International research, mostly conducted within centralized school systems, has shown that local education authorities (LEAs) play an important role in policy implementation as they provide principals with advice and support (Coburn, 2006). An active LEA can also contribute to successful, systemic improvement of educational practice and close gaps in achievement between diverse groups of students (Leithwood & Azah, 2017; Rorrer et al., 2008).

To allow for equal education for all students, principals and LEAs have in the Swedish decentralized school system a legally defined joint responsibility for systematic quality and improvement work. Yet, there are several reports showing that principals and LEAs have varying capacity to fulfil their obligations (Skolinspektionen, 2014; Utbildningsdepartementet, 2017). Trying to improve capacity the establishment of processes for systematic quality and improvement work at the LEA level and in local schools has been main focus for Swedish LEAs for the last ten years (Hanberger et al., 2016). Some LEAs relay heavily on standardized digital evaluation systems while others to greater extent combines digital-data with dialogues, local quality reports and support departments providing professional development for principals. Although capacity building is intense the results tend to differ. In many cases principals are initially open for support given by the LEA level, but when administrators act for a more centralized school improvement organization, principals perceive their autonomy to be threatened and take on a gate-keeper role (Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020). In other organizations more of trusting behavior characterize the relationship between principals, managers and administrators at the LEA level (Andersson & Liljenberg, 2020). Hence, depending on their work orientation, relations and governing styles managers and administrators can play a key role in the establishment of processes for systemtic quality and improvement work including the LEA level and the local schools (Honig, 2012; Hooge et al., 2019; Proitz et al., 2019).

Previous research has contributed to our understanding of capacity building at LEA level, but more research is needed. Especially research focusing on managers and administrators as these roles tend to be highly involved in decision-making processes at the LEA level. Therefore, the aim of this study is to deepen our knowledge about the role of managers and administrators in systematic quality and improvement work including the LEA level and principals with responsibility for local schools. Taking Scandinavian new institutionalism (Czarniawska, 2005; Czarniawska & Sevón, 2005, Røvik, 2016; 2008) as our point of departure we assume that ideas about systematic quality and improvement work travel between organizations. In order to be implemented general ideas need to be interpreted and translated. Moreover, ideas have to be legitimized and materialized to fit and remain in organizations. For this to take place, Røvik (2008, 2016) argues that “translator competence” including knowledge, skills and legitimacy is crucial. Translators need knowledge about the translation processes as well as the context. Moreover, translators need to be creative, brave and patient and finally competent to deal with resistance to the new ideas that may arise. Lack in this competence is considered to contribute to failure in implementation of ideas in organizations. To narrow the analysis, this study focuses on two LEAs selected as deviant and successful cases in terms of progress in their systematic quality and improvement work. The research question posted for the study is:

• What strategies did the managers and administrators use to implement the systematic quality and improvement work including the LEA level and the principals in the local schools?
• What similarities and differences can be identified between the two LEAs?
• How can progress in the systematic quality and improvement work be interpreted in terms of the managers and administrators’ “translator competence”?

Empirically the study is based on a case study of two Swedish LEAs selected as deviant cases (Flyvbjerg, 2001), in a successful sense. Over time the LEAs made progress in their systematic quality and improvement work and at their last regular supervision made by the Swedish Schools Inspectorate no shortcomings were identified and no remarks were made. In both cases the LEAs are part of municipalities with about 40 000 inhabitants. On a national scale, this is about the size of nearly half of the Swedish municipalities. The case study focusses on the LEA organization responsible for the compulsory schools within the two municipalities and the principals with responsibility for the local schools. Data were acquired from an initial analysis of documents providing information about the LEA organizations, LEA officials’ assignments, as well as characteristics of the systematic quality and improvement work. Information was also acquired from semi-structured individual interviews with the responsible managers and administrators (n=6) and with a strategic selection of school leaders (n=16) working in different school areas and with various years of employment in each municipality. In the interviews a process-oriented approach was taken to cover the years from the introduction of the current organization of the systematic quality and improvement work up till today. The interview questions covered topics such as organizational issues, tools, relationships and mandate. Each interview lasted 60–75 min and was audio-recorded then transcribed verbatim. In the first step of the analysis a detailed examination of data was conducted to identify emerging themes and categories responding to the research questions. In the second step of the analysis the theoretical framing of translation and materialization of ideas into practice (Czarniawska, 2005; Czarniawska & Sevón, 2005) and Røvik’s (2008) categorization of translator competence were introduced. Coding and analysis can thus be characterized as both data-driven and concept-driven (Kvale & Brinkmann 2009).

