School Development based on everyday problems

Ph D Hans-ke Scherp Department of Education and Educational Research University of Karlstad S-651 88 Karlstad Sweden

School reforms and school development

School reforms exert an influence on school organisation as well as on instructional patterns and knowledge. The teachers opportunities to implement their pedagogical intentions when it comes to teaching are affected, among other things by structural factors of the school organisation. The demands for a reform of the Swedish school system have increased dramatically in later years. For many decades politicians have emphasised the importance of a change of the internal workings of schools, where pupil activity-based learning methods and pupil influence have been recommended. Although ideas on effective teaching methods have changed during the last half century, the day-today practice has not changed concurrently. Changes on the structural level have shown to be relatively easy to initiate. Empirical research has demonstrated that work at the local level is necessary if improvement really will occur in the schools (Hopkins, 1998). The shaping of the local organisation, the size of the school and the quality of leadership has been shown to have influence on the school's efficiency (Mortimore, 1988, Scherp 1998, 2003). Local and central authorities have a great confidence that objectives, plans and evaluations influence the instructional pattern so that it becomes congruent with the curriculum. Teachers and school leaders conceptions of what determines the process of school development have little in common with the conceptions expressed by central authorities (Scherp, 2003). School development from an actor perspective is about finding solutions on problems they encounter in the everyday teaching situation. From a teachers perspective and partly even from a school leaders perspective school development is problem-based. As a consequence school development needs to start in the everyday problems teachers and school leaders are facing. In an analysis of 160 interviews with teachers and school leaders in Sweden, Scherp (2003) finds two clearly distinguishable phases in school development that, from an actor perspective, are judged to be important in school improvement. In the first phase, the problem-creating or the development provoking phase, a need for change arises. In the second phase, the problem-solving or changing phase, solutions are produced that contribute to developing the school work. One and the same developing factor may appear in both phases, but most of them only appear in one of the phases. Good conditions, for example when it comes to resources, do not in themselves seem to lead to school development, just as little as necessities for improvement have to lead to school development if the necessary conditions do not exist. School development seems to be dependent upon both necessities and requirements. Characteristic for the development-provoking factors are that they create or clarify problems of the learning situation and of the existing teaching pattern. The teachers state that the most important problem-creating and development-

provoking factor is the fact that students have become different. Ways of working that have been successful in earlier situations do not any longer give the results that teachers expect. More students than earlier are found to be less motivated, have learning difficulties and difficulties to concentrate on the task. The interviewed teachers perceive that the level of previous or basic knowledge among the students has declined and that the variation of knowledge has increased. The teachers also perceive several determinants of the local community to create school problems. Examples of such determinants are lack of resources, the local culture and segregation in the community. Every students right to secondary school education, the design of courses, the grading system, and also the national curricula, are mentioned as problem-creating factors on the system level. There are also problem-creating factors on the school level such as leadership, the timetable and mandatory interdisciplinary teamwork. Many teachers as well as school leaders perceive the development in society as the cause of several of these problem-creating factors. The development-provoking factors in the initiating phase of development do not affect the aim or direction of the improvement process to larger extent. What directions these improvement performances take is mainly depending upon the development promoting factors of the school. The changes might lead to solutions based on traditional conceptions of learning and teaching. It may also lead to more radical changes when it comes to conceptions on how to contribute to the students learning. Both teachers and school leaders describe factors on society level, system level and school level as important development supporting factors. However, the students and phenomena on community level are not mentioned among the important development-supporting factors. The community school plan that is thought to be important in the steering of schools is for example not mentioned at all by the teachers or the school leaders. Among school factors, real enthusiasts, leadership and the interdisciplinary teacher teams are regarded as very important development-supporting forces for implementation of more student active ways of working. Teachers that want to strengthen a more traditional intermediary pedagogy often declare that the teacher team based on school subjects and the disciplinary departments support the development and that the interdisciplinary teacher-team is a problem-creating factor. Scherp (1998) found a positive correlation between changed instructional pattern towards more student-active ways of working and interdisciplinary teacher teams (r=.30). When teachers are asked about what factors are most important for their way of teaching they claim that their own experiences are the most important factor followed by dialogues with colleagues and pupils about these experiences (Scherp, 2002). Teachers' own ideas about what constitutes good teaching seem to have greater impact on their pedagogical praxis than research findings. The individual teacher's own conclusions and learning about what works well or badly in their teaching seems to be primarily based on their own experience of daily work as teachers (Dalin, 1993; Hultman & Hrberg, 1994; Richardson, 1994; Scherp,

