The fusion of school improvement and leadership capacity in an elementary school

Abstract

The article reports the findings of a qualitative case study in one elementary school in Iceland. The aim was to investigate the level of leadership capacity within the school, and how this had evolved through the school’s improvement. Information was gathered over one school year about planned improvements that had taken place in the school over the 10-year period prior to the study. Data was collected through observations, document analysis, semi-structured interviews, informal conversations and a survey. Participants came from all sectors of the school community. A conceptual framework developed by Lambert (2003a) was used to analyse the leadership capacity within the school. The findings show that the leadership capacity of the school, and of groups within the school, had grown considerably during the period under study and was connected to the degree of involvement in school improvement work. The findings indicated an interactive relationship between school improvement and the building of leadership capacity during the period under study.

Keywords

Leadership leadership capacity distributed leadership teacher leadership school improvement principal vision level of involvement

Introduction

School improvement is at the top of the global educational agenda, both academically and politically. This is borne out by accountability pressures, combined with prescribed curriculum standards and standardised testing (Hanushek and Raymond, 2002), and reactions to international surveys such as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) (OECD, n.d.). Recent trends towards competence-based curricula as vehicles to improve teachers’ practice, ensure equity among students and develop their competences (Sinnema and Aitken, 2013) are also proof of this.

Most researchers emphasise that school improvement is an organised learning process within a school (Hall and Hord, 2011; Louis et al., 2010) where the aim is to create knowledge and transform the school culture (Fullan, 2007; Hargreaves DH, 2003). Scholars also highlight the vital role of leadership (Louis et al., 2010) in achieving the twin goals of school improvement, which are to strengthen organisational capacity and improve students’ outcomes (Hopkins and Lagerweij, 1996). Successful leadership, however, does not leap out of a vacuum; it is learned and developed over time, in particular through the leadership behaviour of the principal, and district-wide leadership and support (Fullan, 2010; Lambert, 2006).

The educational system in Iceland has been subject to most of the trends and demands for change described above. It has recently moved from a highly prescriptive national curriculum, with emphasis on national high-stakes testing (Sigþórsson, 2008), to a new competence-based national curriculum (The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2011) leaving schools with a whole new set of requirements. Debates of the effectiveness of the educational system have also been lively in the wake of recent years’ PISA surveys, not least the 2012 survey that revealed a steady decline in the mathematical, science and reading literacy of 15-year-olds since 2000 (Halldórsson et al., 2013). How schools can be reformed, and what might be learned from international research and experience, are therefore pressing questions for all units of the educational system, not least individual schools. In this paper we aim to shed light on these issues with a report on an investigation into the development of leadership capacity and its interaction with the advancement of school improvement in one compulsory school in Iceland. Our specific research questions are:

What were the actions for building vision and initiating school improvement taken by the principal, and in what way did they inform the building of leadership capacity within the school?

To what extent had leadership capacity developed at the time of the study within the school as a whole and among groups within the school community, formal leaders, teachers, support staff, students and parents?

The structure of the article takes a conventional form of introduction, followed by sections providing the theoretical background to the research, an account of the study, a report of the findings, discussion and a final section of summary and conclusions.

Theoretical background to the research

In the theoretical background to the research our main focus is on two interrelated concepts: school improvement and leadership. Recently, researchers have developed the notion of professional learning communities as a means of promoting schools’ capacity for sustainable change and pupil learning (Bolam et al., 2005; Hall and Hord, 2011). Most definitions of professional learning communities emphasise shared values and visions of the school community, intentional learning, infrastructure and conditions supportive of professional learning and practice. In a report on the Creating and Sustaining Effective Professional Learning Communities (EPLC) study in the UK professional learning communities are described as characterised by ‘inclusiveness, shared values, collective responsibility for pupil learning, collaboration focused on learning and … mutual trust, respect and support’ (Bolam et al., 2005: vi). Bolam and his team also suggested that the effectiveness of a professional learning community should be judged on three criteria: ‘its ultimate impact on pupil learning and social development, its intermediate impact on professional learning, performance and morale, and its operational performance as a PLC’ (Bolam et al., 2005: vi–vii). Despite the attractive notion of shared values and visions within professional learning communities, Andy Hargreaves (2007) reminds us that such communities also need to be characterised by teachers’ willingness to learn by debating and challenging each other’s practices rather than casting everybody’s thinking in the same mould of ‘groupthink’ and comfortable collaboration (Fullan and Hargreaves A, 1991). He warns against tendencies to narrow down the concept of professional learning communities to a shared commitment to: ‘dysfunctional fixation … on raising tested achievement scores’ (Hargreaves, 2007, p. 158).

Finally we draw on David Hargreaves’ (2003) notion of school improvement as knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing. As with most writers, he places the process of teaching and learning at the heart of education and central within four related concepts: (1) intellectual capital; (2) social capital; (3) organisational capital; (4) leverage. He distinguishes between improvement as incremental innovation, as opposed to transformation as radical transformation of culture and practice. He argues that improvement rests on incremental innovation, where educators swim with the tide and tinker with existing structures and practice without profound cultural changes. On the other hand, he sees transformation as radical innovation where participants swim against the tide and challenge existing practices in order to bring about profound cultural changes.

The literature on professional learning communities is almost unanimous on the importance of leadership (Gronn, 2002; Hall and Hord, 2011; Hallinger and Heck, 2010; Harris, 2005; Louis et al., 2010). Louis et al. (2010) concluded after six years of study that leadership is: ‘second only to classroom instruction as an influence on student learning’ (Louis et al., 2010: 9) and that improving student achievement is virtually impossible without talented leadership. This is further supported by the findings of Hallinger and Heck (2010) when they studied the interaction between collaborative leadership and school improvement on the one hand and student learning on the other, by analysing a series of empirical studies of a large sample of US primary schools over a four-year period. They found that collaborative leadership had positive effects on student learning in reading and maths by strengthening the schools’ capacity for academic improvement. They further concluded that collective leadership and schools’ capacity for improvement are cast in a process of interaction where one shapes and reshapes the other.

