Qualitative Descriptions of Readiness for Capacity Building in Schools

1
Qualitative Descriptions of Readiness for
Capacity Building in Schools

• two Swedish Cases
• Conny Björkman and Anders Olofsson

2
Content

• Readiness for capacity building in schools
• Aims
• Method
• Case A and B
• A language of description
• Results and Conclusions

3
Readiness 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

4
Aim

• 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

5
Data collection

• Team of three researchers
• General school observations
• Individual interviews

6
The qualitative process of analysing

• From empirical conceptions to theoretical
  concepts
• What structure and how culture
• Political, Principalship, Work team, Teacher

7
The 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

8
The 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

9
A 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

10
Conclusions

• 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.
•  

11
A 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

12
Conclusions

• 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.

13
Final 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.

14
Thank 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.