Power dynamics and policy actions in the changing landscape of local school governance

Abstract

In this paper, we theorize on local school governance through a multi-method case study of a large-sized Swedish municipality by drawing on neo-institutional theory. In light of a changing governing landscape in Sweden in terms of a 're-centralization', new conditions between the state, the local education authorities (LEA) and the schools have emerged. The aim of this study is to examine what policy actions the LEA employ for governing the school and in what ways that principals respond and handle these policy actions. The results point to the fact that the LEA uses a bench-marking strategy through its quality assurance system and intervene if results are poor. Principals seek support from the LEA, but are anxious that their autonomy will be diminished and therefore function as 'gate-. The system for quality assurance is appreciated by principals, but standards aimed at framing discursive communication on quality are criticized. Principals turn to managers below the superintendent, which creates a tension between managers. The study shows that different levels and actors must be taken into account in order to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the multilayered field of local policy enactment.

Relations between an improving Swedish LEA and school principals with joint quality and improvement responsibilities

“…Even if they were presented as mandatory, the implementation processes had valves, indicating that if the principals regarded the artefacts as inappropriate, they could be locally adjusted or rejected. The approach also enabled principals to communicate their viewpoints to the SU, thus providing possibilities to contribute to their professional knowledge, which probably also counteracted formation of the potentially antagonistic relationship between principals and LEA level actors identified in other studies (Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020;Coburn, 2006). Although parts of the "tools for systematic documentation" were questioned, it created discussions indicating elements of reflection and possibilities for learning among both principals and LEA officials.…”

“…Other studies have considered quality and improvement work in the relationship between LEAs and local school principals and teachers (e.g. Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2017, 2020Nordholm, 2015b). Nordholm (2015b) studied sensemaking in a municipality-led temporary organisation introduced to support the implementation of a new curriculum.…”

“…He concludes that lack of communication between LEA officials, principals and teachers resulted in an instrumental and pragmatic task-solving approach, although LEA officials had an idea of a critical learning process with open-ended discussions. Adolfsson and Alvunger (2020) conducted a study of quality and improvement work in a larger Swedish municipality, finding communication challenging but still a key component. Moreover, they argue that absence of clear goals from the LEA level contributed to a gap between LEA initiatives and the needs of local schools, but also to the fact that support rather was perceived as control.…”

Local education authority’s quality management within a coupled school system: Strategies, actions, and tensions

“…In Sweden, according to the Education Act, it is mandatory for preschools, schools, and local education authorities to conduct quality management, with requirements for results monitoring, analysis, evaluation, and local improvement work. Quality management seems to be an increasingly important way for an LEA to exert influence over the schools and to respond to an increasing recentralization of the school system (Wahlström and Sundberg 2017a;Adolfsson and Alvunger 2020). According to recent Swedish research, parts of the municipal quality management system also seem to have an impact on the long-term development of student achievement (Jarl et al 2017).…”

“…Researchers have recently pointed out that the construction and implementation of different forms of quality management systems and quality management strategies at the level of local education authorities (LEA) are increasingly used to control and support quality education and curriculum work at the school level (Wahlström and Sundberg 2017b). However, the relationships between different stakeholders and organizational levels in the (local) school system and the design of and control over quality management systems are vital to school actors, as these play crucial roles for local school improvement and quality management (Campbell and Murillo 2005;Adolfsson and Alvunger 2020). Despite growing research in the Nordic countries about education, knowledge about the relationship between the state, the LEA and the local school is relatively limited.…”