One thing is policy intentions, but what can we draw from principals’ experiences?
Author(s):
Guri Skedsmo
Conference:
ECER 2008
Network:
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Format:
Paper

Session Information

23 SES 10C, Local Governance

Paper Session

Time:
2008-09-12
14:45-16:15
Room:
B1 132
Chair:
Linda Rönnberg

Contribution

In educational policy discussions in the Western world schools are increasingly perceived as the unit of measurement, clearly implying new expectations of public reporting. The paper explores the practices of new governance structures and evaluation procedures in terms of the intentions stated in policy documents, on one hand, and principals’ perceptions of the use of different types of evaluation tools and how they contribute to improve student learning. Moreover, the paper aims to investigate principals’ experiences regarding tensions and dilemmas when managing the different external and internal expectations. School governance seems more and more to rely on assessment, evaluation and quantitative measurement as the preferred governance tools (Lundgren 1990; Moos and Møller 2003; Mulford 2003; Afsar, Sivesind et al. 2006; Hopmann 2006; Karlsen 2006; Hopmann 2007; Møller and Skedsmo 2007; Olsen 2007; Sjøberg 2007; Sivesind and Bachmann 2008; Møller Forthcoming). The national evaluation system in Norway is based on the idea that evaluation provides information and knowledge. When central actors, such as the principals have the information they need, necessary actions will be taken to improve practice (Report No. 30 to the Storting 2003/2004). The policy documents underline one one hand the decentralized structure of the education system in which the municipalities and schools are responsible for implementing the national educational policy. On the other hand, the emphasis on the overlapping interests and the shared responsibilities between the state and the municipalities as well as increased collaboration between schools and different actors in the community imply different types of “partnership”relations. As a consequence, the different roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined, leaving the system and the responsible individuals, e.g. the principals to handle and respond to the complexity of diverse expectations. In one way the schools as well as the municipalites can be seen as different self governing centers within the education system. The different self governing senters are linked in terms of overlapping interests (Qvortrup 2001). In order to improve and develop the school’s practice the principal has to prioritize and choose a focalpoint (ibid.). However, prioritizing seems to create some leadership dilemmas. The analysis is based on the data from a survey conducted among Norwegian principals in 2005, shortly after a national system of evaluation had been implemented. The selection is national representative, as it was stratified and randomized according to the type of school (public/private, primary, lower and upper secondary), the size of schools and the size of the municipalities. The response rate was 65,3 percent. The paper draws upon different theoretical perspectives on governance, such as the work of Pierre and Peters (2000, 2005), Rhodes (1999), Politt and Bouckaert (2004), Olsen (2002) and Qvortrup (2001), theories about evaluation, e.g. the work of Vedung (1998), Stake (1991), Lundgren 1991), Scriven (1991b), Monsen (2002), McLaughlin (1991), Hopmann (2003).

Method

The paper is based on a mixed method design combining analysis of policy documents and analysis of survey data. The analysis of policy documents is based on content analysis. Regarding the quantitative analysis, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is used to investigate the different dimensions in how principals perceive the use of different evaluation tools to improve student learning, and their experiences regarding tensions and dilemmas when managing the different external and internal expectations.

Expected Outcomes

Findings so far indicate that evaluation in general is perceived as useful to provide insight and improve learning in school. Not surprisingly, however, when exercising leadership many principals experience dilemmas when it comes managing diverse expectations from employers, school staff, parents and their own personal expectations as well as managing the complexity of the core tasks, such as long term planning versus ad hoc problemsolving and prioritizing important goals. The paper questions if the learning and development that take place rather is a result of handling leadership dilemmas and paradoxes than being the result of a rational process on the basis of evaluations.

References

Afsar, A., K. Sivesind, et al. (2006). Evaluering og kunnskapsutvikling i ledelse av utdanning. Utdanningsledelse. K. Sivesind, G. Langfeldt and G. Skedsmo. Oslo, Cappelen. Hopmann, Stefan Thomas. 2003. On the evaluation of curriculum reforms. J. Curriculum Studies 35 (4):459-478. Hopmann, S. T. (2006). Im Durchschnitt PISA oder Alles bleibt schlechter. Lehrpläne und Bildungsstandards. Was Schülerinnen und Schüler lernen sollen. Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag vin Prof. Dr. Rudolf Künzli. L. Criblez and P. Gautschi. Bern, hep-Verlag S: 149-172. Hopmann, S. T. (2007). No Child, No School, No State Left Behind. Comparative Research in the Age of Accountability. PISA According to PISA – A European Perspective. S. T. Hopmann, G. Brinek and M. Retzl. Wien, Lit Verlag GmbH & Co. Karlsen, G. E. (2006). Utdanning, styring og marked: norsk utdanningspolitikk i et internasjonalt perspektiv. Oslo, Universitetsforl. Lundgren, U. P. (1990). Educational policy-making, decentralisation and evaluation. Evaluation as Policymaking. Introducing evaluation into a national decentralised educational system. M. Granheim, M. Kogan and U. P. Lundgren. London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers: 23-41. McLaughlin, Milbrey W., and Phillips D. C., eds. 1991. Evaluation and Education: At Quarter Century. Ninethieth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Monsen, Lars. 2002. Har den skolebaserte vurderingen utspilt sin rolle? In Skolebasert vurdering - erfaringer og utfordringer, edited by P. Haug and L. Monsen. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag. Moos, L. and J. Møller (2003). Schools and Leadership in Transition: the case of Scandinavia. Cambridge Journal of Education 33(3). Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Challenging roles and impact on teacher and school effectiveness. Paris. Møller, J. (Forthcoming). School Leadership and Accountability. Moving Beyond Standardization of Practice. Møller, J. and G. Skedsmo (2007). School Governance and Accountability Systems Cross-National. American Education Research Association, Chicago, USA. Olsen, R. V. (2007). Large-Scale International Comparative Achievement Studies in Education. Their Primary Purposes and Beyond. PISA according to PISA. Does PISA keep what it promises? S. T. Hopmann, G. Brinek and M. Retzl. Wien, Lit Verlag GmbH & Co: 265-294. Olsen, J. P. (2002). Towards a European Administrative Space? Arena -Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo(26). Peters, G. and J. Pierre, Eds. (2005). Handbook of Public Administration. London, SAGE Publications Ltd. Pierre, J. and G. Peters (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke, Macmillan. Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert (2004). Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis. New York, Oxford University Press. Qvortrup, Lars. 2001. Det lærende samfund. Hyperkompleksitet og viten. København: Gyldendal. Report No. 30 to the Storting (2003/2004). Culture for learning. The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1999). Understanding Governance. Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Bucklingham, Philadelphia, Open University Press. Scriven, Micael. 1991b. Evaluation thesaurus. Newbury Park. Calif: Sage. Sivesind, K. and K. Bachmann (2008). Hva forandres med nye standarder? Krav og utfordringer med Kunnskapsløftets læreplaner. Ansvarlighet i skolen G. Langfeldt, Elstad, Eyvind og Hopmann, Stefan Thomas. Oslo, Cappelen. Sjøberg, S. (2007). Internasjonale undersøkelser: Grunnlaget for norsk utdanningspolitikk? På vei mot Kunnskapsløftet H. Hølleland. Oslo, Cappelen. Skedsmo, G. (Forthcoming). Evaluation and/as Policy.

Author Information

Guri Skedsmo
University of Oslo
Department of Teacher Education and School Development
Oslo
158

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.