Change Processes in Schools and the Role of School Leadership

Author(s):

Stephan HuberIsabella Lussi

Conference:

ECER 2010

Network:

26. Educational Leadership

Format:

Paper

Session Information

26 SES 01 A,

Paper Session

Time:

2010-08-25

09:15-10:45

Room:

U40 SALI 7, Metsätalo

Chair:

Helen Wildy

Contribution

The paper reports about the findings of the first three phases of a research project in which change processes in 15 schools during the last five years are reconstructed retrospectively from an organizational culture perspective. Using a mixed-method approach, organizational structures and processes are revealed in order to identify internal and external conditions promoting shared action and resistance in change processes, gathered from individual perceptions and representations. A special focus is on the role of school leadership and steering groups in promoting or blocking change.

The main research question is:

How does the individual school change in the perceptions of its agents, and which role does school leadership play hereby?

The subquestions are as following:

1. Which features characterize the schools and how do these features interrelate with one another (specifics of configuration)?

2. Which features characterize the school leadership, what has an impact on them and what impact do they have?

3. How do the features of school leadership and those of the school interrelate with one another (context/situation and contingency)?

As to 1: Leading questions for the survey
What are the agents’ perceptions of aspects of
-themselves (job satisfaction, pedagogical attitudes, self-efficacy,…)?
-what is going on socially in the school (communication, cooperation, social networks,…)?
-school leadership (positive and negative features, impact, effect,…)?
-change processes (kinds of change, intensity of change, assessment of changes,…)?
-the overall organization of the school (pictures, audit sheet,…)?
(How homogeneous are the perceptions within the individual school?)

As to 2: Leading questions for the interviews
How is school leadership/management

-formally described,

- informally experienced, and

- exemplarily exercised?

The research project draws on organizational theory, research on organizational culture as well as leadership research. Educational organizations are regarded as loosely-coupled systems that exist in a state between regulation and uncertainty, producing high amounts of both ambiguity and potential for innovation. Leadership is seen as an important factor in the initiation and successful completion of change, while the inherent complexity of school organizations indicates a limited usefulness of deterministic control strategies.

Method

The study uses an exploratory mixed-method research design which included four phases. First, the schools were analyzed using documents from the school and survey data which included social network analysis. A large part of the questionnaires comprised items with open questions for which categories for analysis had to be developed using a mixed (inductive-deductive) approach, first level categories are inductively generated (from the data), second level categories are deductively generated (from theories). In the second phase, school specific group interviews were conducted to gain insight into perceptions and attitudes towards change. Third, based on the data from the two first phases, a typology of schools were developed which served as a basis for choosing schools to conduct case studies. Fourth, five case studies were developed, each type represented by one school of the cluster to explore in more detail the complexity of the interrelations of organizational and leadership/management features.

Expected Outcomes

Even though common tendencies can be found in all schools, the individual schools clearly show some differences as to the organisational and leadership and management features. The following generalized tendencies can be stated across the schools: • Most changes are perceived in the fields of classroom teaching / instruction and regarding working conditions. Changes, however, are also perceived regarding school leadership and organisational structures. • Great differences can be found with regard to job satisfaction of the staff. These differences cannot be explained directly by the amount of change nor by the level of cooperation in the school, but rather by the effects of the school leadership. For the development of the typology, two different methods were applied and created the following types: A1 The reform oriented integrated school A2 The reform resistant anomic school A3 The reform oriented dissatisfied school A4 Average school A5 The reform oriented satisfied school B1 Ideal reform school B2 Dissatisfied reform school B3 Problem school B4 Satisfied non-reforming school

References

Durland, M. & C. Teddlie (1996). A network analysis of the structural dimensions of principal leadership in differentially effective schools. New York, American Educational Research Association. Hallinger, P. & Heck, R.H. (1998). Exploring the Principal’s Contribution to School Effectiveness: 1980-1995. Journal for School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-191. Hargreaves, D. H. & Hopkins, D. (1991). The empowered school: The management and practice of development planning. London: Cassell. Hallinger, P. & Heck, R.H. (1998). Exploring the Principal’s Contribution to School Effectiveness: 1980-1995. Journal for School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-191. Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M. & West, M. (1994). School improvement in an era of change. London: Cassell. Kluge, S. (1999). Empirisch begründete Typenbildung. Zur Konstruktion von Typen und Typologien in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2005). What we know about successful school leadership. In Firestone, W. & Riehl, C. (Eds.), A new agenda: Directions for research on educational leadership (pp. 22-47). New York: Teachers College Press. March, J. G. (1981). Footnotes to Organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 563-577 Ragin, C. C. (1994): Constructing Social Research. The Unity and Diversity of Method. Pine Forge Press. A Sage Publications Company. Thousand Oaks, California. Schein, E. H. (2006). Organisationskultur (2. korr. Aufl.). Bergisch Gladbach: EHP. Simon, H. A. (1978). Rationality as Process and as Product of Thought. The American Economic Review, 68(2), 1-16. Teddlie, C. & Stringfield, S. C. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learned from a 10-year study of school effects. New York: Teachers College Press. West, M. (2000). Supporting School Improvement; observations on the inside, reflections from the outside. School Leadership and Management, 20(1), 43-60. Weick, K. E. (2001): Making sense of the organization. Reprint. Blackwell Business. Oxford.

Author Information

Stephan Huber

University of Teacher Education of Central Switzerland (PHZ) Zug

Institute for the Management and Economics of Education (IBB)

Zug

Isabella Lussi

Institute for the Management and Economics of Education (IBB), University of Teacher Education of Central Switzerland (PHZ) Zug, Switzerland

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.