The importance of distributed and collective leadership is a recurrent theme in leadership literature. Bennett et al. (2003) describe distributed leadership as a result of collective behaviour within an organisation aiming to create the opportunity to move from hierarchical leadership, where one leader holds the leadership of an organisation, to a collective model where expert knowledge is spread among people and groups (see also Bennett et al., 2003; Grogan and Shakeshaft, 2011; Spillane, 2006). In a similar vein, Louis et al. (2010) conceptualise collective leadership as a: ‘network of influence and control’ (Louis et al., 2010: 20) that informs decisions of different groups of the school community. Similarly, Bush and Glover (2012) emphasise good teamwork between principals and their senior leaders and between formal leaders and teachers, and describe high-performing leadership teams as portraying a dedication to employ distributed leadership, internal coherence, integrity and reciprocal communication with groups both within and outside schools.

Teacher leadership and distributed leadership, however, are debatable and complicated issues. For example, Akert and Martin (2012) found that principals and teachers differed in their perceptions of teachers’ involvement in school improvement and their understanding of its importance. While teachers wished to develop their leadership roles, the additional workload distracted them from their teaching and deprived them of time to spend with their families, thereby discouraging them from volunteering for such roles. This was overlooked by the principals who, accordingly, did not create the necessary conditions for teacher leadership in their schools. Akert and Martin (2012) argue that if teacher leadership is to evolve then principals, teachers and educational authorities need to come to a mutual understanding of its nature and practice, and teachers must be given time to be involved in decisions and actions that have an impact on school improvement.

Another tension to be resolved is the role of the principal who, on the one hand, inevitably sits at the top of a formal organisational hierarchy and on the other is part of a flat organisational structure of distributed leadership. Lambert (2006) suggests that this be resolved by different uses of the principal’s formal authority, depending on the level of the school’s leadership capacity. While leadership capacity is low, the principal needs to act as an autocratic manager who uses formal authority to teach, direct, challenge incompetence and make decisions. As leadership capacity evolves, the principal’s behaviour develops from being a guide and a coach to becoming a colleague, critical friend and a mentor who uses his formal authority to implement collegial decisions, support staff and deal with legal and reform challenges.

In a similar vein, Gronn (2008, 2010) argues that in real situations leadership needs to be characterised by two distinct yet combined functions: hierarchical leadership where formal leaders exercise control over their subordinates, and heterarchical leadership where formal leaders share their leadership with others and delegate leadership functions to others. Gronn argues that effective leadership needs to be characterised by a hybridity of these two functions when leaders attempt to respond to the contexts of their organisations.

Lambert (1998, 2003b, 2006) defines leadership as purposeful and collective learning that contributes to organisational prosperity. From Lambert’s point of view, leadership is constructive in nature as it can only occur as a result of collaborative learning where teams make sense of what is successful within the context in which they work. Lambert’s emphasis is on the process of leadership, rather than on the talents and actions of one leader. Along with researchers such as Bolam et al. (2005), Fullan (2010) and Louis et al. (2010), Lambert emphasises that even though leadership distribution has traditionally been associated with teachers, it needs to reach other groups of the school community: districts, parents, students and support staff.

Lambert’s (2003a, 2005, 2006, 2009) notion of leadership capacity refers to a broad-based skilful engagement in leadership that leads to lasting school improvement, enabling the school to sustain leadership and continue its work even when key persons leave. Lambert’s definition is akin to Gronn’s (2008, 2010) arguments for hybridity of different leadership styles and distribution of leadership functions. She argues that participating in leadership actions and developing leadership capacity is both a right and a duty, and if groups or individuals are left behind in their learning and leadership development it has a negative impact on school improvement and the success of students in the long run.

Lambert (2003a, 2009) offers a model (see Table 1) as an analytical tool to understand and evaluate the leadership capacity of schools. In this paper we use this model as a basis for our analysis. The model consists of four quadrants with six characteristics that are parallel between the quadrants. The characteristics refer to the role of the principal, use of information and inquiry, programme coherence, collaboration and responsibility, reflection and innovation, and student achievement (Lambert, 2003a, 2009). Each quadrant represents a certain level of leadership capacity as a function of the depth and understanding of the leadership skills listed in the quadrant, and the involvement in leadership activities of members of the school community, teachers, support staff, students and parents. Schools in quadrant one are those furthest away from having developed leadership capacity, and schools in quadrant four are those that have developed a high level of leadership capacity and have the potential to sustain their position in that phase or develop even further (Harris and Lambert, 2003; Lambert, 2003a, 2006, 2009).

Table 1.

Leadership capacity of four school types.

Level of involvement
Depth of leadership skills and understandings	Low skills	Quadrant 1 – Low involvement The principal as autocratic manager Limited (one-way) flow of information; no shared vision Codependent, paternal/maternal relationships and rigidly defined roles Norms of compliance, blame; programme coherence technical and superficial Lack of innovation in teaching and learning Student achievement is poor, or showing short-term improvements on standardised measures	Quadrant 2 – High involvement The principal as ‘laissez-faire’ manager; many teachers developing unrelated programmes Fragmentation and lack of coherence of information, and programmes’ lack of shared purpose Norms of individualism, lack of collective responsibility Undefined roles and responsibilities Spotty innovation with both excellent and poor classrooms Student achievement appears static overall (unless data are disaggregated)	Low skills
	High skills	Quadrant 3 – Low involvement The principal and key teachers as purposeful leadership team Polarised staff, pockets of strong resistance Limited uses of school-wide data, information flow within designated leadership groups Designated leaders act efficiently; others serve in traditional roles Strong reflection, innovation, and teaching excellence among selected teachers; programme coherence still weak Student achievement static or showing slight improvement	Quadrant 4 – High involvement The principal and teachers, as well as parents and students, are skilful leaders Shared vision results in programme coherence Inquiry-based use of information to inform decisions and practice Roles and actions reflect broad involvement, collaboration, and collective responsibility Reflection practice consistently leads to innovation Student achievement is high or improving steadily	High skills

Adapted from: Harris A and Lambert L (2003) Building Leadership Capacity for School Improvement. Maidenhead: Open University Press; Lambert L (2006) Lasting leadership: A study of high leadership capacity schools. The Educational Forum 70(3): 238–254.

