According to the Swedish Education Act, schools should support both students' knowledge development and personal development. Students' levels of knowledge are measured and compared through their examination results and formal grades as well as through international comparative studies and other tools. However, students' personal development is not measured. The purpose of this study is to explore the efforts of local governance chain actors - the Local Educational Authority (LEA), superintendents, principals and teachers - to realise these two normative requirements and to learn more about the tensions and power struggles between these actors. The overarching question is: How do the actors in the governance chain prioritise and act with regard to the requirements for developing students' knowledge and students as individuals? This study is designed as a case study in a compulsory school setting. The empirical data were collected by interviewing LEA chairs, superintendents, principals and teachers in a small town in the south of Sweden. The results show that the LEA and the superintendents focus on students' knowledge development, but principals and teachers resist a too strong focus on knowledge development. The normative requirement - students' personal development - is not explicitly discussed at any level in the governance chain.

In Sweden, as in many other countries all over the world, the question of equality is one of the most critical concerns. In the international policy discourse, there is a dissatisfaction with unequal educational opportunities for students. As a global trend, educational policies aiming to address the inequality in education emphasise global competiveness with a focus on comparative studies, such as OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment, and greater accountability (Schultz, 2019).

All students must have access to education to achieve the best results possible. In the Swedish Education Act, education must be equivalent regardless of where in the country it is organised (SFS 2010:800). In an equivalent education, students are compensated according to their background and conditions, which means that each student receives the support required to achieve the school’s goals. The equivalence mission rests on every stalkeholder who is responsible for education.

Monitoring results is an important task for educational managers at the local school level. Portrayed as loosely coupled (Weick, 1976) and multi-leveled (Uljens, 2015), the school organisation is supposed to be rationally managed to effectively operate, holding every level accountable for students’ learning outcomes. The various levels in the school system can be illustrated as ‘webs of contracts’ (Wohlstetter et al., 2008), where local school agents, for example teachers, undertake actions on behalf of a principal (Gailmard, 2014). According to Ferris (1992), “the principal ‘contracts’ with the agents to act on the principal’s behalf” (p. 333). The contract further involves the delegation of discretion and decision-making authority to the agents (Soudry, 2007). In turn, the principal may make decisions that affect the actions agents take.

Drawing on the principal-agent theoretical framework, the aim of this study is to empirically examine the functionality of the local school system, particularly with respect to the contract of equal opportunities for all students to improve school results. The following research question has guided the study: How does the local school system function to uphold the contract of giving all students equal conditions for increased merit values?

The study is part of a research project in a Swedish municipality. Previous results from the project (Rapp, 2021; Ståhlkrantz & Rapp, 2022) show that the superintendent, as principal, prioritises the continuous improvement of academic outcomes. The superintendent emphasises that the main priority is for students to achieve high merit values. However, this priority is not supported by all agents in the school organisation. For example, one teacher considers that the students are too young to have to worry about their grades (Rapp, 2021). There are also school principals who prioritise students’ well-being over their academic outcomes (Ståhlkrantz & Rapp, 2022). These are examples of different beliefs and values (Robinson, 2017) that can exist on various levels in the school organisation.

