Dialogue and Controversies in School Restructuring. A Case Study of the New Curriculum Reform Process in Finland

Author(s):

Helena Rajakaltio

Conference:

ECER 2009

Network:

26. Educational Leadership

Format:

Paper

Session Information

26 SES 09 A,

Paper Session

Time:

2009-09-30

10:30-12:00

Room:

NIG, Seminarraum, 6. Floor

Chair:

Helen Wildy

Contribution

My study is a long term communicative action research project (2000-2006) concerning the new curriculum reform (2004) in the Finnish comprehensive school. The purpose of the research is to critically scrutinize how the new national curriculum reform policy in Finland appears in teacher´s work at grass-root level and in the practice of educational leadership. How does the school manage to respond to the demands and challenges according to the reform in a time of instability and contradictory goals? According to results from Finnish working life research teacher´s quality of working life has deteriorated in some important aspects since 2001. The transnational neoliberal restructuring of education has increased pressures to dismantle working national and local solutions in the name of standardization and accountability. Is the school increasingly in the instrumental stranglehold of neoliberal education policy in Finland? Are we taking a step from social equality and justice towards segregation and competion with a increasing tendency of individualism? (Andersen & al 2007, Autio 2006, Simola 2006). The purpose is to gain understanding of the complexity of school change by exploring the linkages between contextual factors on different levels in the educational sector from the culture of new governance and national curricular principles to educational practice; the school as an learning environment and teacher´s working culture and the way educational leadership is practised. These complex strategic linkages may remain unconscious but which still affect the ways how teachers understand their professional autonomy and power of influence and how they are able to interpret the direct and tacit norms and pressures concerning their work. As a theoretical perspective I look upon the shool´s specificity as a social institution with moral purpose, as community, as site to ameliorate or reconcile the tensions between individualistic postmodern and neoliberal subjectivity formation and social democratic reconstruction. School is seen as a hybrid institution with a plurality of ethical domains the state schooling with its concern for public good and care for individual subject-forming and at the same time the site for disciplinary knowledge. How the school is organizationally conceived shapes teachership which in turn affects the learning environment. There is a need of a cultural shift from individualism to a collaborative work culture. (Gallagher 2003, Dewey 1966, Hargreaves 1994, 2007, Howley & Howley 2007, Hunter 1994, Kelly 2004, Peters & Besley 2007, Ziehe 1992). The research gives voices to teachers as key persons in school change (Goodson 2003).

Method

Communicative action research was used as a methodological approach to emphasize the role and knowledge of everyone involved in the change process (Gustavsen 2001, Kemmis 2006, Stringer 2005). The action research phase took place as a three and half year process in 2000 - 2003 with a follow up study (interviews) in 2006. The research project was carried out in a Lewinian action research cycle (Lewin 1958). Dialogue method was used as promotor of dialogical actions and change process (Gustavsen 2001, Rajakaltio 2008, Shields & Edwards 2005). The case study school is a big comprehensive school in one of Finland´s bigger towns. There are about sixty teachers and seven hundreds students of whom 20 % are immigrants. As data collection techniques I´ve used triangulation: qualitative and quantitive methods: interviews, questionnaires, observations and theoretical perspectives. Qualitative content analysis methods are used in the analysis and interpretation of data (Morse 1994, Patton 1991).

Expected Outcomes

The process proved a slow and complicated learning process - a difficult detachment from individualism to community building in teachers´work culture. Flexible but structurally maintained participatory forums were created as spaces for dialogue and generated a new kind of collectively sustained educational leadership. Dialogue was the foundation for a mutual culture of action. Enough unanimity for concrete changes was created. The new modes of cooperation response to social bonding, trust and creates social capital, which seem to enhance teachers´ professional wellbeing and collective learning processes. The school leader is in a key position in school change. Although the process has evidence for a positive school change problems are embedded in this reform because of changes in educational policy and blurred conceptualization of the new curricular principles. There is no connection between teacher education and the reform. There are tensions between different teacher groups due to their different professional identity and position.

