and the research-based leadership styles you would use to effect change.
Explore your own home school districts website and identify how various links in the systems work together to focus on the improvement of students academic achievement.
https://www.palmbeachschools.org/
Identify the strengths and the challenges that you found and how you would match an appropriate leadership style for each challenge.
Discuss why you would select each leadership style and the theory that accompanies your selection.
Submit your assignment.
Reference:
Adolfsson, C.-H., & Alvunger, D. (2017). The nested systems of local school development: Understanding improved interaction and capacities in the different sub-systems of schools. Improving Schools, 20(3), 195208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480217710874
Improving Schools
2017, Vol. 20(3) 195 208
The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1365480217710874
journals.sagepub.com/home/imp
Improving
Schools
The nested systems of local
school development: Understanding
improved interaction and
capacities in the different
sub-systems of schools
Carl-Henrik Adolfsson and Daniel Alvunger
Linnaeus University, Sweden
Abstract
In school systems around the world, there is an increasing focus on students academic achievement. The
challenge of how to improve schools is an important issue for all levels in the school system. However, a
central question of both practical and theoretical relevance is how it is possible to understand why (or why
not) school-development efforts are successful. The purpose of this article is to explore the ecology of local
school development through the case of a medium-sized municipality in Sweden, based on empirical data
from two follow-up research projects. The analytical framework draws from organisational theory and new
institutional theory, where focus is directed towards how different sub-systems of the school organisation
interact with and respond to aspects of development work and the implications for outcomes of school-
development initiatives. Findings show that great investment of resources from the central level in the local
school organisation necessarily does not lead to changes in teaching practice. School-development initiatives
are unlikely to be successful unless they engage and re-couple the involved sub-systems. Finally, we discuss
how the introduction of Expert Teachers as a new sub-system has the ability to work as a link between other
sub-systems and to promote school development.
Keywords
Loose coupling, nested systems, school development, school organisation
Introduction
This article explores local school development from a perspective inspired by organisational the-
ory and new institutional theory (Orton & Weick, 1990; Scott, 2008; Vanderstraeten, 2007; Weick,
1976). While the local is the empirical area of main concern, this study is discussed against the
backdrop of current global developments in school systems which place stronger emphasis on
Corresponding author:
Carl-Henrik Adolfsson, Linnaeus University, 391 82 Kalmar, Sweden.
Email: [emailprotected]
710874 IMP0010.1177/1365480217710874Improving SchoolsAdolfsson and Alvunger
research-article2017
Article
https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/journals-permissions
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/imp
mailto:[emailprotected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1365480217710874&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-06-03
196 Improving Schools 20(3)
academic achievement and performance and increasing demands on school decision-makers to
gradually improve school results. Around the world, new policy spaces that transcend national
borders are taking shape (Sassen, 2006). Transnational actors, such as the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU), and soft policy
agreements and educational standards put pressure on nation-states education systems (Grek et al.,
2009; Ozga, Dahler-Larsen, Segerholm, & Simola, 2011).
This emerging transnational educational policy space offers strong incentives for imposing change
on schools (Levin, 1998; Storey, 2007). It is important to recall the global picture as educational
policy makers generally see the local as the site where all the promises and aspirations of educational
reform are to be accomplished and fulfilled. Many countries have recently undertaken reforms con-
centrated on restructuring school systems, curriculum and resource allocation which nevertheless
have little impact on classroom activities (Cuban, 1998; Dumont, Istance, & Benavides, 2010;
Hkansson & Sundberg, 2016). At the same time, it is important to notice that this is not a new phe-
nomenon. In Fullans (2000) overview of implementations of large-scale educational reforms from
the 1950s until the year 2000, he concludes that putting ideas into practice (p. 6) seems to be an
eternal challenge for policy makers and actors in the school system. Today, the significance and
potential of the local and regional management of schools for school development and improved
student achievement is a highly topical issue, especially considering the interactions of actors at dif-
ferent levels in the school system. A major question, however, remains how major programmes of
school-development solutions can be implemented when research has repeatedly shown that such
efforts need to be context specific and sensitive to local conditions (Hopkins, Stringfield, Harris,
Stoll, & Mackay, 2014).