The study

The research was designed as a case study (Stake, 2000). One school was purposefully chosen for its reputation of having made a positive shift in its culture and educational practices under the leadership of the same principal over the last 10 years. Prior to his principalship, the school had been through a period of turbulence in the wake of amalgamation with three neighbouring schools and disagreements between staff and a newly appointed principal who left at short notice.

Following the formal consent of the principal and the staff, data was gathered over one school year, tracing back the improvement efforts and the development of leadership in the school from the time the current principal started his tenure. The main methods used to collect the data were interviews, observations, informal conversations and document analysis undertaken during approximately 30 full-day visits to the school. This was supplemented with the use of ethnography (Angrosino, 2007) and theoretical sampling (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). As far as possible data gathering and analysis were simultaneous, and the analysis then guided the next steps in the research process. The first author of the article collected the data, but both authors collaborated on the analysis and design of the research process.

Twelve semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with the principal, the deputy principal, a head of department, three classroom teachers and one subject teacher. The teachers were purposefully chosen to include respondents who had been at the school since before the tenure of the current principal and who therefore had an overview of the whole period, and newly appointed teachers to grasp the experience of the newcomers.

The first round of interviews included the principal, the deputy principal, the head of department and two classroom teachers. The interview schedules were informed by Lambert’s model of leadership capacity (see Table 1), and an effort was made to acquire the interviewees’ viewpoints on similar concepts and themes. These related to the vision of the school and how it had evolved and been realised in improvement projects, roles and responsibilities of formal leaders, teachers and support staff, the leadership behaviour of principals, collaboration with parents, and the involvement of students and their learning outcomes. The initial coding of the interviews was based on ‘a priori’ codes developed from the leadership capacity model and the interview schedules, while we also kept an open mind with regard to other themes that might emerge.

The first round of interviews was followed by observations where the interviewees were observed in their daily work, including lessons, meetings and social events. All observations included informal questioning and conversations to clarify actions and events.

As themes from the observations and the first interviews began to emerge, the third class teacher and the subject teacher were also interviewed. A second round of interviews was then conducted with the interviewees from the first. A third interview with the principal was conducted at the end of the research period. Two focus group interviews were conducted, one with four members of support staff and the other with five teenage students. Members of the focus groups were purposefully chosen to represent support staff who had worked in the school for longer and shorter periods, and students who were active in the school’s life and also willing to express themselves. In the analysis of the focus group interviews no distinction was made between the individuals, except when disagreement occurred.

The researchers were aware of the risk that the initial interviews might have an impact on people’s behaviour during the observations, but the sequence of interviews, observations and second interviews, plus the informal conversations and questioning during the observations, helped their efforts to monitor any such impact.

A survey with open questions was sent to parents via the internet, but the response rate was only 27%. This was rather disappointing and begs the question of the validity of parents’ views. Additionally, reports from external and internal evaluations of the school, the school’s curriculum and policy documents, records of students’ achievements, formal and informal notes, and the school’s website were analysed.

Findings

We present the findings of the study in four themes that draw on Lambert's (2003a) conceptual framework presented above (see Table 1): (1) creating and realising the vision; (2) inquiry and reflection; (3) students’ views and progress; (4) leadership.

Creating and realising the vision

When the principal came to the school he already had a vision for the kind of school community he wanted to build. However, he decided to tread carefully and his first move was an initiative to create a culture of trust, respect and collegiality among staff and students. To this end he emphasised the building of a shared vision for the school, grounded on virtues to guide the behaviour and interaction of students and adults alike. He was well aware that this could only be accomplished in small steps, and involving the other leaders and the teachers to ensure their commitment and ownership was more important than the pace of the process.

The principal’s emphasis on involving teachers in the development process was confirmed by the teachers themselves, who agreed that they had had ample opportunities from the start to participate in the formation of the vision. Class teacher [CT1] said:

We were so much involved in developing the vision … A school policy group was established with several teachers in it … he [the principal] was always open to new ideas and … somehow always one of us. He did not necessarily say: ‘this should be like that’, or ‘let’s keep it this way’, but rather: ‘how do you feel about this?’, or ‘do you have other ideas?’ … you immediately felt that what you said and did mattered.

As an important step towards building the vision and keeping it alive, the principal introduced morning assemblies where students, teachers and the formal leaders gathered every morning to sing, reiterate the school’s watchwords and talk about the virtues and topics on which the vision was built. The principal, the deputy principal and the head of department took turns in conducting the assemblies, and groups of students took turns in preparing entertainment for each assembly: plays, poems, songs, etc. Parents were encouraged to attend the assemblies, and observations confirmed that some of them did especially when their own child had taken part in organising it.

Support staff were not directly involved in building the school’s vision and did not attend the morning assemblies. Instead, the principal and later the head of department held meetings with them every second week where they were informed about how the work on the vision, and later on other improvements, were progressing. One of the support staff said in an interview:

We didn’t really have anything to do with the school’s vision. It just evolved, and we were informed … but I don’t think we have actually participated in changing anything; we just act on what there is.