References

Andersen, T, Holmström, B., Honkapohja, S., Korkman, S., Söderström, H. & Vartiainen, J. 2007. The Nordic model. Embracing Globalizationand Sharing Risks. The Research Institute of Finnish Economy. ETLA B232. Helsinki: Taloustieto oy. http://www.etla.fi/files/1893-the-nordic-model-kansineen.pdf Autio, T. 2006. Subjectivity, Cuuriculum and Society. Between and Beyond the German Didaktik and Anglo-American Curriculum Studies, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Davies, B (ed). 2005. The Essentials of School Leadership. London: Sage. Dewey, J. 1966. Democracy and Education, New York: The free Press. Gallagher, S. 2003. Educational Psychology. Disrupting the dominant discourse. New York: Peter Lang. Goodson, I. 2003. Professional Knowledge, Professional Lives. Studies in Education and Change. Buckingham: Open University Press Gustavsen, B. 2001. Theory and Practice: the mediating .discourse. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (eds.). Handbook of Action Research. Participatory Inquiry and Practice. London: Sage. Hargreaves, A. 1994. Chnaging teachers, Changing Times, Teacher´s Work and Culture in the Postmodern Age. London: Casell. Hargreaves, A (rapporteur), Halász, G, Pont, B. 2007. School Leadership for Systemic Improvement in Finland. A case study report for the OECD activity. Improving school leadership. December 2007. Hargreaves, A. 2006. Sustainable Leadership. Howley, A. & Howley, C. 2007. Thinking about Schools. New Theories and Innovative Practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Publ. Hoyle, E. & Wallace, M. 2005. Educational Leadership. Ambiguity, Professionals & Managerialism. London: Sage. Hunter, I. 1994. Rethinking the School. Subjectivity, Bureaucracy, Criticism, St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin. Kelly, A.V. 2004. The Curriculum. Theory and Practice. Fifth Edition. London: Sage. Kemmis, S. 2006. Participatory Action Research and the Public Sphere.In Educational Action Research. Vol. 14/4/Dec. 2006, pp.459-476 Lewin, k. 1958. Group Decision and Social Change, In E. Macoby & al. (eds.) Readings in Social Psychology. Third Edition. New York: Henry Holt and Company. More, J.M. 1994. Emerging From the Data. The Cognitive Processes of Analysis in Qualitative Inquiry. In. J.M. Morse. (ed.). Critical issues in qualitative research methods. California: Sage. Patton, M.Q. 1991. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. London: Sage publ. Peters,M.A. & Besley, T. (A.C). (Eds.) 2007. Why Foucault? New Directions in Educational Research. New York: Peter Lang. Rajakaltio, H. 1999. Breaking with Tradition: Towards Collaboration in the education sector. In. S. Kalliola & R. Nakari. (eds). Resources for Renewal, A participatory approach to the modernization of municipal organisations in Finland. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publ. Rajakaltio, H. 2004. Kohti yhenäistä peruskoulua. (Toward combined comprehensive school). Tampere.www.tampere.fi/tiedostot/50sLEtkDn/yhtenainenperuskoulu.pdf Rajakaltio, H. 2005. Sosiaalisen pääoman kehkeytymisen ehdot kouluyhteisössä (Preconditions for generating social capital in school community). In. E. Poikela (ed). Oppiminen ja sosiaalinen pääoma (Learning and Social Capital). Tampere: Tampere University Press. Rajakaltio, H. 2008. School in Finland. The Pisa Star and Dialogical Paradox. In S. Kalliola & Lehtonen, J. (eds.) Dialogue in Working life research and development in Finland. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Shields, C & Edwards, M. 2005. Dialogue is not just talk. A New Ground for Educational Leadership. New York: Peter Lang Publ. Simola, H. 2006. Globalisation of Finnish Educational Governance - School Performance Indicators and their Publication as a Case in Point. In. J. Kallo & R.Rinne (eds). Supranational Regimes and National Education Policies. Finnish Educational Research Association. Turku: Painosalama Oy. Stringer, E. 2005. Action Research in Education. Upper Sadle River, N.J.:Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall. Ziehe, T. 1992. Kulturanalyser, Ungdom, utbildning, modernitet. In. J. Fornäs & J. Retzlaff. Stockholm: Brutus Östlings BokFörlag Symposion.

Author Information

Helena Rajakaltio

University of Tampere

Teacher Education

Tampere

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 you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.