Educational organisations are expected to adapt the opportunities and the challenges of a rapidly changing world (Newton and Tarrant, 1992). Therefore, change is an inherent and vital aspect of the school improvement process. Change during school improvement encompass a wide range of transformations, including curriculum updates, shifts in pedagogical approaches, instructional methodologies, the incorporation of emerging technologies and the evolving needs of students and society. Thus, school improvement is a complex process that unfolds at the school level (Feldhoff, Radisch and Bischof, 2016). This dynamism can be daunting, yet it presents opportunities to enhance the quality of education and better prepare students for the challenges they will face as they enter wider society more independently. It is driven by a commitment to enhance the quality of education, improve student outcomes, meet the diverse needs of students, foster a positive learning environment, and remain responsive to the expectations of parents, communities, and society at large (Hallinger and Heck 2011, Murphy 2013).

Schools try to enhance student outcomes and strengthen the schools’ capacities for managing change through school improvement (Feldhoff et al., 2016; Hopkins 2001; Sammons et al. 2014). School principals together with teachers are expected to lead to change and enhance planning practices, build trust within the school, have autonomy and restructure the school during change process (Alsharija and Watters 2021). However, this journey in schools can be met with a mix of enthusiasm and resistance because of being complex and multifaceted. Different countries might face various change forces, adopt distinct approaches to implementing change, thereby encountering different challenges throughout this process. In our study, we will discuss two countries, England and Türkiye that have decentralised and centralised education systems respectively. Through exploring the forces for change and the challenges faced in both England and Türkiye, we argue that there are differences and also similarities between two apparently different contexts.  

The aim of this study is to explore and compare the forces and challenges influencing school improvement processes in two contrasting education systems, namely England and Türkiye, which operate within decentralised and centralised governance structures respectively. Guided by Lewin’s force-field analysis (Lewin, 1951), the study seeks to identify the driving and restraining forces shaping change at the school level and to examine how these forces influence schools’ capacities to manage and sustain improvement initiatives. By analysing similarities and differences across these two national contexts, the study aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of how systemic structures and policy environments shape school improvement processes and responses to change.

This study adopted a qualitative comparative research design to explore the forces and challenges influencing school improvement processes in two contrasting education systems: England, characterised by a relatively decentralised system, and Türkiye, which operates within a more centralised system. A qualitative approach was considered appropriate as it allows for an in-depth exploration of participants’ perspectives, experiences, and interpretations of change within their institutional and policy contexts. Data were collected from schools in England and Türkiye. In England, the study involved five schools (both primary and secondary) located in Manchester and London, representing a range of school inspection outcomes. A total of 22 educators, including senior leaders and teachers. In Türkiye, data were gathered from 12 public schools, comprising primary, middle, and high schools, located in the Anatolian region. The Turkish sample included 36 educators, consisting of school leaders and teachers. The selection of participants aimed to capture diverse perspectives on school improvement and change processes at different school levels. In the study, data were collected through semi-structured interviews, which allowed participants to reflect on their experiences of, and contributions to, school improvement initiatives. Interview questions focused on participants’ perceptions of internally and externally driven changes, the forces facilitating school improvement, and the challenges encountered during implementation. This method provided flexibility to probe emerging themes while ensuring consistency across interviews in both national context. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the relevant university ethics committee. All participating schools and individuals were fully informed about the purpose of the study, and informed consent was obtained prior to data collection. Participants were assured of confidentiality, anonymity, and their right to withdraw from the study at any stage (Creswell, 2013). Interview data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach, informed by Lewin’s force-field analysis. Data were coded to identify driving and restraining forces related to school improvement in each country. Themes were first analysed within each national context and then compared across England and Türkiye to identify similarities and differences in the forces shaping school improvement processes. This comparative analysis enabled a deeper understanding of how systemic structures influence schools’ capacities to manage and sustain change.

In England data revealed that changes in the school improvement process mostly depend on partner schools’ improvement strategies and Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills). guidelines. However, anxiety, staff mobility, and ineffective communication are challenges for teachers engaging in change processes for school improvement. Teachers stressed that they had restricted time for change implementation. However, school leaders sometimes had opposing views on change initiatives and there were debates between them about change initiatives for school improvement which demonstrated at least some level of debate was engaged in around initiatives. Compared to England, Turkish participants pointed out that both teachers and school principals may resist changes directed by the Ministry of National Education (MoNE). Changes for school improvement were mostly initiated by MONE and school principals in Türkiye. Indeed, sudden and radical changes seem to exist on paper only, posing a potential threat to the perceived benefits of the alignment of schools with their strategic goals. This can lead to a level of hypocrisy between what was claimed to be happening in schools around change and the reality. This had implications for autonomy and power in educational settings. There appear to be challenges in change process in England which was inhibited in terms of creativity by regulation and inspection and in the hierarchical and bureaucratic system of Türkiye, where converting policy into practice is not investigated or checked in detail. Based on the findings, a need for evidence-based policy practice in change management processes, and implementation of changes in ways that support school improvement as regards student experiences of education are suggested. Autonomy for school principals and leaders in decision-making, is key to providing more resources and using them to diminish the legal and financial obstacles of schools for both countries.

Alsharija, M., and Watters, J. J. (2020). Secondary school principals as change agents in Kuwait: Principals’ perspectives. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(6), 883-890. Creswell, J. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. SAGE: London. Feldhoff, T., Radisch, F., and Bischof, L. M. (2016). Designs and methods in school improvement research: A systematic review. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(2), 209-240. Hallinger, P., and Heck, R. H. (2011). Exploring the journey of school improvement: classifying and analyzing patterns of change in school improvement processes and learning outcomes, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(1), 1-27. Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real. Routledge Falmer, London and New York, NY. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper and Row. Murphy, J. (2013). The architecture of school improvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 252-263. Newton, C., and Tarrant, T. (1992). Managing change in schools: A practical handbook. London and New York: Routledge. Sammons, P., Davis, S., Day, C. and Gu, Q. (2014). Using mixed methods to investigate school improvement and the role of leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 565-589.