2001). Teachers and school leaders need to learn about and to deepen their understanding of the nature of the problems if they will be able to improve their school (Carlgren, 1986). This learning is well supported when teachers and school leaders use their own experiences as the starting point. Experiential learning preserving or dynamic force? Conscious and planned experiential learning is a point of departure for development work in a professional organisation. Experiential learning can be described as a process where individuals reflect and form ideas about themselves and their surrounding world based on their own experiences, which then has consequences on their actions. These actions give rise to new experiences, leading to new reflections and renewed conclusions and conceptions. These in turn lead to further new experiences, which again provide fresh food for reflection and learning. Different people learn different things from one and the same event. They can draw more or less appropriate conclusions from their experiences. Being experienced and to learn from one's own experiences are not necessarily the same thing. People become more experienced the longer they live, but despite the fact that they have been exposed to a wide diversity of experiences, their learning may be limited. The main reason for this is that they have not really learnt from what they have experienced. They have "only" become more experienced. Some people repeat the same mistake over and over again, while others very rapidly learn to behave in more appropriate ways because they have discovered that the new experiences they have gained are not compatible with previously held ideas. In particular, people seem to have a tendency to notice what already are congruent with their own cognitions. Events, facts or observations that are not consistent with their ideas are ignored, rejected or interpreted in such a way that they confirm their pre-conceived ideas. There is always a risk that learning through one's own experiences may lead to the reinforcement of existing models of thinking, although these poorly reflect reality (Argyris & Schn, 1974). Feedback as a basis for experiential learning If knowledge about learning and teaching is to be acquired by means of experiential learning, and to function as part of the professional development of teachers, it seems to be essential that teachers get feedback from those around them. Pupils, colleagues, school management and other people who care about what is happening in the school, need to express and clarify how they perceive teachers' performance. If teachers do not receive any feedback from others about their working methods, then many of the conditions required for conscious experiential learning will not exist. To be effective, feedback needs to be both appropriate and challenging. Appropriate in the sense that it is related to the teacher's own frame of reference, attitudes and intentions. Challenging in the sense that it creates imbalance in the present conceptions of the teachers and makes the necessity for change real.

Consequences for the work of the school leaders

Leadership and experiential learning As experiential learning of teachers is crucial to their instructional patterns the school leader needs to be involved in this learning process of the teachers. The most important tasks for school leaders are to create a deeper understanding of the mission of the school among the teachers and to be a leader of the learning process about how to contribute to the learning process and development of the pupils in the best possible way. This can be done by creating a learning environment for teachers. Leadership in the learning organisation is based on influencing people's values, norms and understanding, instead of mainly managing their actions through rules and goals. The underpinning conception is that people act on the basis of their own understanding of reality, rather than on rules and announcements. Different understandings of the assignments inside an organisation lead to a situation where different action repertoires and different competencies are developed by the co-workers. In the national guidelines as well as in actual agreements between teacher unions and the employers there is a shift of focus in the view on leadership among teachers. From being prescriptive and distributing information teacher work is now expected to challenge the thoughts of the students and to tutor their learning. The students interpretation of their world and their experiences should constitute an important point of departure in the learning process. Within organisational theory and research the importance of parallel processes has been clarified. In brief, this means that important principles for activity need to imbue the whole organisation. A consequence is that school leadership and the teachers leadership ought to be based on the same fundamental principles for leadership. This implies a shift in focus regarding school leadership from being "thought-providing" where the main concern is to plan and organise teachers actions to a focus on leading teachers learning where their interpretations and experiences constitute an important starting point. School leaders and teachers therefore have the same basic task, namely to be leaders for learning. The closest co-workers of the school leader are the teachers and the closest co-workers of the teachers are the pupils. This does not mean that syllabi and national curricula become less important in the students and the teachers learning. A deepened understanding regarding the mission as it is formulated in the national guidelines constitutes a basic condition for the learning process. To achieve this deepened understanding there is a need for a challenging meeting between national curricula and the co-workers conception of the mission where dialogue characterises the discussion. To learn from and together with oth-