A field note from one of the meetings with the support staff confirms that they wished to take part in the assemblies. They all agreed when one of them said that she had only a vague idea of what went on at the assemblies and had the feeling she was missing out on an important school event. The head of departments agreed, but did not have a solution other than suggesting that the support staff organised their work in shifts so that they could take turns in attending the assemblies.

Another important step in maintaining the school’s vision was the students’ weekly circle time meetings under the supervision of their class teacher. These created an opportunity to discuss topics related to the vision, solve conflicts and put forward students’ ideas. Furthermore, the vision was emphasised through newsletters sent to students’ homes, in teachers’ meetings, in the school curriculum and with posters on the school walls. As a result, the vision gradually became integrated into the daily life and activities of the school, and in interviews and informal discussions teachers, support staff, students and parents alike agreed that it ‘shaped the communication within the school’, was ‘simply all around’ and ‘the basis for everything else’.

As the vision evolved, improvement efforts gradually turned towards instructional change, in particular developing teachers’ competences to individualise students’ learning, using more varied teaching methods and assessment, and teaching students to take more responsibility for their own learning. To achieve this the principal, supported by the deputy principal, introduced systematic teamwork of class teachers where three or four teachers were deployed in teams to organise their work around mixed-age and mixed-ability student groups. The team-teachers made an agreement with the school board to reduce the flexibility in their work contract and increase the time spent on preparation within the school at the expense of the hours teachers are generally allowed to work on preparations outside the school. Only those teachers who were working in teams to bring about improvement received an increase in their salaries.

All parts of the data indicated that the improvement projects fused and supported each other, were linked with the school’s vision and were aimed at improving students’ achievement. The deputy principal put it this way: ‘They aim at meeting students with diverse needs so we get different approaches, different (student) evaluation, different tasks, not all from the books, also outdoor learning’. The principal insisted on teachers’ participation in improvement projects, and ensured that they worked in harmony with the school’s vision. According to the deputy principal, the majority of teachers reacted positively to this and she maintained that there was: ‘a significant and competent group of teachers in the school … committed to what they are doing and working consistently towards everything we are aiming for’.

In the formal interviews all the class teachers agreed that the improvement efforts in the school had been demanding, and this was recurrent in the informal conversations. A class teacher (CT3) used the strongest words about the demands and said that they had been ‘too much’ at times. Another teacher who had recently entered the school said in an informal conversation that she felt overwhelmed by the workload, which was more than she and some other recently appointed teachers were used to in their former schools.

Despite all this, three formally interviewed class teachers and the head of department said that the improvement efforts had been rewarding, and that they were part of the reason why they had remained at the school.

We [have] grown and flourished with them [the principals] and it has been really great working with them on such constructive school improvement. It is something that everyone should experience. [CT1]

I just think that these positive and open discussions we have had make people somehow warmer and nicer. We have so often talked … about how we interact, how important it is for us to be honest with each other and respect each other … and so on; the same way really, as we approach the kids at the morning assemblies … to remind them that they are a good and powerful group and doing well … It is also pointed out to people … what they can do better. This is not an everlasting hallelujah, but it is important. [Head of department]

Most teachers who had come to the school after the vision was created also said they felt a higher degree of job satisfaction than in former schools and were more confident in what they were doing, because they worked as part of a team and the principals kept closer track of their work. There were, however, indications that some of the recently appointed teachers had not found their feet within the teams, especially when they were placed to work in teams where projects were already under way and the team members had already established their work habits. Others who took part in projects from the beginning fared better and were praised by their colleagues in interviews and conversations for ‘fitting in right away’, and ‘being a great member of the team’.

Although classroom practice generally reflected a high level of competence among teachers, some examples of poorer performance were seen in the classroom observations and were also confirmed in the interviews with the leaders and class teachers. A few parents mentioned similar examples in the questionnaire. On occasions this created tension among teachers who were committed to the school’s vision, but who were not happy with the work or behaviour of their less committed colleagues. However, this was not left unattended by the principal and there was evidence from interviews and observations of him taking action when he felt that teachers resisted or contradicted the implementation of the vision or showed negative attitudes towards students or parents. In most cases this resulted in improved performance of the teachers in question, but on at least two occasions a teacher had to leave the school.

The principal and the deputy principal agreed that the support staff were generally committed to the school’s vision and showed increased responsibility for the wellbeing of students. However, one of the class teachers [CT3] said their attitude had had a negative effect on some of the improvement programmes. Principals and teachers alike claimed that the support staff did not always respect the school’s vision and reported incidents of conflicts between support staff members and teachers, and even some involving students. Such conflicts were partly dealt with at the principals’ meetings with support staff and a conflict-solving course had been organised for them.

Inquiry and reflection

One of the principal’s priorities was to get teachers to deepen their inquiry and reflection to guide their practice and enhance their professional development. To model this he regularly reflected on his own practice, both by himself in written memos and in the formal leadership team and at staff meetings. He systematically made space for teachers to reflect on their work in teams and meetings, and teachers were well aware of the reflection activities required of them. One example of this was a new requirement for teachers to hand in their term plans and discuss and reflect on them together with the deputy principal.

Some years after the principal came to the school he encouraged the teachers to embark on a peer-coaching scheme. After trying this, however, the teachers soon abandoned the idea because they felt insecure and not ready to have another teacher in their classrooms, neither did they know how to discuss each other’s teaching in a reflective way. At the time of the study the teachers themselves had taken up this initiative again on the grounds that they had now gained the necessary confidence and knowledge to enter the peer-coaching scheme.

The principal emphasised systematic school self-evaluation with the participation of teachers, students, parents and support staff, although the participation of parents was confined to answering questionnaires. The results of the national tests in years 4, 7 and 10 were used as a guide for formal leaders and staff at key-stage meetings to reflect on and plan ways to improve students’ achievement.

