The Impact of the Swedish National Principal Training Programme on Principals’ Leadership and the Structuration Process of School Organisations

Year 2022, , 826 - 859, 22.12.2022

Anette Forssten Seiser , åsa Söderström

https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1120909

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Principals have an important function in schools’ ability to create high-quality learning and teaching. As the expectations placed on principals are high, large resources are invested in school leadership training, thus necessitating research on the impact of such initiatives. In this article, we report on a longitudinal research study on the training programme for principals in Sweden. The aim was to examine the programme’s impacts on the principals’ leadership and school organisations. We did this by interviewing principals, teachers and students at four schools during the principals’ participation in the programme. Giddens’s theory of structuration was used to analyse the study. The results showed that leadership needs to be foregrounded throughout the training and that awareness of the function of principals in leading schools’ structuration processes (i.e., their creation of meaning making) should be clarified.

Keywords

School leadership training, Principal education, Giddens’s structuration theory, structuration process, professional development, case study

References

• Blossing, U. (Ed.). (2011). Skolledarens i fokus – kunskap, värden och verktyg [Principal in focus: Knowledge, values and tools]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
• Clarke, S. & Dempster, N. (2020). Leadership learning: The pessimism of context and the optimism of personal agency. Professional Development in Education, 46(4), 711–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1787196
• Darling-Hammond, L., LaPoint, M., & Meyerson, D. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Dempster, N., Lovette, S., & Fluckinger, B. (2011). Strategies to develop school leaders: A select literature review. The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). Melbourne.
• Ekholm, M. (1981). Deltagarbedömningar av skolledarutbildningens utfall. En jämförelse mellan två enkätundersökningar [Participant assessments of the outcomes of school leadership training: A comparison between two surveys]. Skolledarutbildningen. Linköping.
• Forssten Seiser, A., & Söderström, Å. (2021). Rektorer i utbildning – drivkrafter för ett lärande i samspel [Principals in education: Driving forces for interactive in learning]. Högre Utbildning, 11(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.23865/hu.v11.2947
• Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Red Globe Press. London.
• Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge
• Giddens, A., & Pierson, C. (1998). Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making sense of modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge
• Grissom, J., Egalite, A., & Lindsay, C. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/How-Principals-Affect-Students-and-Schools.pdf
• Grootenboer, P., & Hardy I. (2015). Contextualizing, orchestrating and learning for leading: The praxis and particularity of educational leadership practices. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(3) 402–418. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1741143215595418
• Hallinger, P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1741143216670652
• Henry, G., & Harbatkin, E. (2019). Turnover at the top: Estimating the effects of principal turnover on student, teacher and school outcomes. Annenberg Institute at Brown University. EdWorking Paper No. 19–95. https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai19-95.pdf
• Huber, S. G. (2013). Multiple learning approaches in the professional development of school leaders: Theoretical perspectives and empirical findings on self-assessment and feedback. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(4): 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1741143213485469
• Hultman, G. (1981). Organisationsutveckling genom ledarutbildning. En utvärdering av skolledarutbildningens första utbildningsomgång [Organisational development through leadership training: An evaluation of the school leader’s first round of education]. Linköpings university Department of Education. Linköping.
• Jensen, R. (2016). School leadership development: What we know and how we know it. Acta Didactica Norge, 10(4), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.3898
• Jerdborg, S. (2021). Participation in the Swedish national principal training programme: How does it intertwine with principals’ practice? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143221998711
• Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060
• Leithwood, K., & Louise, K. S. (2012). Linking leadership to learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1992). Improving the problem-solving expertise of school administrators: Theory and practice. Education and Urban Society, 24(3): 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013124592024003003
• McCulla, N., & Degenhardt, L. (2016). Journeys to school leadership: How action learning identified what participants valued in a year-long Australian leadership development program centred on principals of good practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(4): 558–577. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1741143214558574
• Pettigrew, A., Schmuck, R., & Vormeland, O. (1982). International views on the Swedish school leader education. Skolledarutbildningens utvärderingsserie. Linköping.
• Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership. Volume 1: Policy and Practice. OECD. Paris.
• Robinson, V. (2011). Student-centred leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Best evidence synthesis iteration. New Zealand Ministry of Education. Wellington.
• Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of educational leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013161X08321509
• Skolverket. (2015). The national school leadership training programme: Goal document 2015–2021. Skolverket. Stockholm.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2020.2.4
• Yin, R. K. (2013). Kvalitativ forskning från start till mål [Qualitative research from start to finish]. Studentlitteratur. Lund.