ers require certain specific demands on mutuality. It is easier to learn when we feel that our own experiences, contributions and questions are seen as important and valuable. To create a deepened understanding of the mission, to create learning situations for teachers learning about teaching and learning, and also to take care of and systemise learning as a foundation for continuous actions and learning are, to sum up, the school leaders main task. A learning-oriented leadership is built on four cornerstones; dialogue, asserting the values in the mission, challenging existing conceptions and focussing on teachers own learning. From individual to shared learning The learning in the learning organisation aims to affect ideas, values and patterns of behaviour. According to Sarv (1997), it is not enough to concentrate on traditional competence development to accomplish emancipatory learning in the organisation. More time for learning in and from the daily activities is needed. The quality of learning in an organisation depends on to what degree the organisation makes room for questioning and organised reflection, hypothesis production and experimentation. Sarv (1997) and Sandberg & Targama (1998) stress that we have to encourage critical thinking in the organisation and institutionalise questioning by establishing routines for this. In a learning organisation a higher degree of experiential learning can be established if there is room for continuous experimentation with the ways of working and a continuous testing of fresh solutions of problems. Hence, a school leader ought to encourage variations of teaching methods. The important thing is that the learning does not stop at individual learning by a few individuals in the organisation. Instead, it has to become a collective shared learning. Most importantly is therefore to create group processes where individuals learn together by systematically clarifying and verbalising the learning that has occurred in order to be able to reflect and critically discuss these learning processes. Reflection is an important phase in the learning process since it clarifies the understanding of the underlying assumptions that underpin this understanding. The teacher teams fulfil a central function for learning in the learning organisation. They constitute the place for shared learning through collaboration and dialogue where the conceptions of different teachers meet. The work team of teachers in Swedish schools is so far mainly a forum for information and planning of different activities. The term work team is therefore an adequate term, since the work often is about planning the work and finding concrete solutions to problems. Another fundamental perspective on the teacher team is to see the team as a forum for teachers learning about teaching and learning. A better term for this kind of team would be learning team. Instead of creating work plans in which one writes down what everyone involved needs to do in order to handle situations in the same way, it would be more appropriate to create learning plans, where one agrees on doing things differently to create a better foundation for learning about teaching.

How to practice this philosophy?

The ultimate focus of school development is to change the conditions of the school so that the students learn better in relation to the guidelines. The learning environment of the school determines the results among the students. The teachers are the key to this learning environment. The teaching methods depend mainly on the experiential learning of the teachers. The learning environment of the teachers thereby becomes very important when it comes to quality enhancement in the learning processes of the pupils. The main task for the school leader is to create as good learning environments as possible for the teachers of the school. Some organisational structures and school leader activities seem to be more important than others. Quality enhancement activities, developmental dialogues, INSET and evaluation has important roles to play. Quality leadership A change of strategies for system steering is visible in many countries. A movement from steering by control over resources to control of learning outcomes through knowledge testing is apparent. This trend however does not help pupils, teachers and school leaders to enhance the quality of the learning process, as neither the control of resources nor the control of end results focus on the learning process and lack contextual understanding. If quality work is supposed to enhance the quality and not just secure the existing quality each school needs to understand how to improve the learning outcomes. Quality work is a continuous process of learning and sencemaking grounded in action. Continuous quests and improvement of the daily work are the key elements of quality management. Quality management is not about finding the best solution. The best solution idea presupposes that there are a contextual free best solution and it also gives the impression that you have come to an end instead of participating in a continuous quest. Today the dominant perspective is to focus on indicators measuring the results. Usually the indicators are based on or related to the mission. From a more process oriented perspective the indicators are based on the conclusions or conceptions of the professionals of how to support the learning and development of the pupils in the best possible way in the prevailing context. However, to be able to learn how the ways of working are influencing the results you also have to catch the results. Moreover if changes are to be persistent they have to be related to and grounded in the everyday working patterns of the school. As teachers act according to their learning about teaching and find out that these learning are good starting points for the quality development. The patterns of the learning of each teacher team are the quality indicators for that teacher team. Figure 1 shows the compilation of the learning of about 300 teachers in a Swedish municipality when they were asked to write down their most important learning of how to contribute to the learning and development of the pupils in the best way they for the moment

know of. Summarised this picture represents the experiences of about 6000 years of teaching formulated in 900 lessons learnt. Figure 1. Compilation of the most important conclusions of how to contribute to the learning and development of the pupils.

