The Micro Politics of School Development - Teachers' Strategies and Actions

Author(s):

Tove Steen-Olsen(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

01. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 05 C, Micro, Meso and Macro Perspectives on Professional Development

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-24

13:30-15:00

Room:

OB-H2.12

Chair:

Karen Sealy

Contribution

in a Norwegian comprehensive urban elementary school for grades 1-10, consisting of 40 teachers and 500 students. The Norwegian Research Council funded the project, which aimed at implementing the new national curriculum in Norway, the Knowledge promotion reform (2006). The overall aim of the project was to develop the school into a learning organization (Steen-Olsen & Postholm, 2009). In five interrelated subprojects, seven outside researchers collaborated with the teachers for two years. In this particular subproject, two researchers collaborated with a team of seventeen teachers in order to develop the teachers’ professional competences in formative assessment. During the development work period the teachers used planned strategies like systematic sharing of experiences, reflections and knowledge to enhance collective learning. Even though the teachers in our project were positive to join the project, they constantly seemed to be under pressure due to time constraints (Steen-Olsen & Eikseth, 2010). The aim of this presentation is to highlight the results of the development work in this teacher team, framed by the question: “What happens when the researchers have left the field?”

Drawing upon knowledge that collective ambitions to develop organizations from the inside have given good results, this project was based on a bottom-up design (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Senge, 2006). In our subproject, the teachers themselves decided to develop their assessment skills by using portfolio assessment in order to improve the children’s metacognitive abilities. It was set out from the start that the teachers should have a high level of autonomy,and by reinforcing the teachers’ sense of ownership of the project, one of the initial aims was to generate sustainable practices, which would endure after the researchers had left the field. Together with the teachers, we developed a programme consisting of active student participation in criteria development for obtaining learning goals, and an extensive use of learning dialogues. We arranged for systematic video-recorded colleague observations and meeting places for collective reflections and sharing of experiences and knowledge in the teacher team. In addition to supporting the teachers’ development work, the researchers challenged preservation of contra-productive routines. In order to reduce structural obstacles and to facilitate agency, the school administration had given the teachers some extra time resources per week for participating in the development work.

Discussion of the research question includes analysis of structural factors as well as individual factors. Social practice consists of a set of rules and resources constructed in the meeting between structural and individual properties. Strategic action/agency is to make use of available rules and resources to overcome structural hindrances, and thus influencing the possibility to act autonomously (Giddens, 1984). The concept of micro politics, indicating that groups contest diffuse and decentred forms of power, includes two key components; a hegemonic discourse politics at the structural level and a counter-discursive resistance strategy at the individual level (Ball, 1987; Foucault, 1980). Micro politics encompass the daily interactions, negotiations and bargains of any school, and it conveys the ability to persuade, influence and control others (Iannaccone, 1991; Lindle, 1999).

By contextualizing development work in relation to ideas of school development and implementation of educational reforms (Townsend, 2007; Young, 2010), our data will be discussed in relation to ideas of micro politics, power relations and discursive practices.

Method

This work is based on data from a completed R&D project (2006-2009), designed as a single case study, generated in a bottom-up design, where qualitative research methods were applied (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Stake, 2000). Underlying project ideas has been that common understanding and shared visions constitute a driving force in the cooperation between teachers and researchers (Senge, 2006). The frequency of the researchers’ visits to the school varied, but on average, we spent four to five weeks together with the teacher team each half year during two years. Before leaving the school, the researchers and teachers cooperated to develop simplified strategies for the continued development work. However, some unanswered questions regarding the further implementation of the project remained; did the teachers continue the project? Did they integrate the new assessment methods in their daily work, or did they return to their earlier practices? How did the new principal support their development work? Data consist of observations of the teachers’ development work and the students’ learning processes, including video- and audiotape recordings of classroom activities, teacher and student dialogues, teachers’ reflection meetings, conversations in team meetings and staff meetings, and on individual as well as group interviews with teachers at the beginning, the end, and two years after the development work was finished. In addition, two succeeding principals, an executive from the local education authority (school owner) and a teacher union representative on municipality level were interviewed. The analysis and discussion in this presentation rests upon data from the group interviews with the teachers at the end of the project period and the follow-up study two years after the development work was ended. Furthermore, data from the interviews with the two succeeding principals is of special relevance. The findings are discussed within the framework of discourse analysis. According to Foucault (1980), reality is a discursive construction with implicit structures and rules. Critical discourse analysis is preoccupied with structures and power relations governing social practice, struggles of hegemony and definitions of the rules of social practices, and the internal antagonisms following these (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 1995). If a special practice creates hegemony, others might be suppressed or excluded. Critical discourse analysis views discourses as a special form of social practice, which produce and reproduce social practice (Fairclough, 1992).

Expected Outcomes

Our data, including the voices of a teacher team, two school leaders, a school owner, and a teacher union leader, all over demonstrate ongoing struggles and conflicting views regarding micro politics of the school. The first principal’s supportive attitude had been a significant success factor at the outset of the project. When the researchers left the school after two years of cooperative development work, nearly all teachers expressed enthusiasm, and said that they wanted to continue the project on their own. Findings in the follow-up study two years later showed that only teachers who had demonstrated strong interest and professional autonomy during the project period had continued the work on their own. In spite of unforeseen obstacles, they had found their own ways to continue the project, and to make it part of their daily practice. Teachers, who had been less enthusiastic or less self-determined throughout the development work, saw more obstacles and were far less interested in continuing the new assessment practice on their own. The most negative talked about time limitations or blamed the leadership for not giving enough priority to development work. However, nearly all teachers agreed that the new leadership did not show interest in their development work, especially not after the researchers had left the school. A critical factor seemed to be that the teachers had lost their weekly opportunity for systematic knowledge sharing activities as part of their working plan. One of the teachers, who had been less interested during the project period, was now the teachers’ representative in the leader group. In this group, her role seemed to be driven of economic teacher union issues (better working conditions), rather than of professional development issues (better practice). This presentation will discuss the teachers’ strategies according to these issues.

References

Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley. Ball, S. J. (1987). The Micropolitics of the school: Towards a Theory of School Organization. London: Methuen. Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-28). London: SagePublications. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman. Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and power. In M. Foucault: Power/knowledge. Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977. Hemel Hempstead: Harvesteer Wheatsheaf. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Iannaccone, L. (1991). Micropolitics of education: What and why. Education and Urban Society, 23(4), 465-471. Lindle, J. (1999). What can the study of micropolitics contribute to the practice of leadership in reforming schools? School Leadership and Management, 19(2), 171-178. Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organisation. New York: Doubleday. Stake, T. (2000). The case study method in social inquiry. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (eds.), Case study method (pp. 19-26). London: Sage. Steen-Olsen, T. & Postholm, M.B. (2009) (eds.) Å utvikle en lærende skole [On developing a learning school]. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget. Steen-Olsen, T. & Eikseth, A.G. (2010). The power of time: teachers’ working day – negotiating autonomy and control. European Educational Research Journal 9(2), 284-295. Townsend, T. (2007). School effectiveness and improvement in the twenty-first century: reframing the future. In T. Townsend (ed.): International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 933-962. Young, M. (2010). Alternative educational futures for a knowledge society. European Educational Journal, 9 (1), 1-12.

Author Information

Tove Steen-Olsen (presenting / submitting)

The Norwegian University of Technology and Science

Faculty of Teacher Education

Trondheim

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.