The preliminary findings show that to implement a systematic quality and improvement work including the LEA level and the principals several strategies were used. Altogether the strategies that worked to stabilize, unify and legitimize and can be summarized with three categories: introducing artifacts, building professional competence and bridging between the LEA level and the principals. In the first LEA written artifacts such as a visionary document, support materials and templates for documentation had a prominent position in the systematic quality and improvement work. In the second LEA written artifacts was used less frequent and were less extensive. In the second LEA continuing professional development was a prominent strategy. The managers together with all principals took part in a three-year school-university partnership. Regularly they also read and discussed researcher literature. This strategy was also used in the first LEA but not to the same extent and not in partnership with a university. Bridging between the LEA level and the principals was also done in both LEAs but in different ways. In the first LEA the managers and administrators invited the principals to give feedback on their work by being part of different reference groups. In the second LEA the managers and administrators invited themselves to take part in the principals work. The managers “moved their office out”, which meant that they one day a week were stationed in one of the schools. Finally, in terms of translator competence the managers and administrators’ in both LEAs had previously worked as principals and were knowledgeable about that context. Moreover, in both LEAs the time perspective for the implementation were several years. This gave the managers and administrator the possibility to be patient and continuing to tell the story about this LEA’s systematic quality and improvement work. All in all, contributing to the implementation.

Adolfsson, C.-H., & Alvunger, D. (2020). Power dynamics and policy actions in the changing landscape of local school governance. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(2), 128–142. Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–349. Czarniawska, B., & Sevón, G. (2005). Global ideas. How Ideas, Objects and Practices Travel in the Global Economy. Malmö: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press. Czarniawska, B. (2005). En teori om organisering. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hanberger, A., Lindgren, L., & Lundström, U. (2016). Navigating the evaluation web: Evaluation in Swedish local school governance. Education Inquiry, 7(3), 259–281. Honig, M. I. (2012). District Central Office Leadership as Teaching: How Central Office Administrators Support Principals’ Development as Instructional Leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 733-74. Hooge, E. H., Moolenaar, N. M., van Look, K. C. J., Janssen, S. K., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2019). The role of district leaders for organization social capital. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(3), 296–316. Leithwood, K., & Azah, V. N. (2017). Characteristics of high-performing school districts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16(1), 27–53. Liljenberg, M., & Andersson, K. (2020). Relations between an Improving Swedish LEA and School Principals with Joint Quality and Improvement Responsibilities. Education Enquiry. Online print. Prøitz, T. S., Mausethagen, S., & Skedsmo, G. (2019). District administrators’ governing styles in the enactment of data-use practices. International Journal of Leadership in Education, Online print. Rorrer, A. K., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–358. Røvik, K., A. (2008). Managementsamhället. Trender och idéer på 2000-talet. Malmö: Liber. Røvik, K. A. (2016). Knowledge Transfer as Translation: Review and Elements of an Instrumental Theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(3), 290-310. Skolinspektionen. (2014). Från huvudmannen till klassrummet – Tät styrkedja viktigt för förbättrade kunskapsresultat (Dnr. 2014: 6739). Stockholm: Skolinspektionen. Utbildningsdepartementet. (2017). Samling för skolan. Nationell strategi för kunskap och likvärdighet. Slutbetänkande av 2015 års skolkommission (SOU 2017:35). Stockholm: Nordstedts förlag.