In recent years, Sweden has seen national policy initiatives in line with transnational policy
trends that, in different ways, have triggered school-development initiatives in public and independ-
ent schools: the establishment of new authorities, such as the School Inspectorate (2008); a new
curriculum for compulsory and upper secondary schools (2011); a new education act (2010); and
reform of career services for teachers (CST, 2013). The CST reform in July 2013 introduced Expert
Teacher1 as a new category of teachers in Swedish public and independent schools (there are about
14,000 Expert Teachers in Sweden; Swedish National Agency for Education (NAE), 2014). The
state authority allocates a number of positions for Expert Teachers based on the number of students,
and funding is based on government grants (Promemoria from the Government, 2013). To be
appointed, a teacher must be certified, have a minimum of 4 years of documented excellence in
teaching and the ability to improve student achievement (Government Grant Ordinance, 2013, p. 70;
NAE, 2013). With the appointment follows a quite substantial salary rise (about 540 per month).
There is no strict government regulation for the duties of the Expert Teacher. They may be respon-
sible for coaching colleagues, pedagogical discussions, subject development, teacher students on
placement and so on. The reform itself is flexible, and due to a decentralised school system, munici-
palities and independent schools are free to recruit and designate the duties of the Expert Teachers.
Thus, there is a plethora of solutions and great variation in design between municipalities.
The aim of the CST reform is to promote the status of teachers and offer career opportunities by
appointing skilled teachers and engaging them in school development. To some extent, the idea of
Expert Teachers resembles the National Board Certified Teachers in the United States (Bond,
Smith, Baker, & Hattie, 2000; Vandevoort, Amrein-Beardsley, & Berliner, 2004), the Advanced
Skills Teachers (AST) in England (Fuller, Goodwyn, & Francis-Brophy, 2013) and the Chartered
Teacher Standard in Scotland. However, unlike these programmes and initiatives, there is no
requirement for Expert Teachers to have a specific education, degree or accreditation. Research has
shown that Expert Teachers can become an important support for school development and contin-
ued professional development and reinforce distributed leadership throughout schools (Alvunger,
Adolfsson and Alvunger 197
2016) but might, to some extent, challenge existing leadership relations and authorities, primarily
principals (Alvunger, 2015b). Our aim in this article is not to highlight the enactment of the CST
reform as such, but it is important to be aware of the particularities of this reform as we move on
to the scope and research questions of this article.
The research problem and questions
School development is a dynamic research field. During the past decade, important empirical find-
ings and theoretical models explaining and supporting successful school development and school
leadership have emerged (Fullan, 2001; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Hallinger, 2011; Harris, 2012;
Leithwood et al., 2007), but there are no ready-made solutions or quick fixes for school develop-
ment that can be rolled out. A central question of both practical and theoretical relevance is how it
is possible to understand why (or why not) school-development efforts are successful. In this study,
this general question serves as a point of departure for exploring the ecology of local school devel-
opment through the case of a medium-sized municipality in Sweden. The following research ques-
tions are investigated:
How do school actors in the different sub-systems of the local school organisation interact
with and respond to core aspects of development work?
Based on the former question, what implications for the outcomes of local development
work can be identified?
How is it possible to strengthen the organisational capacity for reinforcing local school
development?
Background
In this study, insights from classical organisational theory and new institutional theory are applied and
related to empirical data collected from two ongoing evaluation projects conducted in the same
medium-sized Swedish municipality between 2013 and 2016. As discussed, those years saw several
educational reforms and national and local school-development initiatives. The first project, Learning
schools (LS), studied the processes and outcomes of development work at nine schools based on data
collected from different levels of the local school system (20132015). The second project,
Implementation of Expert Teachers (FT), analysed the implementation of Expert Teachers, focusing
on the local school organisation; formulation of the duties assigned to Expert Teachers; and relation-
ships between different agents in school development and their challenges, needs and strategies
(20142016). Although the two projects had somewhat different approaches and targeted different
contexts, they shared a common interest in the factors that promote school development and capacity
building. Together, these projects generated rich empirical materials from various contexts in a local
school organisation that enable a thorough analysis of the school-development work at different lev-
els in the same municipality. Therefore, it is appropriate to use these two projects together as a case
study to better understand the processes and outcomes of local school-development work.