See the whole child

Listen to, Believe in dialogue the capacity of the pupils

Trustful relation to the pupil

Understand why Time Security Self-confidence Cooperation, community

Encourage Structure The learning and development of the pupils Praise Feed-back Challenge

Participation of pupils

Support Motivation Create curiosity Evaluation Create joy

Meet the pupils where they are

Adapt the instructions to the level of the pupils

Relate to the experiences, interests and needs of the pupils

Characteristics of the teacher: interested, de-

voted, committed, knowledgeable, inspiring, flexible

There is a risk that the learning of the teachers are outdated or not related to research findings why each school need to test their own conclusions with the learning from other schools and with the recent research findings within the teaching and the learning domain. This may also deepen the contacts between the schools and the teacher training institutions as well as the universities. The quality of the work of a teacher team or of a school depends upon the degree of the correspondence between these learning and the degree to which it becomes realized into daily work. That means that you have to ask the pupils how they perceive the learning process at their school. If they for example perceive that they are being met where they are it indicates a good quality. If they on the other hand do not recognize that they are met, it indicates a poor quality. If teachers fail to translate their most important learning into action, learning groups are built up that helps teachers to learn more about how they to a greater extent will be able to realize their understanding into actions. To start with the problems that are encountered at the school is another point of departure in the quality enhancement work. After identifying the most important problems, learning groups are built up in which teachers deepen their understanding of the nature of the problems. A more profound understanding helps to handle the problems in a more efficient way which leads to quality enhancement. The quality accounts consist mainly by the learning that are developed in the problem solving process and the learning that are extracted from the total experiential domains of teaching. Developmental dialogues In Sweden as well as in some other countries the school leaders are supposed to have developmental dialogues with the teachers. The content in these dialogues has mostly been about the teachers working situation and their need for competence development. From a perspective where school improvement starts in nearby problems the focus is on the teachers conclusions and learning about teaching and the pupils learning process or on the problems and dilemmas they have encountered during the last year or two. These learnings are written down and a compilation is made. Once a year or every second year a common learning day are arranged for the teachers at the school where the school leader presents the patterns of all learning of the developmental dialogues as a point of departure for learning dialogues among the teachers. Similarities and differences in this learning are discussed and new knowledge emerges from the dialogues. These new conceptions are tried out and evaluated during the coming year. In-service training Since 1991 the teachers in Sweden spend 13 working days every year on school based in-service training. During these so called study days the teachers for many years have spent time listening to information about news of the profession. Some of the thirteen days, usually one or two in the beginning of the holidays of the students, are reserved for discussions about the evaluation that have been con-

ducted at the local school. In problem based school development the time is mainly spent on learning about and handling locally prioritized problems. Learning teams with about seven teachers are built up where they can focus on issues they themselves find important when they try to raise the quality in the learning process of the pupils. Teachers which share the same problem participate in the same group. Each group are given a certain amount of time during the coming year in which they are expected to learn and get a better understanding of the problem or issue they have chosen. In the end of this learning process the groups are supposed to recommend better solutions on the problems than are used at the school today. Each learning group has a leader of the learning process which has been trained for the mission. As teachers own experiences has shown to be very important for their instructional patterns the learning process of the groups is structured in a way that the experiences and conclusions of their own as well as other colleagues are taken care of as a starting point. They are also supposed to visit other schools to learn from their experiences and to end up the learning process by reading relevant research results or visiting researchers within the problem domain. The learning groups are also encouraged to try out other teaching methods to get another foundation for their learning. These inquiries form the basis for the learning by the search of patterns in the variation in the data material. In this way the teachers become the main actors in knowledge building about teaching and learning in school instead of being reduced to resisting executors of solutions claimed by others. Evaluation Even if the hopes regarding the developmental power of evaluation are great on a central level it appears that systematic evaluation initiated by the local community or by the government doesn't have any great importance on the school level (Scherp, 2003; Torper, 1998). Teachers and school leaders hardly ever mention evaluation as important. When evaluation functions well at the national level, it may help the system to make the overall results visible and better decisions may be taken for the system. However, this does not mean that that kind of evaluation helps the individual school in its internal development activities. Evaluations have become a request for development, but do not create any inner necessity to change. Evaluations aiming at supporting development in schools have to be constructed in another way than the evaluations aimed mainly to control the schools. To a higher degree the evaluation needs to be of help for teachers and school leaders own learning on how their schools can change, and to a lesser degree point out that they have a need for changing. Or if we put it in another way to a greater degree contribute to knowledge and understanding of how to solve problems instead of just clarifying that there are problems. Evaluations that aim to be of more direct help in problem solving need to take as their point of departure the learning that takes place in everyday work. Moreover it is important that it is possible to learn about the relationship between the process and the results. The instruments used in the evaluation have to be constructed in such a way that these analyses can be made.

