Today, society is increasingly affected by the current and ongoing process of digitalization (McAfee & Brynjolfsson, 2017; Schmidt & Cohen, 2013), a process that is evident also in the educational sector (Hylén, 2013; Jahnke, et al, 2017). Questions concerning how to implement and use technology in K-12 schools have been around for more than half a century and one central actor in the digitalization of schools is the school leader.

The importance of school leaders for the ability of a school to benefit from the increased digitalization of society has been emphasized in international research for a relatively long period (e.g. Yuen, Law & Wong, 2003). Studies have focused leadership and factors that influence school leaders’ perceptions of what enables or limits IT use in school (e.g. Papaioannou & Charalambous, 2011). Afshari et al (2012) examined for example whether or not school leaders were influenced by their competence in using computers, their actual use of computers, as well as their professional development in leading schools in the work with digitalization. They propose support in the form of enhanced professional development for school leaders in order to lead development work.

Prior focus in research has largely been on the role of the school leader in implementing, or leading the integrating of, IT into a school context (see Tondeur, Cooper & Newhouse, 2010). A number of studies have also pointed to the need for a contextual and holistic perspective. Hayes (2006), for example, has shown how local variation and local specific circumstances are evident in a number of areas of the school leadership, such as infrastructure, developing staff, syllabus work, educational practices, and setting direction.

Policy agencies approach the leadership of the digitalization of schools in various ways. One way is to point out important elements in school development regarding digitalization. For example, in recent european policy school leaders digital competence is highlighted as one element (European Commission, 2018). In Sweden, this approach, of a focus on digital competence, is clear in the newly proposed strategy for digitalization of the schools (The Swedish Government, 2017). Given the prominence of the current ongoing digitalization of society (Cöster & Westelius, 2016), it is unlikely this attention will decrease, and certainly not with the proposed strategy for the digitalization of the schools and the actions and initiatives that will follow in March 2019.

Another way that policy agencies approach the leadership aspects of the digitalization of schools is to offer supporting tools. The focus of proposed paper is on two such tools: one offered school leaders by the European Commision and one by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SKL). SKL functions as a national policy agent in the field of education. In their work they have been active in developing, and promoting the use of an online tool to support school leaders in the work with digitalization at the school level, the LIKA-tool (Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, 2019). The European Commission has developed an online tool with the same focus, the SELFIE-tool (European Commission, 2019). Both tools can be connected to the recent trends on a policy level regarding digitalization in schools; but in both cases the underlying assumptions guiding the work for school leaders are unclear. The intention of this paper is to contribute to a qualified understanding of recent policies in the area of digitalization of the K-12 schools in Sweden and in Europe and the assumptions that form the basis for the two aforementioned online tools that are intended to support school leaders in their work.

This paper is based on a critical stance towards policy and practice with the intention of analyzing the underlying assumptions behind policy support regarding digitalization. The analysis was conducted using two different theoretical positions. First the online tools on a Swedish and on a European level was analyzed to reveal assumptions about digitalization in relation to school leadership departing from the three dimensions of school leadership in Leithwood and Riehl (2003) - setting the direction, developing people and developing the organization. These have been used before by Dexter (2008) to analyze what characterize an effective ICT school leadership.Secondly the policies and associated tools have been analyzed through the lens of the TPACK framework suggested by Mishra & Koehler, (2008). Mishra and Koehler consider that nowadays teachers also need an extended technological knowledge (TK) in order to plan and conduct their teaching. This assumption is the point of departure for their extension of Shulman’s PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) into a model for studying and understanding teachers’ so-called technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). In short, put together and integrated, PCK, TCK and TPK constitute TPACK. In the words of Mishra and Koehler (2008), TPACK is “the intersection of all three bodies of knowledge. The two selected online tools were analyzed through the questions formulated within each tool to support school leaders in understanding the current state of digitalization at their school, and the formative support offered by the online tool to steer the school leader towards the further digitalization of their respective schools. The unit of analysis was the policies as text, and the way the digital competence needed for school leaders was assumed in the questions and recommendation given within each online tool.

Through the analysis it is possible to better understand how school leaders are steered through the support they get in the work with digitalization. This steering is possible to understand as a gentle way of promoting a certain view of the possible school development related to digitalization. But this view is at the same time decisions on what not to do. The analysis traces the steering of school leaders work with digitalization in the school to different assumptions about the expectations and experiences of school leaders in the area of digitalization. It is evident that there are expectations on digitalization to transform the school and that there is a certain view of learning that is assumed by policy agencies as part of the policy, these are made explicit in each online tool. The individual experiences of the school leaders are used as a frame of reference for steering their work towards the expected intentions. Moreover the analysis can contribute to the development of similar support for school leaders. However, the contribution made is not one where the tools are assumed supportive because they profess to be supportive. Rather, the contribution is of a more qualified understanding of assumptions made that will have implications for school leaders in practice. Furthermore, the analysis will frame the tools in a research based theoretical understanding where areas of future development can be suggested. With this research stance, it is argued that online tools to support school leaders can be one way to approach the digitalization of schools but that research can inform practice in similar cases.

Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Wong, S. L., & Siraj, S. (2012). Factors affecting the transformational leadership role of principals in implementing ICT in schools. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4). Cöster, M., & Westelius, A. (2016). Digitalisering. Stockholm: Liber. Dexter, S. (2008). Leadership for IT in schools. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 543–554). New York, NY: Springer. European Commission (2018). Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions on the digital education action plan. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2018:22:FIN European Commission (2019). SELFIE. https://ec.europa.eu/education/schools-go-digital Hayes, D. (2006). Making all the flashy stuff work: The role of the principal in ICT integration. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(4), 565-578. Hylén, J. (2013). Digitalisering i skolan–en kunskapsöversikt [Digitalization in the school - a review]. Ifous rapportserie, 1. Jahnke, I., Bergström, P., Mårell-Olsson, E., Häll, L., & Kumar, S. (2017). Digital didactical designs as research framework: iPad integration in Nordic schools. Computers & Education, 113, 1-15. Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University. McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2017). Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing our digital future. WW Norton & Company. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2008). Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1-16. Papaioannou, P., & Charalambous, K. (2011). Principals’ attitudes towards ICT and their perceptions about the factors that facilitate or inhibit ICT integration in primary schools of Cyprus. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 10(1), 349-369. Schmidt, E. & Cohen, J. (2013). The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business. London: John Murray. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (2019). LIKA, IT-temp for schools and preschools. https://lika.skl.se/page/start The Swedish Government (2017). National digitalization strategy for schools. http://www.regeringen.se/4a9d9a/contentassets/00b3d9118b0144f6bb95302f3e08d11c/nationell-digitaliseringsstrategi-for-skolvasendet.pdf Tondeur, J., Cooper, M., & Newhouse, C. P. (2010). From ICT coordination to ICT integration: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 296-306. Yuen, A. H., Law, N., & Wong, K. C. (2003). ICT implementation and school leadership: Case studies of ICT integration in teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 158-170.