Coherence and Collaboration in School development and System Improvement
Policy planning in education is an important and complicated undertaking that demands systematic work and extensive co-operation between actors to ensure successful implementation. In this matter, many consider coherence and collaboration to be the basis for successful educational development effort...
| Published in: | Netla |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | Icelandic |
| Published: |
Menntavísindasvið Háskóla Íslands
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ojs.hi.is/netla/article/view/3146 https://doi.org/10.24270/netla.2020.2 |
| Summary: | Policy planning in education is an important and complicated undertaking that demands systematic work and extensive co-operation between actors to ensure successful implementation. In this matter, many consider coherence and collaboration to be the basis for successful educational development efforts that lead to increased achievement in student learning (Hopkins, Stringfield, Harris, Stoll, &Mackay, 2014; Robinson, 2018). The aim of the research discussed in this paper is to gain understanding and knowledge of how this coherence appears in policy work in three municipalities in Iceland and in one school in each of the municipalities. The focus is on how local government policy and methods of implementation might support or hinder sustainable school improvements and how they might appear in school practices on a daily basis.The discussion is based on educational leadership theories that encourage a systemic approach to reform, encompassing all levels of the system and different areas, such as curriculum, teaching methods, leadership, and families. This systematic approach is meant to support the coherence of all entities that influence teaching and learning (Fullan & Quinn, 2016) and enhance teacher leadership and the professional skills of those working towards the same purposes. Coherence is achieved through collaboration and communication between actors at different levels rather than through checklists or strict surveillance (Robinson et al., 2017).Data was collected by interviewing school district leaders in the three municipalities, one school principal from each municipality, and one development team from each school in the respective municipalities. The developmental teams consisted of four to six teachers, leaders, and department heads in the school. Other data included the documents addressing the policies of districts and schools. The data was analysed by seeking information on the following themes: (1) the making of the policies; e.g., where did it originate from and who participated; (2) the ... |
|---|