As a multi-leveled governed system, there is a distribution of power among different system levels but also a dynamic relationship and interaction among various actors and their interdependency in the school organisation (Wilkoszewski & Sundby, 2016). To handle expectations and requirements from the principal, local school agents use adaptive strategies, such as bridging and buffering (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2005) and acting as gatekeepers (Ståhlkrantz & Rapp, 2022). When this occurs, the contract between principal and agents is broken, which makes it difficult or even impossible to realise the principal’s intentions. With the problems ecountered in a multi-leveled school organisation, the hypothesis of this study is that the picture of an ideal, well-functioning school organisation as a “governing chain” with “webs of contract” that aim to give students equal educational opportunities for optimal goalfullfilment may be better illustrated as a diversified, semi-functional school system.MethodDespite being a small Swedish case study (Yin, 2009), this study is of international interest because it provides in-depth insights into how global education policies are translated to a local context. Empirical data were collected using a questionnaire and focus interviews (Cohen et al., 2018), with respondents consisting of local school administrators and primary school teachers. The school has a principal, three assistant principals, about 80 teachers, and more than 850 students (aged 6–16). All teachers were invited to answer a digital questionnaire with a total of 47 questions. The questions were, among other areas, about the school’s governance, cooperation and trust in the governing chain, knowledge results, and the demand for higher merit values. The response rate was 49%. The municipality’s digital survey system was used to administer the survey. Before sending out the questionnaire, all respondents were informed of the purpose of the study. When the survey was distributed, they were informed that participation was voluntary and that answers would be kept anonymous (Vetenskapsrådet, 2017). To deepen the understanding of the survey responses, three focus interviews were conducted with randomly selected teachers. A focus interview with the school’s principal and assistant principals was also conducted. The content of the focus group questions was based on the answers given in the questionnaires. Each interview took 60-90 minutes and was recorded. Before the focus interviews, the interviewees were informed that participation was voluntary and that the recorded interviews will be kept anonymous (Vetenskapsrådet, 2017). In the analysis of the empirical materials, it was integral to identify the framework behind the functionality of the school organisation in upholding the contract of equal opportunities for all students to improve their learning outcomes. Since the principal-agent theory emphasises the responsiveness of the agent’s decisions to the principal’s goals, how this responsiveness is mediated by available actions, and institutional contextual factors, this framework is suitable for studying accountability in public education (Ferris, 1992; Gailmard, 2014). Within the principal-agent relationship, Wohlstetter et al. (2008) identified five key problems: (1) limited decision rights, (2) information asymmetry, (3) divergent objectives, (4) weak incentives, and (5) adverse selection. As a final step, these key problems were utilised as analytical tools to analyse empirical data.Expected OutcomesThe school is governed by national constitutions, which together with local educational priorities, form the contracts that agents are supposed to fulfill. This can be achieved in a diversified and multi-level system, where each level is responsible for its work. Following previous research on principal agency (Ståhlkrantz, 2022) and teacher agency (Bergh & Wahlström, 2018; Priestly et al., 2012), it is argued that school principals and teachers apply high levels of agency and discretion in their daily work. The principal-agent theory reveals that teachers, as agents, are in the best position to make decisions about education. Through incentives and regulations, the principal can ensure that agents responsibly fulfill their delegated role. However, if agents do not share the same beliefs and values as the principal, the former will not execute the activities requested. A functional, tightly coupled system presupposes that local school agents undertake actions on behalf of the principal and that every level in the governing chain is acoountable for the students’ learning outcomes. Preliminary results of this study indicate various problems in the principal-agent relationship in the local school organisation. In the ideal governing system, if the result is not good enough, accountability can be demanded. However, this ideal image is not consistent with the reality in education. At the local school level, no one in the governing chain is held accountable for improving students’ learning outcomes. Thus, the students themselves become responsible for their own merit values. Teachers decide the learning content and manner of teaching. In other words, if teachers do not prioritise increased merit values, the principal has very limited options to manage the school organisation according to contracted objectives and values. As such, it might be more accurate to illustrate the school organisation as a semi-functional organisational system rather than a functional governing chain.References 

Bergh, A., & Wahlström, N. (2018). Conflicting goals of educational action: A study of teacher agency from a transactional realism perspective. The Curriculum Journal, 29(1), 134-149. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th ed.). Routledge. DiPaola, M. F., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2005). Bridging or buffering? The impact of schools’ adaptive strategies on student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(1), 60–71. Ferris, J. M. (1992). School-based decision making: A principal-agent perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 333-346. Gailmard, S. (2014). Accountability and principal–agent theory. In M. Bovens, R. Goodin, & T. Schillemans, T. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 90–105). Oxford University Press. Priestly, M., Edwards, R., & Priestly, A. (2012). Teacher Agency in Curriculum Making: Agents of Change and Spaces for Manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(2), 191-214. Rapp, S. (2021). Att leda elevers kunskapsutveckling. Styrkedjan och det pedagogiska ledarskapet [To lead students' knowledge development. The chain of command and educational leadership]. Gleerups. Robinson, V. (2017). Reduce change to increase improvement. Corwin. Schultz, K. (2019). Distrust and Educational Change: Overcoming Barriers to Just and Lasting Reform. Harvard Education Press. SFS (2010:800). Skollagen. [Education Act]. Soudry, O. (2007). A principal-agent analysis of accountability in public procurement. Advancing public procurement: Practices, innovation and knowledge-sharing, 432-451. Ståhlkrantz, K. (2022). Principal agency: Educational leadership at the intersection between past experiences and present environments. In N. Wahlström (Ed.). Equity, Teaching Practice and the Curriculum: Exploring Differences in Access to Knowledge (pp. 90–104). Routledge. Ståhlkrantz, K. & Rapp, S. (2022). Leading for higher grades—balancing school leadership on the fine line between accountability and professional autonomy, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1-21. Uljens, M. (2015). Curriculum work as educational leadership–Paradoxes and theoretical foundations. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(1), 27010. Vetenskapsrådet (2017). God forskningssed [Good research practice]. https://www.vr.se/download/18.2412c5311624176023d25b05/1529480532631/God-forskningssed_VR_2017.pdf. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19. Wilkoszewski, H., & Sundby, E. (2016). From Hard to Soft Governance in Multi‐level Education Systems. European Journal of Education, 51(4), 447-462. Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision-making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School effectiveness and school improvement, 19(3), 239-259. Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.

