Managing the Controversial Issue of Racism – Exploring the Agency of School Principals in the Swedish Education System

Abstract

While there is abundant literature on how teachers can and should manage controversial issues (CI) in schools, far less attention has been paid to how school principals manage CI. We explore this topic by applying a socio-temporal understanding of agency to explore how school leaders understand their role in managing the specific controversial issue of racism. The study comprises interviews with principals in which they express how they understand and manage the controversial issue of racism. The findings show that the principals’ primary temporal direction of agency has consequences for how they manage racism. Principals primarily directed towards the present (practical-evaluative) or the future (projective) demonstrate more expanded agency, while principals primarily directed towards the past (iterative) display less expanded agency in managing the controversial issue of racism. One finding of the study is that principal deal with controversial issues seemingly to the same degree as teachers, however, they do so in different ways and under different circumstances. We therefore propose a conceptual shift from controversial issues to controversial spaces to better adhere to the specificities of principals’ encounter with controversy.

Keywords

• agency
• principals
• racism
• controversial issues
• controversial spaces

References

1. Åkerlund, M. (2023). The Sweden paradox: US far-right fantasies of a dystopian utopia, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 49(19), 4789-4808. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2023.2208293
2. Alemanji, A. A. & Mafi, B. (2018). Antiracism education? A study of an antiracism workshop in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(2), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1212260
3. Anders, P. & Shudak. (2016). Criteria for controversy: A theoretic approach. Thresholds in Education, 39(1), 20–30.
4. Årman, H. (2021). Order and turbulence in a Swedish bathroom: Youths’ negotiations of the meaning of ‘queer’. Gender and Language, 15(4), 476–502. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.18826
5. Arneback, E., Bergh, A., & Tryggvason, Á. (2023). On teachers’ professionalism when colleagues express racism – challenges and choices. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(1), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1990123
6. Balibar, É., & Wallerstein, I. M. (2011). Race, nation, class: Ambiguous identities. Verso.
7. Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640.
8. Brauckmann, S., Pashiardis, P., & Ärlestig, H. (2023). Bringing context and educational leadership together: Fostering the professional development of school principals. Professional Development in Education, 49(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1747105

9. Brooks, J. S., & Watson, T. N. (2019). School leadership and racism: An ecological perspective. Urban Education, 54(5), 631–655. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918783821
10. Bunar, N., & Juvonen, P. (2021). ‘Not (yet) ready for the mainstream’ – newly arrived migrant students in a separate educational program. Journal of Education Policy, 37(6), 986–1008. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2021.1947527
11. Council of Europe (2015). Teaching controversial issues. Council of Europe publishing: Strasbourg Cedex. https://edoc.coe.int/en/human-rights-democratic-citizenship-and-interculturalism/7738-teaching-controversial-issues.html
12. Council of Europe (2017). Managing controversy—Developing a strategy for handling controversy and teaching controversial issues in schools. Council of Europe publishing: Strasbourg Cedex. https://book.coe.int/en/human-rights-democratic-citizenship-and-interculturalism/7247-managing-controversy-developing-a-strategy-for-handling-controversy-and-teaching-controversial-issues-in-schools.html
13. Dimick, M. (2023). Race and reification. Historical Materialism, 31(3), 69–105. https://doi.org/10.1163/1569206x-bja10016
14. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294
15. Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001
16. Fjellström, R. (2004). Skolområdets etik: En studie i skolans fostran. Studentlitteratur.
17. Fluehr-Lobban, C. (2018). Race and Racism: An Introduction. Rowman & Littlefield.
18. Fransson, G. and Grannäs, J. (2013). Dilemmatic spaces in educational contexts – towards a conceptual framework for dilemmas in teacher work. Teachers and Teaching, Vol. 19(1) s. 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.744195
19. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Falmer: London.
20. Fullan, M. (1998). Change forces: The sequel. Falmer: London.
21. Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. Routledge Falmer: London.
22. Hammer, A., & Lenz, C. (2022). Exploring teacher agency to address controversial issues in religious education – a forum theatre and action research approach. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 0(0), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2130976
23. Hanberger, A. (2018). Rethinking democratic evaluation for a polarised and mediatised society. Evaluation, 24(4), 382–399.
24. Hand, M. (2008). What should we teach as controversial? A defense of the epistemic criterion. Educational Theory, 58(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2008.00285.x
25. Hand, M., & Levinson, R. (2012). Discussing controversial issues in the classroom. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(6), 614–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00732.x
26. Hardy, I., & Salo, P. (2022). The particularity of practice: Superintendents’ agency for school development. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(2), 211–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1629696
27. Hess, D. E. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. Routledge.
28. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
29. Journell, W. (2022) Classroom controversy in the midst of political polarization: The essential role of school administrators. NASSP Bulletin 106(2): 133-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263652211005
30. Larsson, A., & Lindström, N. (2020). Controversial societal issues in education: Explorations of moral, critical and didactical implications. Acta Didactica Norden, 14(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.8380
31. Laursen, R. (2020). Does the combination of professional leadership and learning management systems signal the end of democratic schooling? Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 5(2), 342-374. DOI: 10.30828/real/2020.2.2
32. Leithwood, K. (2021). A review of evidence about equitable school leadership. Education Sciences, 11(8), 377. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080377
33. Lindgren, N. (2020). The political dimension of consuming animal products in education: An analysis of upper-secondary student responses when school lunch turns green and vegan. Environmental Education Research, 26(5), 684–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1752626
34. Misco, T. (2013). The importance of context for teaching controversial issues in international settings. International Education, 42(1). https://trace.tennessee.edu/internationaleducation/vol42/iss1/5
35. Odenbring, Y., & Johansson, T. (2019). “If they’re allowed to wear a veil, we should be allowed to wear caps”: Cultural diversity and everyday racism in a rural school in Sweden. Journal of Rural Studies, 72, 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.10.033
36. Priestly, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2017). Teacher Agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., McNaughton Nicholls, C., & Ormston, R. (2014). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. SAGE.
37. Sætra, E. (2019). Teaching controversial issues: A Pragmatic view of the criterion debate. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 53(2), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12361
38. Sætra, E. (2021). Discussing controversial issues in the classroom: Elements of good practice. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(2), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1705897
39. SFS (2010:800). Skollagen. [Swedish Education Act]. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800/
40. Stradling, R. (1984). The teaching of controversial issues: An evaluation [1]. Educational Review, 36(2), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191840360202
41. Wenner, J. A., & Settlage, J. (2015). School leader enactments of the structure/agency dialectic via buffering. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21212
42. Zumpe, E. (2024). School improvement at the next level of work: the struggle for collective agency in a school facing adversity. Journal of Educational Change, 25, 485–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-023-09500-x