The Swedish Education Act (SFS 2010:800) sets out the right to an equal education, an education that is expected to be compensatory and to offset differences in pupils' different circumstances. Despite the Education Act, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2015) review, Improving Schools in Sweden, showed that differences in equivalence between and within schools in Sweden have increased and that many Swedish schools have failed to systematically address the problem. Furthermore, the OECD (2015) reported that many schools were left alone in their efforts to remedy the problems following the inspections by the Swedish Schools Inspectorate. Based on these findings, the Swedish government commissioned the Swedish National Agency for Education to initiate school improvement work (Utbildningsdepartementet, 2015; 2019). In 2016, the National Agency for Education presented a plan to carry out the assignment and since then, nearly 150 principals and almost 400 schools and preschools have now participated in the improvement work called the Collaboration for the Best School (SBS) (Skolverket, 2022). Thus, SBS is one of the most comprehensive initiatives undertaken in Sweden in recent times.

This paper presents the preliminary results of a study of the work of process facilitators in the Collaboration for Best Schools (SBS). The process facilitators have positions at the National Agency for Education, with an assignment to, in pairs, support school organizers and schools to improve schools. The study aims to develop knowledge about the practical work of process facilitators with school organizers, principals and teachers in order to promote their capacity for improvement. A need of such knowledge is highlighted by for example Blossing (2021). Based on sociocultural theories (Jakobsson; 2012; Säljö, 2005; Wartofsky, 1979)., the following questions were investigated: What tools do process facilitators use? How are these tools used? The research contribution of this paper provides insights in school improvement in the Swedish context, thus contributing to the national and international perspectives.

The study is based on observations of dialogues, so-called process meetings, between process facilitators and representatives of school organizers, principals and teachers respectively, on interviews with process facilitators and on document analysis. The results show that process facilitators use different categories of tools for different purposes such as focusing thoughts, deepening understanding, monitoring systematic quality work, eliciting commitment and promoting improvement capacity and ownership. Furthermore, they show that in the use of the identified tools there are critical incidents or turning points that have both positive and negative impacts on the development of participants' understanding and improvement capacity. These critical incidents relate to ownership, simplification, processing, repeated constructive feedback and model focus. The SBS model for how to conduct baseline analyses and formulate action plans guides the use of tools by process facilitators. It appears that the dominance of the model presents both opportunities and challenges for process facilitators to balance.

The conclusion is that there is potential for process facilitators to develop the use of tools to contribute to the development of understanding and improvement capacity of participants in SBS and that work is needed to support process facilitators in this. The study implies that the critical incidents that have a positive impact on the development of participants' understanding and improvement capacity can be strengthened, while the critical incidents that have a negative impact need to be worked away. Support could be in the form of skills development related to critical incidents in the use of tools by process facilitators.

Two process facilitator pairs were selected for observations in consultation with the National Agency for Education. They were observed during fourteen process meetings between January and August 2022. The meetings took place in the first phase of SBS in which the process facilitators are supporting the school organizers and schools in identifying what is needed to be improved, a baseline analysis. Each meeting lasted 120-150 minutes. Some were face-to-face meetings and others were digital. As observers, we participated digitally on all occasions. Ten process facilitators were interviewed focusing on process facilitators' preparation and collaboration for process meetings, tools for process meetings, and challenges and opportunities in process meetings. The selection of interviewees was made in consultation with the National Agency for Education. The interviews, later transcribed, were conducted and recorded with the consent of the process facilitators during spring 2022. A sample of documents (process meeting invitations, powerpoint presentations, templates and stencils) used by the process facilitators during observed process meetings were collected. Artifacts and critical incidents were used as key analytical concepts. Regarding artifacts, we drew on the concepts of material and conceptual artifacts and on Wartofsky's (1979) division of artifacts into three levels: primary, secondary or tertiary level. To answer which tools process facilitators used, we analysed the observations and documents. We identified and categorized which material and conceptual artefacts process facilitators used in the observations. To analyse how they were used, we searched for critical incidents (Tripp, 1993) in the process facilitators' use of tools for the development of understanding and improvement capacity. Critical incidents were identified within each overall category of artifacts. Thus, we identified turning points related to the use of artefacts, i.e. when understanding was or was not developed or when the use of an artefact was or was not developed to a higher level (Wartofsky, 1979) and what in the use of the process facilitators contributed to the critical incident. Moreover, a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) of all critical incidents was conducted to make visible what the critical incidents were substantively about from a process facilitator perspective, such as 'taking over or transferring ownership'. Finally, to strengthen the credibility of the analysis, we examined how the process facilitators described their work in the interviews. This served as a member check (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) by which the analysis could be validated against the voices of the process facilitators.

The conclusion is that there is potential for process facilitators to further support participants' development of understanding and capacity for improvement and that work is needed to support process facilitators in this. The study implies that the critical incidents identified in the study as having a positive impact on the development of participants' understanding and improvement capacity need to be predominant, while the critical incidents identified as having a negative impact should be minimised. Support to process facilitators could take the form of skills development related to critical incidents in the use of tools by process facilitators. Such support would enable them to use tools in a way that helps SBS participants to progress. This would be a successful way to create agency and ownership among school organizers and schools. Skills development on how to use the tools could further include exploring what it would mean for process facilitators to start from the models the participants already use instead of the SBS model, which is one way of working. What tools would process facilitators need to use then? In this respect, exchanges of experience between facilitators could contribute to a better understanding of the school organizers’ and schools’ prerequisites for the SBS work, as well as closer contact with the HEIs for support in the use of tools to develop understanding and improvement capacity among the participants in the SBS.

Blossing, U. (2021). Förbättringskapacitet som funktionalistisk strukturering eller en professionellt lärande gemenskapskultur [Improvement capacity as functionalistic structure or a professional learning community culture]. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige, 26(1), 70-93. https://doi.org/10.15626/pfs26.01.04 Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Jakobsson, A. (2012). Sociokulturella perspektiv på lärande och utveckling [Sociocultural perspective on learning and development]. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige, 17(3-4), 152–170. Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. https://www.ulfavtal.se/digitalAssets/709/c_709236-l_3-k_extern-utva-rdering-ulf.pdf Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2015). Improving schools in Sweden: An OECD perspective. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/Improving-Schools-in-Sweden.pdf Skolverket [National Agency for Edcuation]. (2022). Redovisning om uppdrag för Samverkan för bästa skola. Dnr: 2022:24. [Report on the Collaboration for Best School] https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=9681 Säljö, R. (2005). Lärande och kulturella verktyg: Om lärprocesser och det kollektiva minnet [Learning and Cultural Tools: On learning processes and the collective memory]. Nordstedts. The Swedish Education Act (SFS 2010:800). Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching. Routledge. Utbildningsdepartementet [Ministry of Education]. (2015). Uppdrag om Samverkan för bästa skola [Commission for Collaboration for Best School]. Diarenummer U2015/3357/S. Utbildningsdepartementet. [Ministry of Education]. (2019). Uppdrag till Statens skolverk om samverkan för bästa skola [Comission to the National Agency for Education on Collaboration for Best School]. Diarenummer U2019/03786/S. Wartofsky, M. (1979). Models. Representation and the scientific understanding. D. Reidel.