As a result of the emphasis placed on inquiry and reflection, there was a general agreement between teachers and leaders that these skills had improved within the school. This, however, was not without exception and interviews, informal conversations and observations indicated that reflection was further developed among the class teachers’ teams, where collaborative inquiry was more frequent, than among subject teachers who tended to work more individually. This was particularly true of art and crafts teachers who often had a different professional background from the class teachers and who generally had shorter formal teacher training. The principal and the deputy believed that this might explain why these teachers generally struggled more than class teachers with writing teaching plans, and were more difficult to involve in improvement work.

Students’ views and progress

The students were positive about their school and said that they had a good relationship with teachers and senior leaders who treated them as equals. In the focus group interview the students said:

We are brought up to be ambitious; that we have come to the school to do well and learn … it is very good to be at school here, the teachers are really good and they make you completely understand what you are learning … they do the best for us.

All the participants in the study agreed that students showed clear progress in social skills, that they were more open and willing to voice their opinions, and more skilled at expressing themselves. The head of department said: ‘The kids are generally … more open and more used to discussing different topics; both comfortable and uncomfortable … their expression has changed’.

In the interviews, teachers and leaders alike emphasised the school’s aim to increase students’ responsibility and engagement in their learning. This was confirmed in the classroom observations and included in the school’s curriculum. There were signs of improved attainment as measured by the national tests, and more students were entering upper secondary schools, and at an earlier age, than before. However, in some cases, the national tests showed that good students were doing better, while low performing students were achieving lower results. The formal leaders and teachers were aware of this and were reflecting on what measures to take to change this.

Students’ attainment by these measures, however, seemed slower and less obvious to the teachers than their progress in social skills. They also claimed that they noticed students were having a better overview of their own learning than before, were showing more initiative and competence in organising their own learning, and were better motivated. This was most noticeable among students whose teachers had participated in teamwork to improve classroom practice.

Leadership

The formal leadership team consisted of the principal and his deputy, the head of department and a key-stage leader. From observations and interviews it was clear that the key-stage leader was much more loosely involved with decisions and leadership procedures than the other leaders. The principal, the deputy principal and the head of department met weekly and maintained close ties between them. The collaboration between the principal and the deputy principal was closer still. They met every morning before the school day began to go through the day’s schedule. There was general agreement within the school, supported by the observations, of their close collaboration, mutual respect and shared decision making, and a clear division of roles between them.

There were also clear indications of increased teacher participation in decision making and improvement projects. Leadership groups were formed around improvement projects. Decisions about such projects were taken after evaluating the need for them by the leadership team and teachers’ meetings. Once an improvement project had been agreed, a team was created consisting of one of the heads and a group of teachers. The team then shaped the project and adjusted it to the context of the school, building on information from the school community, and making use of scholarly articles and research.

The principal made an effort to elicit the views of teachers, both as a general way of working and when specific issues needed to be dealt with. This was accomplished through discussions at teachers’ meetings or in smaller groups and individually, e.g. in the annual staff interviews. Teachers were also encouraged to express their views by writing reports on projects they had been involved in.

It was generally acknowledged by the interviewees that this participation in leadership functions, and in the improvement efforts of the school in general, had significantly developed the leadership skills of individual teachers and the leadership capacity of the teachers as a group. Despite this there was a variety of leadership skills between individuals and groups within the school. As mentioned earlier, class teachers were given more opportunities to work in collaborative teams than subject teachers, and the former consequently developed their leadership skills further. The same held true for teachers who had been involved in steering teams for improvement initiatives.

Support staff had far fewer opportunities for professional development and leadership than teachers. Nevertheless, they maintained that their working conditions had improved and that they had more of a say than before in the school’s affairs. However, both observations and interviews indicated that their leadership capacity was much less developed than that of teachers; they were dependent on the decisions of the principal, and reluctant to make their own.

All participants in the study, including students themselves, agreed that decisions regarding students were taken in a democratic way, and that students had ample opportunities to express their opinions and were listened to. They linked this with a cultural shift deriving from the vision of the school that had made a significant difference in student leadership, especially regarding their social affairs.

A class teacher [CT2] said: ‘Students are listened to actively, decisions are taken in a democratic way, we have circle time meetings were they can express their views … it’s an active policy here’. In a focus group interview students said: ‘We are listened to when we come up with ideas and comments … we always get the opportunity, it depends on how realistic our ideas are whether they are put into practice or not’. Observations also indicated that students had many formal and informal opportunities to put forward their ideas and concerns and, as described above, there were indications of increased student empowerment regarding the day-to-day organisation of their own learning and their social affairs in the school.

However, when it came to influence on decisions regarding the improvement process and policy making of the school and direct influence over their curriculum, student leadership and empowerment were far less visible. This was confirmed by the principal, and in the focus group interview the students expressed little interest in having such influence. Rather, they had confidence in their teachers to make decisions for them.

The school had made an effort to improve its liaison with parents. Parents were better informed than before and encouraged to visit the school, and as a result they participated considerably more in school life than before. However, no steps had been taken to involve parents in the improvement efforts of the school. The principal reported that he had encouraged parents to meet more often and offered to participate in their meetings, but so far parents had not taken that opportunity. Parents’ participation seemed to be confined to the affairs of their own children rather than involvement in school matters on a wider basis. They were happy and even proud of the school, and were confident about the education it provided for their children. Their answers to the questionnaire indicated that they had a more pleasant relationship with the school than before. When the principal reflected on this he came to the conclusion that parents’ leadership had even diminished. In a way parents had become complacent in their confidence in the school and saw little reason to get involved in policy making or improvement efforts that did not directly concern their own children.