Caught in the crossfire of expectations of improving students’ learning outcomes while simultaneously safeguarding students’ well-being, school principals must balance accountability and professional autonomy. This article presents findings from a small case study that examined the relationship between the supervisor and four school principals in a Swedish municipality. Drawing on an institutional perspective, the purpose of the study was to examine how the superintendent manages the principals through the quality assessment system through regulative, normative, and cognitive elements and how the principals relate to these institutional aspects. The empirical data was collected by interviews. Scott’s pillars of institutional order were applied to analyze what regulations, normative expectations, and cognitive elements that could be identified in the empirical material. Bridging and buffering were used as analytical tools to analyze the strategies used by the principals to relate to these institutional aspects. The findings indicate clear and well-implemented regulative routines, but also monitoring and a range of sanctions where the principals do not meet expectations. There are examples of normative elements emphasized by the superintendent, as well as cognitive elements, which provide the infrastructure of the organization. To handle these institutional aspects, school principals use adaptive strategies, such as bridging and buffering.

In Sweden, the local schoolboard has the ultimate responsibility forschool quality and student knowledge development, and is heldresponsible if the expected outcomes are not met. Assisting theboard is the superintendent who is the Chief Executive Officer. Theaim of the study is to investigate the board’s relation to andexpectations of the superintendent, and this article is a result ofa national investigation in which all schoolboard chairs were surveyed.Two main questions were addressed: 1) what expectationsdoes the local schoolboard have of the superintendent, both ingeneral and in relation to student achievements and 2) which tasksare the superintendents expected to prioritise in carrying out theirwork? Data have been collected through a web-based survey usingboth structured and open-ended questions. The results show thatthe schoolboards’ strongest expectations placed on superintendentsare to execute the leadership mission followed by managingthe organisation within allocated budget frames. Responsibilitiesfor academic outcomes have a lower ranking. Superintendentshave many opportunities to influence the schoolboards’ decisionsand thereby affect which goals they should prioritise in the localschool organisation. The superintendent is an invisible ruler who inthe chain of governance occupies the best position to influenceboth the schoolboard’s acting policy and the schools’ acting practice.By being aware of the existing asymmetric distribution ofpower, the schoolboard has the opportunity to exercise controlover its official whose legal responsibility is to assist its membersin their decision makings.

Hur kan det pedagogiska ledarskapet användas i skolans styrkedja för att ge de bästa förutsättningarna för elevers kunskapsutveckling? Hur kan ledarskapet förbättra elevers kunskapsutveckling? Vilka olika förväntningar finns på styrkedjans aktörer? 

Skolans styrkedja sträcker sig från den nationella nivån – riksdag, regering och skolmyndigheter – till varje lärare i klassrummet eller i barngruppen. I den här boken visar författaren att en väl fungerande styrkedja ger goda förutsättningar för elevernas kunskapsutveckling. I en sådan styrkedja omfattas alla av gemensamma värderingar och man samarbetar för att uppnå skolans och elevernas mål. Ett sådant strukturerat samarbete ger förutsättningar att stärka såväl det pedagogiska ledarskapets innehåll som tilliten mellan aktörerna. 

I bokens första del behandlas förskolans och skolans styrkedja, begreppet pedagogiskt ledarskap samt barns och elevers lärande och utveckling. I den andra delen presenteras en fallstudie, genomförd i en svensk kommun, och i den tredje delen kopplas bokens två första delar samman. I del tre diskuteras också hur de nya kunskaperna kan användas i arbetet med förskolans och skolans utveckling och förändring. I avslutningen beskriver författaren hur man utifrån hela styrkedjans perspektiv kan stärka och arbeta med det lokala pedagogiska ledarskapet.

The rationale for this study stems from the Swedish educational context, where teacher practice is subject to policies stating that education must be built on research foundation and proven experience. In a previous article (Åman & Kroksmark, 2018), we demonstrated that the research foundation is operating in concurrence of teachers’ practices and experiences. This study in turn aims to explore how teachers understand proven experience and practices of proving professional experiences. The data was collected in 2014 in the project Modellskolan [The Model School], financed by the Swedish Research Council, through a stimulated recall method. We filmed 14 interviews with teachers focusing on group discussions about teachers’ practical dilemmas. The interviews were analyzed with a phenomenographic method, and the result revealed five categories with which the teachers evaluated collegial and individual experiences. The categories were analysed through praxis theory and linked to the phenomenological concepts of time and space to elucidate how fluid situated and unspoken professional experiences become systematic, general and partly transferable through proving practices. The results shed light on how teachers’ experiences and everyday practices challenge and encourage revisions of the definitions of research foundation and proven experiencea in Swedish national policies.