Theoretical points of departure: the local school system as an
open, nested and loosely coupled system
School-development initiatives that accomplish change are embedded in practice. In this study, we
understand school development as a capacity-building process, where individuals, groups and
organisations develop capability not only by obtaining knowledge and skills but also by creating
198 Improving Schools 20(3)
motivation and sometimes change attitudes, with the aim to improve conditions for students learn-
ing (Resnick, 2010; Stoll, 2009). From this point of view, it becomes important to develop a theo-
retical understanding of the local school system, its different parts and the relationships between
them. The perspective on the local school organisation presented in this section consists of two
pillars that together form a theoretical scaffold for focusing on (1) the relationship between the
local school system and the surrounding environment and (2) the relationships between different
levels and sub-systems of the local school system.
School organisation as an open system
The first pillar builds on the understanding of the local municipal school organisation as an open
system (Scott, 1995, 2008). In contrast to a closed system, schools in an open system have perma-
nent external interactions with the surrounding environment, for example, exchanging informa-
tion, people and knowledge. This presents both opportunities and challenges: schools face constant
pressure to change and conform to the prevailing rules and belief systems in order to maintain their
legitimacy. Vanderstraeten (2002) described this as the paradoxical conclusion that an open sys-
tem has to change in order to maintain its equilibrium (p. 245; italics in original).
In total, three dimensions are central to understanding the how of external pressure and
schools legitimacy: the regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive/discursive dimensions. The
regulative dimension emphasises rules and sanctions and gives institutions legal legitimacy. For
a school, this means, for example, adhering to the Education Act, curriculum standards and being
transparent to auditing authorities (e.g. the School Inspectorate). The normative dimension con-
cerns evaluation and moral legitimacy. These external pressures may arise from work norms,
expectations and attitudes towards how schools should work and take appropriate action even in
the absence of any legal obligations. Such normative expectations can operate through soft regu-
lations, such as voluntary rules with no formal legal sanctions attached. Finally, the cognitive-
cultural/discursive dimension consists of the shared conceptions and frames through which
meaning is understood. In this dimension, external impulses are translated and re-contextualised
at the discursive level. For example, a schools attempts to make sense of a curriculum or reform
paves the way for action and inserts meanings and patterns into the institutions cognitive struc-
ture (Scott, 2008).
School organisation as a nested and loosely coupled system
Building on the concept of nested systems (Resnick, 2010), the second theoretical pillar conceptu-
alises the internal structure of the local school system as consisted of a number of sub-systems on
different organisational levels: the local school administration, school level and teacher/teaching
level. Although internally related, these sub-systems each have their own logic, conditions and
specific functions in relation to the others. In a school context, the sub-systems might be composed
of teacher teams, school leadership teams, the local administration and classroom teachers. The
function of the local administration is primarily linked to the organisation of resources (e.g. organi-
sational, financial and human) at the municipal level, while school leaders function is similarly
determined at the school level. In turn, the function of teachers derives primarily from the organisa-
tion of learning environments in the classroom (Resnick, 2010).
Nested sub-systems can be seen to have loosely coupled relationships (Orton & Weick, 1990;
Weick, 1976). Thus, within an organisation, such as a school, various elements or sub-systems
have weak relationships and couplings. Even if the sub-systems are connected to each other
belong to the same system with a common main function they often possess knowledge bases and
Adolfsson and Alvunger 199
functions specific to themselves. Although the sub-systems in local school organisations are
dependent on each other, the complex structure of the organisation complicates their communica-
tion and interaction and, from a systems theory perspective, forces sub-systems to reduce the com-
plexity of different situations to enable meaningful communication (Vanderstraeten, 2002). In line
with Davis, Sumara and DAmours (2012) discussion about complex systems, the relationships
between the sub-systems within a loosely coupled system is characterised by: being not fixed.