Discussion

In the following discussion we analyse the leadership capacity that resulted from the improvement efforts described in the findings, using Lambert’s (2003a) conceptual framework (see Table 1) as an analytical tool. The themes of the discussion derive from the framework and appear here in the same order with the exception of inquiry and use of information, and reflection leading to innovation being amalgamated into one theme. The themes are: (1) leadership; (2) shared vision and programme coherence; (3) collaboration and responsibility; (4) inquiry and reflection leading to innovation; (5) student achievement. Furthermore, we discuss the interaction between, or even fusion of, the improvement that took place within the school and the development of leadership capacity.

Leadership

This had the characteristics of quadrant four, although it also had features from quadrants three and two. Leadership had developed from being confined to the principal and key teachers, as in quadrant three, to the widespread involvement of principals and teachers in leadership functions, corresponding to quadrant four. In this way, the principal’s leadership behaviour resembled Lambert’s (2006) description of how principals can change their use of formal authority as leadership capacity evolves. Leadership teams, as described by Bush and Glover (2012), and involving principals and teachers, and teams of classrooms teachers, increased the distribution of leadership functions of teachers and provided opportunities for them to influence improvement projects and decisions about the functioning of the school. In general, the exercise of leadership in the school described in the findings can be regarded as a real life example of Gronn’s (2008, 2010) description of the hybridity of hierarchical and heterarchical leadership. The principal stood firm in his belief and insisted on teachers using certain work methods, but at the same time he shared leadership with others and delegated leadership functions to the teachers and other members of the formal leadership team. This boosted teachers’ job satisfaction and enthusiasm and resulted in an increased ownership of improvement efforts, which has been observed by authors such as Lambert (2003a), Fullan (2007) and Hall and Hord (2011) to be an important condition for successful improvement.

Student leadership was developing within quadrants three and even two. Their leadership was mostly confined within a framework provided by the principals and teachers in which students were listened to, but not empowered to participate directly in decisions and activities that shaped improvement projects. Student leadership was mainly related to their social life, but there were signs of increased responsibility and autonomy in the day-to-day organisation of their learning following improvement efforts aimed at this.

Leadership was least developed among support staff and parents and can best be described in terms of quadrants two and three. Parents were still in the rather traditional role of recipients of information from the school (Lambert, 2003a) and acted almost entirely on the affairs of their own children. A further development of parents’ leadership would require more engagement on their part in decision making and team membership as facilitators of change, resource developers, co-learners and co-leaders (Lambert, 2003a). The role of support staff was also traditional and, in Lambert’s (2003a) terms, developing their leadership skills would require much more active involvement in leadership and decisions about the vision building and improvement projects.

The findings indicate that the level of leadership capacity among groups and individuals of the school community could be related to their involvement and participation in improvement projects. The highest level of capacity could be seen within the formal leadership team who had the closest collaboration with the principal, but diminished in less involved groups such as support staff and parents. This resembles Lambert’s (2003a) conclusions where she maintains that, in order to develop leadership capacity, it is necessary to enable every member of the school community to participate actively in the improvement and be empowered to assign leadership roles. This would have to be done more systematically if the school were to develop every aspect of leadership and sit consistently in quadrant four.

Shared vision and programme coherence

This corresponded to leadership capacity at level four. The findings indicated steady development during the tenure of the current principal towards a much stronger improvement and learning culture and a clearer sense of common purpose built on trust, respect and shared values, where improvement programmes infused and supported each other. The active participation of the teachers in the initial building of the school’s vision seemed to have empowered them, encouraged their ownership and commitment, and increased their motivation to engage in further improvement projects. In this way Hallinger and Heck’s (2010) description of the interaction between collaborative leadership and school improvement was realised. These positive results can be viewed, and at least to some extent explained, by the words of the head of department where she describes discussions within the staff group as characterised by openness, honesty, respect and trust, without becoming ‘an everlasting hallelujah’. Her words have striking similarities to Andy Hargreaves’ (2007) views on the desirable characteristics of professional learning as a web of trust that relieves anxiety and stress, and supports debates and problem solving based on openness and honesty.

Even though the principal and the other formal leaders and teachers of the school had created the vision themselves, they had built an infrastructure to sustain it with assemblies, circle time meetings, newsletters to parents and staff meetings. These brought the vision to students, support staff and parents and kept it alive, thereby creating a sense of belonging.

Teachers commonly described their participation in the improvement programmes, such as the building of the vision, as highly demanding and some of the more recently appointed teachers, who had not fully come to terms with the school’s culture, even saw it as overwhelming. This is in line with the findings from other research, such as Akert and Martin (2012), but contrary to their findings the principal and the majority of teachers seemed to have come to a mutual understanding of what their participation entailed. This did not seem to discourage those class teachers who were active in teams from involvement, or undermine their job satisfaction. It is a matter of concern, however, that some newly appointed teachers had experienced difficulties in settling into the teamwork. These teachers seemed to be more reluctant to commit themselves to the teamwork and more preoccupied with time restraints and rewards. For them the dilemma of teacher leadership and time restraints was visible and important to deal with, because how new teachers find their feet in a new setting has a great influence on the development and sustainability of leadership capacity and other school improvements (Fullan, 2007; Lambert, 2006; Sergiovanni, 2009).

Collaboration and responsibility

This turned out to sit between quadrants three and four, although more towards quadrant four. In general, both students and staff showed an increased responsibility for the school improvements. Collaboration and teamwork had been systematically developed in the school, resulting in both teachers’ and students’ improved ability to have discussions and work in teams. This was partly also the case for support staff.

Tension between the formal leaders and teachers on the one hand and support staff on the other, seemed to result from the fact that the support staff had not been involved in building the vision to the same extent as the teachers, and did not have the same opportunities for teamwork and professional development. In light of research on professional leadership communities (Bolam et al., 2005, 2007) that indicate the importance of support staff being a part of inter-disciplinary teamwork and learning, it is worth asking how deep commitment on their part towards the vision and improvements in general could be expected. According to Harris and Lambert (2003) and Lambert (2003a), an imbalance between the professional development opportunities of different groups of staff members in such situations is known to be negative for the development of leadership capacity and can partly explain why this was found in the study.

