Superintendent leadership under shifting governance regimes

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyse the superintendent position, its relation to the local political system and the function as superior of principals in the school district in order to illuminate important district-level conditions for student learning. Influences from historical legacies and policy cultures are investigated by means of cross-country case analyses. Design/methodology/approach – This paper is based on data from national surveys of superintendent leadership in Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway. Findings – A key point is the observation of a mix-mode system of hard and soft governance. Municipalities, schools, teachers and pupils are – in different degrees across the Nordic countries – subjected to external evaluation and assessment by central control agencies, where the streams of reports, assessments and performance data are assembled. However, shifts in the governance systems are only modestly reflected in the self-reports on the superintendents’ role. Overall, superintendents in the cases express a self-preferred leadership style as professional learning facilitators who focus on pupil orientation, which positions the superintendent in “crossfires” between conflicting stakeholder demands. Research limitations/implications – The paper reinforces the importance of superintendent leadership in local school governance. It underscores the importance that superintendents facilitate learning conditions for school leaders, teachers and students, which we see as a promising path for further research. Originality/value – The paper provides empirical evidence regarding superintendent leadership situated in local social and political contexts within the Nordic countries. The cross-country analysis illuminates how path-pendent historical legacies mediate current reform trends.

Mediation, Collaborative Learning and Trust in Norwegian School Governing: Synthesis from a Nordic Research Project

“…The view of education systems as tightly coupled implies a government model, in which school administrators at higher levels of the system possess control devices for schools, and the higher-ranked administrators can feel confident that school leaders and teachers will implement decisions in practice (Weick, 1982). In contrast, the conception of school systems as loosely coupled acknowledges that school governance takes place in multi-level systems that entail many broken chains (Paulsen, Johansson, Nihlfors, Moos, & Risku, 2014).…”

External Control and Professional Trust in Norwegian School Governing: Synthesis from a Nordic Research Project

“…The view of educational systems as tightly coupled implies a management model, in which school administrators at higher levels of the system employ control devices towards municipalities and schools, and the higher-ranked administrators can feel confident that school leaders and principals will implement decisions in practice (Weick, 1982). In contrast, the conception of school organizations as loosely coupled acknowledges that school governance takes place in multi-level systems, encompassing state agencies, municipalities and schools, which entails many broken chains (Paulsen, Johansson, Nihlfors, Moos, & Risku, 2014).…”

Under What Conditions Do Rural Schools Learn From their Partners?

“…The view of education systems as tightly coupled implies a government model in which school administrators at higher levels of the system have policies that control schools, and the higher-ranked administrators feel confident that school leaders and teachers will implement decisions in practice (Weick, 1982). In contrast, the conception of school systems as loosely coupled acknowledges that school governance occurs in multi-level systems that entail many broken chains (Paulsen, Johansson, Nihlfors, Moos, & Risku, 2014). The crucial point is that some lack of correspondence can be expected between the formal organisational system architecture, in terms of plans, goals, strategies and routines developed by state agencies, and the negotiations, decisions, power distribution and operational activities carried out by the players in the municipalities.…”