Rather, the components and their interrelationships are subject to ongoing co-evolution (p. 375).
Unlike in more tightly coupled systems, this might result in multifaceted goals and means and vari-
ances in problem definition and priorities between sub-systems. Such organisations become diffi-
cult to centrally coordinate and control. Consequently, the actors in different sub-systems do not
accord to central policy directives and intentions but rather their own knowledge base, experiences,
priorities and needs (Lipsky, 2010).
Although loose coupling between the sub-systems in organisations can create internal manage-
ment and communication problems, loosely coupled organisations are by nature generally more
open, which makes them more resistant to external pressures to change, such as political directives
and public opinion. As Weick (1976) emphasised, these organisations retain a greater number of
mutations and novel solutions than would be the case with a tightly coupled system (p. 7). Loosely
coupled organisations might not follow the intentions of policy makers but can better adapt to the
surrounding environment. As well, as explained later, this comprehensive (semi-)autonomy of the
sub-systems can affect the processes and outcomes of local school-development work.
Research design
The empirical data upon which this article is based come from two ongoing evaluation research
projects (LS and FT) conducted in a compulsory school in a medium-sized municipality (popula-
tion: 67,000) in south-eastern Sweden between 2013 and 2016. The projects had different designs.
The LS was aimed at supporting the development work of nine compulsory schools. The processes
and outcomes of the development work were studied and evaluated based on the collection of dif-
ferent kinds of data. The results from the ongoing evaluation were continually communicated to
the schools and used for the school-development work (Adolfsson & Hkansson, 2015). The FT
project analysed the introduction of Expert Teachers in the local school organisation, investigating
recruitment, principals and teachers expectations of Expert Teachers and the challenges and strat-
egies on different levels. This project explored teachers views of the impact of Expert Teachers on
teacher learning, teaching and assessment practices; the development and communication of teach-
ing aims and goals; knowledge of teaching and the curriculum; and teachers ability to change and
challenge their teaching practices (Alvunger, 2015a; Alvunger & Trulsson, 2016).
Both projects closely followed and documented the progress of school-development work at all
levels of the school organisation (local school management, administrators, principals and teach-
ers) through document analysis, semi-structured interviews and surveys. Moreover, both projects
had a mixed-method approach (Creswell, 2010) in which qualitative data and results were col-
lected and analysed to inform semi-structured interviews and surveys gathering quantitative data
to analyse the experienced effects and impacts of the school-development measures implemented.
This design made it possible to obtain different but complementary types of data on the same phe-
nomenon (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Data on the case studied here from both projects include
the following:
Contextual analyses: Core documents on the local school organisation, policy and vision,
leadership and management structure, evaluations, school-development strategies and
200 Improving Schools 20(3)
Expert Teachers assignments and position within the organisation were collected and
analysed.
Teacher surveys (n = 250, n = 160, n = 157): In the first two surveys (LS), the teachers views
of the central dimensions of local development work and their notions of changes due to that
work were examined at the beginning and end of the project. The third survey (FT) was
aimed at evaluating the impact of Expert Teachers on teaching and assessment practices,
knowledge of teaching and ability to change and to initiate development work.
Semi-structured focus-group interviews: These interviews were conducted with local school
administrators (8 interviews), principals (12 interviews) and Expert Teachers (14 inter-
views). In the FT project, the interviews focused on the experiences and notions of school-
development work among local school administrators, principals and Expert Teachers. The
aim of the principal interviews in the LS project was to investigate experiences of the cur-
rent development work and its possible effects on and changes in teaching practices and
student achievement.
The collected data provide an overall picture of the local school-development organisation (sub-
systems) that helps answer questions about the process and interactions between actors in different
sub-systems and the results and outcomes of the local development work. The conditions for
capacity building are discussed in an analysis of carefully selected empirical examples.
