School Improvement Project As A Mean For School Success?

Author(s):

Åsa Löfqvist(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2013

Network:

01. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations

Format:

Paper

Session Information

01 SES 05 B, School Improvement through Professional Development

Paper Session

Time:

2013-09-11

11:00-12:30

Room:

B-203

Chair:

Sara Bubb

Contribution

Is school improvement project as a mean for school success?

Despite the schools’ local responsibility for school improvement and effectiveness, school development is still governed at the state level. Financial resources are distributed from the national level when new ideas are to be implemented. This kind of central financial support for school development is the focus of this study. Two five-year school improvement projects were completed in a small community with the intention of developing educators’ knowledge and changing attitudes concerning: i) children with special language impairments and ii) enhanced competence to handle relations with parents and children, the so called “Relation-project.” This study follows up on the results of the projects three years later. The main purpose was to gain further knowledge concerning externally financed school improvement projects as a model for school improvement and to determine whether these projects have changed the internal work in the schools.

The study's overall purpose is to obtain further knowledge about school project as a model for school improvement by describing and analyzing the projects’ significance for changes in educational practice. The research study will provide answers to two basic questions:
How do principals and teachers in preschool and elementary schools perceive that activities have been affected by the project?
What factors have influenced the development and change?

The factors that hamper or promote school improvement are universal (Fullan, 2001), yet there are difficulties identifying best practices for developing schools due to complex practices and local factors (McLaughlin, 2005). The supporting projects shall be thoroughly adjusted to meet the specific school’s needs, differences, and culture, and cooperation within the school with questions is crucial for students’ enhanced learning (Harris, 2000, 2011). Fullan (2010) emphasized the “awesome power of the principal” (see also Höög & Johansson, 2011). Furthermore, the politicians and superintendents who govern the schools’ development need deep knowledge about the schools’ contextual prerequisites. External support is not the only method to achieve school success. Unused competencies and skills within the school can provide potential for school improvement where cooperation is significant (West, 2010).

Framework theory was used as an analytical tool; the theory is based on the idea that frames give space for a process (Lundgren, 1999). Linde (2000) described the theory as follows: if the prerequisites p is not at hand, the action a cannot be performed and, consequently, the possibility for action is limited. As this study’s focus, the project outcomes can be affected by frames such as the economy, staff, school culture, implementation, planning, and leadership. In addition to framework theory, Bernstein’s concepts of classification and framing are used (Bernstein,1996/2000).

Method

The methodological approach is qualitative since the aim is to gain insight into how educators and principals view the results of the projects three years later. Data was collected through interviews with six principals and 25 educators, individually with the principals and in smaller groups with the educators. Group interviews give a broader picture of the participants’ experiences (Bell, 2003; Kvale & Brinkman, 2009). The method is especially useful when the researcher seeks profound information concerning what a group of people thinks about a certain issue. The participants were selected through a strategic choice of criteria: experience with the projects and still working at the same school where the projects were performed. All the participants fulfilled the criteria.

Expected Outcomes

Overall, the participants’ experiences of the projects indicate that the projects have been more or less significant for school improvement. Three significant factors for the projects’ sustainability were identified: the leadership of the project, the project activities, and cooperation between educators and the educational levels. An inspiring leader who had the ability to stimulate the educators and thereby their understanding of the project theme was important. The activities were numerous, and all consisted of actions that were seen as useful in educators’ daily practice after the end of the project. A majority of the educators were involved, which resulted in a broad understanding of the importance of changes in daily practice. New knowledge has increased the skills of the educators, who, in turn, supervised their colleagues after the end of the project. Another successful factor was that the preschools were, for the first time, involved in long-term work with children with language impairments. A sense of belonging to a broader system was important for the preschool teachers’ self-esteem. Factors regarded as preventing the projects’ survival were a sense of work overload, a top-down perspective, and vague implementation from the central level.

References

Bell, Judith (2007). Introduktion till forskningsmetodik. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Bernstein, Basil (1996/2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control & Identity: theory, research & critique. London: Taylor & Francis. Fullan, Michael (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Fullan, Michael (2010). The Awesome Power of the Principal. Principal. March/April v 89 (n 4) p 10-12, 14-15. Harris, Alma (2000). What works in school improvement? Lessons from the field and future directions. Educational Research Vol. 42 No. 1 Spring 2000, pp 1-11. Harris, Alma (2011). System improvement through collective capacity building. Journal of Educational Administration Vol. 49 No.6, 2011, pp. 624-636. Höög, Jonas, & Johansson, Olof (2011). Struktur, kultur, ledarskap – ett projekt och dess resultat. I Struktur, kultur, ledarskap. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Kvale, Steinar & Brinkman, Svend (2009). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Linde, Göran (2000). Det ska ni veta! En introduktion till läroplansteori. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lundgren, Ulf, P. (1999). Ramfaktorteori och praktisk utbildningsplanering. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, (4:1), s. 31-41. McLaughlin, Milbrey (2005). Listening and Learning from the Field: Tales of Policy Implementation and Situated Practice. In Lieberman, Ann (ed.), The Roots of Educational Change, 58-72. Dordrecht: Springer. West, Mel (2010). School-to school cooperation as a strategy for improving student outcomes in challenging contexts. School effectiveness and School Improvement. Vol. 21 No. 1, March 2010, 93-112.

Author Information

Åsa Löfqvist (presenting / submitting)

Umeå University, Sweden

Umeå

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.