Qualitative Descriptions of Readiness for Capacity Building in Schools two Swedish Cases Conny Björkman and Anders Olofsson

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

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

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 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 To explore the use of this language in case studies of two Swedish secondary schools

Data collection Team of three researchers Team of three researchers General school observations General school observations Individual interviews Individual interviews

The qualitative process of analysing From empirical conceptions to theoretical concepts From empirical conceptions to theoretical concepts What = structure and how = culture What = structure and how = culture Political, Principalship, Work team, Teacher Political, Principalship, Work team, Teacher

The two cases Case A Case A * 200 students (grades 7-9) * mono-ethnical, middle class, village * Social democratic * Successful due to student academic results in grade 9

The two cases Case B Case B * 470 students (grades 7-9) * multi-ethnical, middle class, big city * Social democratic * Successful due to student academic results in grade 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) Pr T(soc) T(ma/sc)T(part)T(re)T(l) Political Principalship w Work-teams Teacher h wh wh wh wh wh

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. 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.

A language of description (Case B) Principalship and teachers views on staff development Pr1Pr2T(soc) T(ma/sc)T(part)T(re)T(l) 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

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. 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.

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 it´s own status of readiness for capacity building.

Thank you so much for your attention. We appreciate your critical support! This paper is part of the research project "Structure, culture, leadership:prerequisites 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.