The School Development Evaluation Tool, SDET, was developed in the beginning of our new millennium and revised a few years back (Reykjavíkurborg & Menntavísindasvið Háskóla Íslands, 2018), having served as an instrument of municipal policy aiming for flexible school practice, collaboration and individualised learning, as well as framework for studying teaching and learning at the compulsory school level (Gerður G. Óskarsdóttir, 2014). The revision was based on findings from such a study, as well as insights from external evaluations of compulsory schools in Reykjavik. Six strands in the tool represent features to review and develop. Organisation and leadership; policy, evaluation and development; learning environment; teaching practices; student learning; and parental involvement. Each strand entails issues to examine on a five-point scale towards a future vision of schooling. The first stage of the scale reflects constrained practices that prevailed most of the 20th century, while the fifth stage reflects individualised and collaborative learning, democratic practices and communities of learning, with intermediary stages delineating developmental steps towards that vision. The tool is laid out to enhance professional discussions among teachers and school leaders as they attempt to determine how and why they want to move forward in their administrative and developmental efforts focusing on student-centred or individualised learning (e.g. Jonasson & Land, 2012) as their point of departure. That entails differentiated tasks for students, the autonomy of students to influence their own learning, and student collaboration. The tool also reflects visions of the democratic school (Edelstein, 2008) and the school as a professional learning community (e.g. Louis and Stoll, 2007). Issues and strands underline the complexity of school development (Sigurðardottir et al., 2022), as well as the importance of coherence among school practice components (Fullan & Quinn, 2016). The physical environment must be reviewed in context with school culture, school organisation, and pedagogical approaches, bearing in mind manifold aspects of student learning (e.g. Gislason, 2010). Our study relates three cases where school staff reviewed their respective school buildings with potential adjustments and changes in mind. The tool was used at two lower secondary schools in Sweden, and one primary and lower secondary school in Iceland. All three schools were seen as of traditional design and considering alterations. The three case studies were somewhat limited in execution and scale, but served to show that the SDET tool can ignite and stimulate professional discussions in the early planning phase of redesign of school facilities.

Edelstein, W. (2008). Hvað geta skólar gert til að efla lýðræði? Hæfni og færni í draumalandi. [What can schools do to enhance democracy? Skills and competences in a land of dreams.] In Bjarnason et al., Menntaspor. Forlagið. Fullan, M. & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence. The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Corwin. Jonassen, D. & Land, S. M. (eds). (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Routledge. Óskarsdóttir, G. Ó. (ed.). (2014). Starfshættir í grunnskólum við upphaf 21. aldar. [Teaching and learning at the beginning of the 21st century.] Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan. Reykjavíkurborg & Menntavísindasvið Háskóla Íslands [Reykjavik City & School of Education, University of Iceland]. (2018). Matstæki um þróun skólastarfs í anda hugmynda um einstaklingsmiðað nám, lýðræðislegt og nemendamiðað skólastarf og lærdómssamfélag. [School Development Evalution Tool]. Reykjavíkurborg and Menntavísindasvið Háskóla Íslands. Sigurðardóttir, A. K., Hansen, F. B. & Gisladottir, B. (2022). Development of an intervention framework for school improvement that is adaptive to cultural context. Improving schools, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/13654802211051929 Stoll, L. & Louis, K. S. (eds.). (2007). Professional learning communities. Divergence, depth, and dilemmas. Open University Press