The case
Expert teachers and local organisation for school development
The reform introducing Expert Teachers in July 2013 allowed the local school authorities (public
and independent) to appoint Expert Teachers and decide their assignments within a framework
established by the government. These authorities were responsible, for instance, for introducing
newly employed teachers, coaching other teachers, initiating pedagogical discussions and leading
projects to improve teaching or a subject (Government Grant Ordinance, 2013, p. 70). The munici-
pality used as a case in this study assigned Expert Teachers at the school level, but they could also
be selected to perform temporary assignments at the school network or municipal level. Such
assignments were generally based on evaluations by the development unit of the local school
administration. The school-development organisation differentiated three types of assignments
based on their character (see figure 1 below).
In some examples of assignments, Expert Teachers might lead development within a subject
(e.g. STEM education, reading and social sciences) and instructional practices (e.g. classroom
leadership, language- and knowledge-development strategies and learning assessments). They lead
pedagogical discussions; develop new teaching and assessment materials; arrange reading pro-
jects; model and design lessons; invite teachers to observe their teaching; share new research; and
observe, assist and mentor teachers. Principals and representatives of local school administration
considered Expert Teachers to be important resources in development processes, agents and cata-
lysts for change and support for principals in school leadership.
In the focus-group interviews, several challenges Expert Teachers faced in their assignments,
principals and school-development organisation were identified: (1) the legitimacy and position
of Expert Teachers in the collegial structure (including the ability to resist envy and suspicion);
(2) the clarity, character and communication of assignments and duties; (3) endorsement from
other teachers and preparedness to engage in development work; (4) support, commitment and
mandate from principals; (5) preconditions such as time, resources and education; (6) a lack of
Adolfsson and Alvunger 201
common arenas for collaboration, coordination and support, in other words communicative
gaps; and (7) project overload and innovation fatigue or too many ongoing projects and a
failure to find synergies.
The absence of arenas or networks for Expert Teachers to communicate, coordinate and
exchange ideas, experiences and good examples within and across different levels was problem-
atic. Level 3 Expert Teachers met regularly and were affiliated with development managers in
the local school administration but, unlike Level 1 and 2 Expert Teachers, had no formal links to
other parts of the organisation even if schools had several collaborative groups created by
Expert Teachers. A couple of years after the introduction of Expert Teachers, though, informal
arenas on subject development were formed for Level 1 and 2 Expert Teachers. More signifi-
cantly, these arenas were later sanctioned by principals, who saw them as natural spaces for
Expert Teachers to introduce ideas on school development. It is important to note that principals
also clearly expressed a need for a common arena for the exchange of ideas and experiences.
Two-and-a-half years after the introduction of Expert Teachers, the principals and Expert
Teachers were interviewed about what they considered to be effects of Expert Teachers assign-
ments. A survey was also administered to explore teachers (not Expert Teachers) experiences of
the significance and impact of Expert Teachers work. The overall feedback was that it was dif-
ficult to point to any clear impacts of school development on teacher and teaching level related
to the introduction of Expert Teachers; rather, such impacts resulted from a combination of fac-
tors. The principals emphasised that Expert Teachers were agents of change who could lead
teacher teams and effect changes in classrooms. A convincing majority of the teachers denied
seeing any effects, but one-third agreed that the introduction of Expert Teachers had increased
their knowledge of instructional practices and classroom leadership and strengthened their abil-
ity and willingness to change teaching practice. It is possible to speak about the influences of
Expert Teachers work in two main areas: the visualisation of common goals to pursue, and the
development of teachers subject matter knowledge and knowledge of the curriculum and
instructional strategies (e.g. classroom leadership and language- and knowledge-development
strategies).
Figure 1. The local school organisation for school development.