Inquiry and reflection leading to innovation

For the formal leaders and the majority of teachers, this matched quadrant four. Most of the improvement work had been on a whole-school basis, gradually moving from building relationships between staff, students and parents towards initiatives to encourage teachers’ reflection and improve classroom practices. The principals’ emphasis on inquiry and reflection, their modelling of such work methods and participation in teachers’ reflection had improved teachers’ inquiry skills and enhanced its practice to guide decisions about improvements. One example of this was the use of national test results, initiated by the principals, to reflect on teaching practice. Another example was discussions the deputy had with individual teachers to reflect on their teaching plans.

There were, however, indications pointing to quadrant three in that reflection to guide classroom practice was more developed and common in class teachers’ teams than among individual teachers who were not part of such teams. This indicated that class teachers who most actively participated in such teams had more opportunities to become skilled in inquiry and reflection than subject teachers such as the art and crafts teachers. It further supports this conclusion that examples of poor classroom practice seemed to be mainly confined to teachers who had not participated in classroom teams. This underscores the importance of systematic teamwork in developing teachers’ capacity to improve practice, leadership capacity and school improvement in general (Bolam et al., 2005; Bush and Glover, 2012; Lambert, 2003a, 2009).

As the teachers’ reflective skills developed students were encouraged to approach their studies in more reflective ways, but their development of reflective skills was in an initial stage of development.

Support staff, on the other hand, had little opportunity to develop reflective skills and the same held true for parents who did not participate in reflective activities concerning school-related matters. Support staff and parents’ skills could be argued to be low both in involvement and skills, resembling quadrants one and two (see Table 1). These findings underline the importance of giving all parties the opportunity to participate in inquiry-based teams in order to develop their skills.

Student achievement

This corresponded to quadrant four. The findings indicated increased capability of students in handling social matters, such as discussions, and the responsibility for their social life within the school. There were also indications of students’ increased ability to organise their studies, better prepare themselves for upper secondary schooling and improve their results in national tests. It is worrying, however, that in some cases the national tests results indicated that good students were getting better, while the results of low performing students deteriorated. This is not compatible with high leadership capacity where all students should grow in their learning (Lambert, 2003a), but this was being worked on in the school. It should also be noted that most definitions of school improvement and learning communities underscore the importance of students’ progress and learning experiences as the main criteria of success (Fullan, 2007; Hall and Hord, 2011; Hopkins and Lagerweij, 1996; Louis et al., 2010).

Summary and conclusions

The findings indicate that the actions of the current principal, and the improvement efforts during his tenure, had reshaped the school’s culture and significantly raised the level of leadership capacity. Two aspects of leadership capacity discussed above correspond to quadrant four, and three aspects have features of quadrants three, two and even one. Leadership capacity varied between groups within the school community and between individuals within the groups. High leadership capacity was found among formal leaders and teachers and in some aspects regarding students, but to a lesser degree among support staff and parents. The fact that leadership capacity tended to ‘fade out’ the further away people moved from formal leadership positions underscores the complicated nature of involving all groups of the school community in formal leadership functions and decision making (Lambert, 2003a), but also indicates that active involvement in such functions supports the development of leadership capacity. It is also worth asking whether a different picture would have emerged if building leadership capacity had been a more conscious factor in the vision building and other improvement efforts in the school from the outset. The findings also indicate the reciprocal influence of leadership and improvement found in Hallinger and Heck’s (2010) study.

Teachers’ leadership capacity was based on the initial vision building, and developed further through efforts to improve classroom practice and individualise students’ learning through teaching methods and assessment and by training students to take more responsibility for their own learning. Success in these improvements again raised the level of leadership capacity and created a platform for further improvements and involvement of other groups.

An example of the interaction between school improvement and leadership capacity could be seen when the teachers did not have the reflective skills or confidence to engage in a peer-coaching project proposed by the principal at an early stage in the improvement process. At the time of the study, teachers took the initiative themselves to reintroduce the project when they had gained the necessary skills and confidence.

The interaction of leadership capacity and improvement is further demonstrated in that support staff and parents, who were more or less detached from the vision building and consequent improvement work, had developed leadership capacity to a much lesser degree than teachers and students. This underscores the importance of involving these groups in school improvement in the same way as teachers and formal leaders, and setting clear goals for the development of their leadership capacity.

Having said that, it is difficult to determine which came first, school improvement or leadership capacity. Their development seemed to be interwoven and overlapped resembling, again, the results of Hallinger and Heck's (2010) study of the interaction between improvement and leadership. Given that leadership capacity building as such was not an aim for the principal, but rather school improvement, this leads us to the conclusion that school improvement and leadership capacity are fused together and it is difficult to work towards one without the other.

A few matters regarding the application of Lambert’s conceptual framework are worth mentioning. First of all, the results of this study have much in common with the results of Lambert’s (2003a, 2005, 2006) own studies. In general, the framework is well suited for assessing leadership capacity. It is clearly laid out and firmly grounded in leadership theory and research. It is clear how the principal and other formal leaders and teachers fit into the framework, but it is less obvious and more complicated to incorporate students and especially support staff and parents. This is probably explained by the abundance of research on principals’ and teacher leadership compared to research on the leadership of support staff, students and parents and on their roles in school improvement. A clearer inclusion of these groups into the model would enhance its usefulness. Recent research on professional learning communities, which involves those groups (see, e.g., Bolam et al., 2005) and highlights their importance in the improvement of the school, might be a valuable step in this direction and contribute to further development of the model.

