Diversity and differentiation are in various ways critical aspects of education. Equality was one of the driving forces of establishing a unified school system in Sweden during the 60’s, as well as the formation of the public preschool and the formation initiatives towards the (Richardson, 2010). Further, problems in differentiation was one of the reasons for decentralizing the Swedish school system during the 90’s. The idea was to move the power closer to the local schools, to take the local context and needs into account when leading schools. Diversity in leading was supposed to increase equivalence through differentiation (Jacobsson, 2017). Contrary to the ambition, differences in the local contexts has come to be consider a threat to equivalent education. The decentralization, and succeeding reforms, have affected the role of the school leader, by regulations of the school leader’s work as well as regulations of the schools in which they lead. In response to the European commission’s (2014) initiatives for entrepreneurship education, the Swedish government adopted a national digitalization strategy for the Swedish school system (2017), with visions of the Swedish schools at the forefront of using the opportunities of digital technology. The policy expresses expectations on principals to lead digital development at their local schools. In addition, the revised version of the Swedish preschool curricula also clarifies principals’ responsibility of leading school development and create conditions for teachers to enact the new policy in educational practice. This indicates that principals are the ones responsible to develop education, by using the opportunities of digital technology.Researchers, as well as political representatives, implies that school leaders, in their roles as facilitators of educational reforms and policy, are the ones with possibilities to develop future education (Huber & Muijs, 2010; Leithwood, Sun, & Pollock, 2017; Pont, Nusche, & Moorman, 2008). Competent school leaders are said to be the ones who meet political requirements with a focus on education, a work that requires that school leaders continuously develop their own leading practice to adapt policy to the prerequisites of the local schools. Interpreting policy in educational practice requires professional knowledge and connects to school leaders’ professional development. Although research on school leaders’ professional learning has increased, it mainly concentrate on training programmes for new principals and crucial aspects of learning in these programmes. Research on school leaders’ continuous professional development is insufficient (Aas & Blom, 2017) and more knowledge is required about the processes, in which school leaders develop their understandings of leading in relation to societal changes. Not least, research on continuous professional development in collaboration with other school leaders. This study focuses on school leaders’ professional development in a collaborative action research project, aiming to develop knowledge of how to lead digitalization in preschool education.The theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al. 2014) is used to examine what happens in the professional development practice when the principals develop their knowledge of how to lead digitalization in preschool education. The theory of practice architectures encompasses arrangements of three different kinds. Cultural-discursive arrangements are the sayings of a practice, mediated through language and discourses, used in and about a practice. Material-economic arrangements are resources that shape the doings of a practice, mediated in activity and work as doings. It includes the physical environment, human and non-human entities, schedules, money and time. Social-political arrangements are shaping how people relate to other people and to non-human objects, mediated in the social space as rules, hierarchies, solidarities and other relationships.
Method
This study is part of a collaborative action research project about leading digitalization in preschool education. The researcher and 14 principals, working in a municipality in Sweden, participated in the two-year project. The work followed the cyclic process of action research, alternating actions in the principal’s leading practices, as well as the researcher’s actions of communicating analyzes of the process, and conversations in focus groups. A process aiming to generate practice-oriented knowledge. The theory of practice architecture model by Kemmis et al. (2014) was a transformative resource in the work process, as a tool used in the ongoing analyzes of the communicative practice between the meetings. The theory of practice architectures was also used in the analysis of the empirical data, consisting of recordings of focus group conversations. The conversations were transcribed and analyzed to identify changes in the (sayings, doings, relatings) of the action research practice and to analyze how different arrangements affected the practice.Intended outcomes
Results
The tentative results describe leading as relational practice. In order to understand how to lead digitalization in preschool education, the principals had to develop their understandings of digitalization as phenomena. They did so by relating to a book that used digitization and digitalization as a pair of related concepts to help distinguish between technical and social aspects of technological development. Further, the principals discussed how the technological development might change preschool practice in the future. Reflecting back on how technology have changed other practices through history made the principals re-think digitalization as a technological process, instead of a programme to insert in preschool education. This in turn changed the ways the principals related to the preschool teachers. It also changed how the principals understood the leading practice and how they organized for educational change.The results of the study also analyzes how different arrangements enabled and constrained the professional development. The principals also described their leading practice as constituted by other practices, for example, the municipality management, municipal and national politics, the action research practice, as well as experiences from practices of their private life.Leading as a practice is aiming to create conditions for other practices. School leaders need to develop their understandings of policy and societal changes in relation to the site of the teacher’s teaching practice and the children’s learning practice. It is about managing diversity at various levels. This study contributes with knowledge of arrangements that enable and constrain school leaders’ professional development by providing insight into the process of the school leaders’ professional development practice.
References
Aas, M., & Blom, T. (2017). Benchlearning as professional development of school leaders in Norway and Sweden. Professional development in education, 44(1), 62-75.European Commission, Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, (2014). Entrepreneurship education : a guide for educators, Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2769/51003Huber, S.G., & Muijs, D. (2010). School leadership effectiveness: The growing insight in the importance of school leadership for the quality and development of schools and their pupils. In: Huber, S. (eds) School leadership - International perspectives. Studies in educational leadership, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht.Jacobsson, K. (2017). Processer och motorer i lokalt skolförbättringsarbete (Karlstad University Studies, 2017:11) [Doktorsavhandling]. Karlstads universitet.Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P. & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing education, changing practices. Singapore: Springer.Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Pollock, K. (Eds.). (2017). How school leaders contribute to student success: The four paths framework (Vol. 23). Springer.Pont, B., Moorman, H., & Nusche, D. (2008). Improving school leadership (Vol. 1, pp. 1-199). Paris: OECD.Richardson, G. (2010). Svensk utbildningshistoria: skola och samhälle förr och nu (8. rev. uppl.). Studentlitteratur.Sveriges regering, Utbildningsdepartementet (2017). Nationell digitaliseringsstrategi för skolväsendet. Bilaga till regeringsbeslut I:1, 2017-10-19. https://www.regeringen.se/4aa9d5/contentassets/72ff9b9845854d6c8689017999228e53/nationell-digitaliseringsstrategi-for-skolvasendet.pdf