202 Improving Schools 20(3)
Schools capacity building for the sustainable development of
teaching practices and student achievement
The initiation of the LS project should be seen in the light of a general trend in Sweden of
increased focus on students academic achievement and greater accountability for local authori-
ties, schools and teachers. The municipality launched a 3-year school-development programme
focusing on two school networks with low student achievement and large number of students with
special needs. The schools were asked to collaborate with the local school administration in iden-
tifying weaknesses and challenges in teaching practices. Almost immediately, it became clear that
actors on different levels of the local school organisation could agree on two broad development
areas: (1) the development of classroom management and (2) the development of language in all
subjects. However, the need to further specify these development areas also gradually became
obvious. As a result, the different schools began to work with more specific content in develop-
ment work, including classroom questioning, formative assessment and instructional structure. In
particular, the principals revealed that specification and differentiation of development areas were
important ways to legitimise the development work and receive commitment and engagement
from teachers.
The school actors in the municipality had quite similar views on what needed to be developed
in the schools and classrooms, but disagreement arose on strategies and methods for dealing with
the challenges. These differences became obvious at the beginning of the project during the discus-
sion on introducing two basic strategies to promote the development of teaching in every school:
pedagogical discussions and peer observation of teaching. Local school administrators; principals;
and, to some extent, Expert Teachers stressed peer observation, and a tremendous amount of finan-
cial, time and educational resources was invested in implementing this strategy. However, princi-
pals and Expert Teachers early noticed strong resistance to peer observation among teachers. One
teacher in a teacher focus-group interview described the problems with the peer observation strat-
egy she had experienced:
Many of us feel that it takes too much time to do these observations . . . At the same time . . . sometimes
. . . it was also hard to find the right moment when to do these observations. In addition, when the
observations were made in another classroom, many students were noticeably affected by a stranger
sitting in the back of the classroom. (Teacher in Grade 6)
The principals and Expert Teachers clearly recognised that teachers favoured pedagogical and
research-informed discussions about their instructional practice:
I would say that the pedagogical discussions have increased significantly at our school. All the teachers
talk about pedagogy . . . The teacher teams have pedagogical discussions and reflect on teaching, everyone
together. (Primary school principal)
During the course of the school-development projects, Expert Teachers and cross-school subject
groups engaged in pedagogical discussions based on the research literature and their practical
experiences. This positive attitude towards pedagogical discussions was also indicated in the
results from the teacher questionnaires at the end of the project: 66 percent of the teachers (n = 160)
claimed that pedagogical discussions despite almost no additional resource input were an estab-
lished method in the schools. Compared to peer observation of teaching, the difference in support
was striking: only 16.5 percent of the teachers claimed that this strategy was an established method
to improve teaching practice.
Adolfsson and Alvunger 203
Discussion
External pressures and the legitimacy of sub-systems
In the conceptualisation of the school organisation as an open system, a number of external forces
influence the internal interactions and relationships of different sub-systems in the local school
organisation examined. Accordingly, the local school administration has experienced external reg-
ulative pressure and soft governance (Grek et al., 2009; Ozga et al., 2011) exerted by, for example,
national legislation and auditing by the School Inspectorate. The administration has annually
reported student achievement and described in different templates how they have fulfilled the obli-
gations stipulated by the Education Act and General Ordinances. However, there were also exam-
ples of technologies exerting normative control (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991). Municipalities
competed in national school rankings (Hamilton, 2007) issued by the Swedish Association of Local
Authorities and Regions (of which all municipalities were members) and in benchmarks and
appointments, such as awards for the best school municipality of the year given by teachers unions.
These external pressures extended into a kind of internal control exerted by the school adminis-
tration on schools. In the actual case, this control was manifested in the accountability processes
for student achievement and goal attainment and the school administrations initiation of school-
development projects. The sub-system that first and foremost had to handle these projects was
school management. Many principals reported that the normative pressure from the school admin-
istration tended to cause what they called project crowding. To maintain legitimacy in relation to
both the school administration and the teachers, the principals strove to find a balance between the
external pressure from the school administration and the internal and specific needs and conditions
of their schools. Some principals described themselves as gatekeepers who regulated the flow of
information and tasks to spare their teachers from the external pressure.
Even when the principals intended to relieve teachers of the burden of accountability to the
top, the principals still held expectations regarding teachers ability to improve student perfor-
mance and learning. In this way, the teachers sub-systems were un