10

Some research findings

The research findings so far show some promising results which indicates that problem based school development contributes to a more inspiring environment for learning and development of the teachers. In interviews teachers claim that the working situation has become calmer and the pedagogical dialogues have become more frequent, helpful and interesting. In a quantitative study where 610 teachers in Sweden answered a survey that aimed to inquire the extent of learning oriented school leadership and problembased school development (PBS) we have found some interesting results. The variable Learning-oriented leadership is a composite variable that consists of eleven items measuring degree of dialogue in the relation between the teachers and the school leader, whether or not the school leader is asserting the values in the mission, the school leaders challenging existing conceptions among the teachers and the school leaders focus on teachers learning about teaching and learning. The reliability is estimated by Cronbachs alpha ( = .91). The variable PBS-culture consists of fifteen items ( = .84). These items measure in what extent variations in instructional practices are encouraged and scrutinized, whether or not teachers cooperate in learning about teaching and learning, The correlation between learning-oriented leadership, PBS-culture and some aspects of the working situation of the teachers is shown in table 1.

11

Table 1. Correlation between learning-oriented leadership, PBS-culture and some aspects of the working situation of the teachers (Spearman rang correlation, N=610). The working situation of teachers Learningoriented leadership .17** .35** .21** .18** .55** PBS-culture

Contented to be in my work team Contented to be a teacher at my school Contented to be a teacher Perceive the teacher work as meaningful Good possibilities to influence important issues Have supportive colleagues Have confidence in the management The school leader has influenced teachers conception of the mission Importance of dialogues with the school leader for the instructional pattern The work load is too high to be able to realize pedagogical ambitions PBS-culture

.40** .34** .20** .19** .39**

.19** .64** .75**

.46** .33** .37**

.55**

.38**

-.13**

-.15**

.47**

1.0**

All correlations are statistically significant at .01 level The results show that when the perceptions of the teachers of their working conditions are positive, they usually perceive their school leader as learning oriented. In the same way the positive perception of the teachers of their working conditions go together with a view that their school has a problem based working culture. There is one exception from these patterns. When teachers perceive their work load as too high in relation to their pedagogical ambitions, at the same time they

12

tend to perceive the school leader as less oriented on learning and the school as less problem based in its working culture. At large these findings imply that learning oriented attitudes of school leaders and a working culture at the school characterised by problem based improvement strategies go together with more contended teachers. In the survey the teachers were asked to estimate the importance of different factors for their way of teaching. A scale was used that runs between one and four, where one means very important and four not important at all. The results are shown in table 2. Table 2. The importance of different factors for the way of teaching. N = 610. Important factors Own experiences from the classroom Dialogues with the pupils about the teaching Dialogues with colleagues Curriculum or school plan Syllabus or criteria for grading Experiences from outside school Literature in education Literature of school subjects INSET Courses outside school Dialogues with the school leader Mean 1,3 1,8 1,9 2,0 2,2 2,2 2,4 2,5 2,8 2.8 2,9

The teachers estimate that their own experiences in the encounter with the pupils and dialogues with pupils and colleagues about these experiences from which they draw conclusions have the largest impact on their way of teaching. The curriculum and syllabus come next. The more traditionally used ways of influencing the teaching reading literature and participating in courses are assessed as less important by the teachers. Even if the importance of dialogues with the school

