Title: Qualitative Descriptions of Readiness for Capacity Building in Schools
1Qualitative Descriptions of Readiness for
Capacity Building in Schools
- two Swedish Cases
- Conny Björkman and Anders Olofsson
2Content
- Readiness for capacity building in schools
- Aims
- Method
- Case A and B
- A language of description
- Results and Conclusions
3Readiness for capacity building in schools
- Capacity building a collective, and context
bound, process in a school to enhance improvement
- Readiness for capacity building schools
collective, structural, cultural, and leadership
readiness needed, in a certain context, to
enhance capacity building
4Aim
- To create a language for qualitative
descriptions of principals and teachers views on
collaboration forms and staff development, as a
readiness for capacity building in schools, and - To explore the use of this language in case
studies of two Swedish secondary schools
5Data collection
- Team of three researchers
- General school observations
- Individual interviews
6The qualitative process of analysing
- From empirical conceptions to theoretical
concepts - What structure and how culture
- Political, Principalship, Work team, Teacher
-
7The two cases
- Case A
- 200 students (grades 7-9)
- mono-ethnical, middle class, village
- Social democratic
- Successful due to student academic results
in grade 9
8The two cases
- Case B
- 470 students (grades 7-9)
- multi-ethnical, middle class, big city
- Social democratic
- Successful due to student academic results
in grade 9
9A language of description (Case A)
- Principalship and teachers views on staff
development - Pr T(soc) T(ma/sc)T(part)T(re)
T(l) -
- Political
-
- Principalship w
-
- Work-teams
-
- Teacher h wh wh wh wh
wh -
10Conclusions
- In school A the structure and culture of staff
development is understood as an individual
business for the teachers. The principal
understands staff development as being based on
her coaching of the individual teachers. These
non-supporting views probably reduce the power of
staff development, and therefore the existing
views on staff development will have a weak
contribution to the readiness for capacity
building in school A. -
-
-
11A language of description (Case B)
- Principalship and teachers views on staff
development - Pr1Pr2T(soc)
T(ma/sc)T(part)T(re)T(l) -
- Political (wh)
-
- Principal- w w
w - ship
-
- Work-teams h h wh wh wh
wh h -
- Teacher
12Conclusions
- In school B both structure and culture of staff
development is understood in a similar way, by
principals and teachers. This probably means that
staff development can be used as a powerful tool
in school improvement, and therefore existing
views on staff development can contribute to the
readiness for capacity building in school B.
13Final conclusions
- These statements highlight structural and
cultural conditions in schools. Conditions, which
have to be treated as challenges by the
principalship. Treated differently, due to staff,
students, school context and local and national
curricula. -
- This model could provide the researcher with new
dimensions of success in terms of describing the
readiness for capacity building in schools, but
also provide schools with a useful tool for
understanding its own status of readiness for
capacity building.
14Thank you so much for your attention. We
appreciate your critical support!
- conny.bjorkman_at_miun.se
- anders.olofsson_at_miun.se
This paper is part of the research project
"Structure, culture, leadershipprerequisites for
successful schools?" at the Centre for Principal
Development, Umeå university led by professor
Olof Johansson with co-directors associated
professor Jonas Höög, Umeå university, professor
Leif Lindberg, Växjö university and associated
professor Anders Olofsson, Mid Sweden university,
Campus Härnösand. The project is financed by the
Swedish Research Council.