The findings of this study demonstrate that developing the leadership capacity of a school requires what David Hargreaves (2003) calls a ‘transformation of culture’ where participants challenge existing practices for the sake of profound cultural change. It is important to bear in mind that a school is a constantly changing environment. This means that no school, regardless of how high a level of leadership capacity it has developed at a certain stage, can be sure of maintaining it. A continuous effort is required to sustain improvement. Leadership capacity aims at building a capability within a school such that when a key person – as this principal certainly is – leaves, it is able to continue to prosper for the benefit of the students. As to what will happen in the future in this school, only time will tell.

References

Angrosino

(2007) Doing Ethnographic and Observational Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Akert

Martin

(2012) The role of teacher leaders in school improvement through the perceptions of principals and teachers. International Journal of Education (4)4: 284–299.

Bennett

Wise

Woods

(2003) Distributed leadership: A review of literature. Report. Nottingham UK: NCSL, National College for School Leadership.

Bolam

McMahon

Stoll

(2005) Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities. Research report no. RR637. Nottingham UK: NCSL, National College for School Leadership.

Bolam

Stoll

Greenwood

(2007) The involvement of support staff in professional learning communities. In: Stoll

Louis

(eds) Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp.17–29.

Bush

Glover

(2012) Distributed leadership in action: Leading high-performing leadership teams in English schools. School Leadership & Management 32 (1): 21–36.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008) Basics of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. London: Sage.

Fullan

(2007) The New Meaning of Educational Change. 4th ed. New York, NY: Teachers College.

Fullan

(2010) The role of the district in tri-level reform. In: Peterson

Baker

McGaw

(eds) International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford 3rd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, pp.295–302.

10.

Fullan

Hargreaves

(1991) What’s Worth Fighting for in your School? Working Together for Improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.

11.

Grogan

Shakeshaft

(2011) Women in Educational Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12.

Gronn

(2002) Designer leadership: The emerging global adoption of preparation standards. Journal of School Leadership 12 (5): 552–578.

13.

Gronn

(2008) The future of distributed leadership. Journal of Educational Administration 46 (2): 141–158.

14.

Gronn

(2010) Where to next for educational leadership? In: Bush

Bell

Middlewood

(eds) The Principles of Educational Leadership and Management. 2nd ed. London: Sage, pp.70–85.

15.

Hall

Hord

(2011) Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

16.

Halldórsson

Ólafsson

Björnsson

(2013) Helstu niðurstöður PISA 2012: Læsi nemenda á stærðfræði og náttúrufræði og lesskilningur [Main results of PISA 2012: Students’ literacy in Mathematics and Science and Reading Comprehension]. Report, National Testing Institute, Reykjavík.

17.

Hallinger

Heck

(2010) Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management 30 (2): 95–110.

18.

Hanushek

Raymond

(2002) Sorting out accountability systems. In: Evers

Walberg

(eds) School Accountability: An Assessment by the Koret Task Force on K–12 Education. Hoover Institution: Stanford University, pp.75–104.

19.

Hargreaves

(2007) Sustainable professional learning communities. In: Stoll

Louis

(eds) Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp.181–195.

20.

Hargreaves

(2003) From improvement to transformation (Keynote lecture). In: ICSEI, International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement? Schooling the knowledge societyʼ, Sydney, 5 January 2003. Available at: http://www.icsei.net/index.php?id=622 (accessed 25 February 2014).

21.

Harris

(2005) Leading or misleading? Distributed leadership and school improvement. Journal of Curriculum Studies 37 (3): 255–265.

22.

Harris

Lambert

(2003) Building Leadership Capacity for School Improvement. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

23.

Hopkins

Lagerweij

(1996) The school improvement knowledge base. In: Bollen

Creemers

Hopkins

(eds) Making Good Schools: Linking School Effectiveness and School Improvement. London: Routledge, pp.59–93.

24.

Lambert

(1998) Building Leadership Capacity in Schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

25.

Lambert

(2003a) Leadership Capacity for Lasting School Improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

26.

Lambert

(2003b) Leadership redefined: An evocative context for teacher leadership. School Leadership & Management 23 (4): 421–430.

27.

Lambert

(2005) Leadership for lasting reform. Educational Leadership 62 (5): 62–65.

28.

Lambert

(2006) Lasting leadership: A study of high leadership capacity schools. The Educational Forum 70 (3): 238–254.

29.

Lambert

(2009) Reconceptualizing the road toward leadership capacity. In: Blankstein

Houston

Cole

(eds) Building Sustainable Leadership Capacity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.7–28.

30.

Louis

Leithwood

Whalstrom

(2010) Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Final report of research to the Wallace Foundation, July 2010. St. Paul: University of Minnesota.OECD (n.d.) About PISA – OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa (accessed 4 March 2014).

31.

Sergiovanni

(2009) The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective. 6th ed. London: Allyn and Bacon.

32.

Sigþórsson

(2008) Mat í þágu náms eða nám í þágu mats. Samræmd próf, kennsluhugmyndir kennara, kennsla og nám í náttúrufræði og íslensku í fjórum íslenskum grunnskólum [Assessment for learning or learning for assessment: National examinations, teachers’ conceptions, teaching and learning in science and Icelandic in four Icelandic compulsory schools]. PhD thesis, University of Iceland, IS.

33.

Sinnema

Aitken

(2013) Emerging international trends in curriculum. In: Priestley

Biesta

(eds) Reinventing the Curriculum: New Trends in Curriculum Policy and Practice [Kindle version]. London: Bloomsbury.

34.

Spillane

(2006) Distributed Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

35.

Stake

(2000) Case study. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.435–454.

36.

The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (2011) The Icelandic national curriculum guide for compulsory schools: General section. Available at: http://www.menntamalaraduneyti.is/utgefid-efni/namskrar/adalnamskra-grunnskola (accessed 1 March 2014).