13

leaders are assessed as less important in the survey they are claimed as very important for the climate of school development in the interviews with the teachers. Moreover, the estimated importance of some of the factors varies with the perceived school leadership and culture at the school. These results are shown in table 3. Table 3. The correlation between leadership, school culture and the importance of some factors for the teaching pattern as perceived by the teachers (N=610). Learning-oriented leadership Dialogue with collegues Dialogue with school leader INSET Courses outside school Curriculum or school plan .22** .55** .33** .14** .19** PBS-culture

.37** .38** .37** .14** .20**

All correlations are statistically significant at .01 level. Teachers assess dialogues with colleagues and school leaders, competence development and the curriculum as more important for their instructional pattern when they experience more learning-oriented leadership and that a PBS-culture exists at the school. A closer analysis of the teachers way of estimating different qualities of the learning environment shows that there exist four main patterns. One category of teachers tend to rely on literature and courses. Another group seems to stress dialogues with colleagues and school leaders and INSET as more important. A third group are more influenced by experiences in the classroom, dialogues with pupils and experiences outside the school. A forth group finally, finds the curriculum and syllabus more important. Work teams Most work teams among teachers in the study are interdisciplinary. The teachers want to use more time to instructional issues than today, as they find that too much time is occupied by administrative and economic tasks. The agenda is mostly decided by the team and issues are initiated by the members of the team.

14

Sharing of experiences and dialogue is characteristic while discussions and debates are less common. This is a pattern that the teachers are eager to preserve. There is a tendency that a leadership perceived as learning-oriented and a school perceived as more of a PBS-culture correlate positively with estimations of time for instructional issues, questions initiated by group members, dialogues instead of discussions and debates and time used for dialogues about the curriculum (all correlations are statistically significant at .05 level and r varies between .11 .27). Summary of the conclusions about school development School development is problem-based. School development is facilitated if teachers and school leaders actively build knowledge about problems and dilemmas that the school has to handle. The process of school development is supported by problem solving where systematic knowledge about the experienced problems is used. Teachers report that their experiences more than other factors influence their instructional patterns. Teachers learning about the problems they encounter in their daily work is the core of the school development process. A more profound understanding of the mission as well as of the problem is an important point of departure for learning how they can contribute to the learning of the students. The quality of the pupils learning and development processes depends on how well problems are understood and defined and on the quality of the problem solving process including how knowledge is transferred into actions. The learning environment of the teachers depends upon organizational structures at the school and the way the leadership is carried out. Important qualities for a good learning environment for teachers at the local school level are characterised by learning-oriented leadership, evaluation as a basis for own learning, quality management based on process perspectives and INSET built on learning groups focussing prioritized problems in the daily work. A national or regional governing system that emphasizes control hinders the use of problem based school development. To show interest in and ask for learning among teachers and school leaders about how to help the pupils to learn and develop, strengthen the process of school development.

15

References
Argyris, C., & Schn, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Carlgren, I. (1986) Lokalt utvecklingsarbete. Gteborg. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Dalin, P. (1993). Changing the school culture. London: Cassel. Hopkins, D. (1998). Tensions in and Prospects for School Improvement. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins. (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Change (pp. 1035-1055). Dortrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hultman, G., & Hrberg, C. (1994). Kunskapsutnyttjande: Ett informellt perspektiv p hur kunskap och forskning anvnds i skolan. Stockholm: Liber. Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D., & Ecob, R. (1988). School matters. The junior years. Somerset: Open Books. Richardson, V. (1994). Conducting research on practice. Educational Researcher, 23(5), 5 - 10. Sandberg, J. & Targama, A. (1998). Ledning och frstelse. Ett kompetensperspektiv p organisationer. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Sarv, H. (1997). Kompetens att utveckla. Om den lrande organisationens utmaningar. Stockholm: Liber. Scherp, H-. (1998). Utmanat eller utmanande ledarskap- rektor, organisationen och frndrat undervisningsmnster i gymnasieskolan. Gteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 120.Gteborg: ACTA Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Scherp, H-. (2001a). Problembaserad skolutveckling och den lrandeorienterade organisationen. Karlstads universitet. Institutionen fr utbildningsvetenskap. Scherp, H-. (2003). Lrares och skolledares frstelse av skolutvecklingsprocessen. Karlstad University Studies 2003:27 Torper, U. (1999). Lokal styrning och utvrdering. I L.Lindkvist, J. Lindkvist och U.Torper (red.) En friare skola. Om styrning och ledning av den lokala skolan. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

16