Creating Cultures of Equity and High Expectations in a Low-Performing School
Interplay Between District and School Leadership
Keywords:educational leadership, mutual trust, equity, high expectations
The literature on successful schools has revealed that a school culture of high expectations is beneficial for student achievement and that leaders may exercise significant influence on their school’s success trajectory. However, less information is known about how leaders at different levels interact to build such cultures in local schools or how standards of professional work and new demands interact to support teachers’ com-mitment to quality education for a diverse student population. This study aimed to examine the interplay between district and school leadership in creating cultures of equity and high expectations for all students in a Norwegian low-performing school. Methods included interviews with the principal and the superin-tendent, focus group interviews with deputies, teachers and students, and a survey among all students in grade 10 at the selected school. The study demonstrated how leading teachers’ effort to raise academic and social standards among students was a complex endeavour and how a productive interplay between district level leadership and school-level leadership became one of the key enabling factors. A main argument is that promoting quality education for all begins with the question of purpose and requires understanding how principals’ and teachers’ work is embedded in broader social structures of power.
Ahlström, B., & Höög, J. (2009). Measuring the social and civic objectives of schools. In S. Huber (Ed.), School leadership – international perspectives (pp. 19–37). Bern: Peter Lang Publishing Group.
Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy. Policy enactments in secondary schools. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203153185
Biesta, G. (2016). Educational leadership for what? An educational examination. In D. Waite & Ira Bogotch (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of educational leadership (pp. 15–27). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Cribb, A., & Gewirtz, S. (2007). Unpacking autonomy and control in education: Some conceptual and normative groundwork for a comparative analysis. European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.203
Day, C., & Gurr, D. (Eds.). (2014). Leading schools successfully. Stories from the field. New York: Routledge.
Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (Eds.). (2007). Successful principal leadership in times of change. An international perspective. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5516-1
Gronn, P. (2003). Leadership: Who needs it? School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243032000112784
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863253
Hood, C., & Peters, G. (2004). The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh019
Knapp, M. S., Honig, M. I., Plecki, M. L., Portin, B. S., & Copland, M. A. (2014). Learning-focused leadership in action. Improving instruction in schools and districts. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315880013
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & T. B. Lawrence (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (2nd ed.) (pp. 215–254). London: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030.n7
Leithwood, K., & Louis, K. S. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change. Ambiguity, agency, and power (pp. 1–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Møller, J. (2007). Educational leadership and the new language of learning. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120600933741
Møller, J., Ballangrud, B., Paulsen, J. M., Aas, M., Skrøvset, S., & Stjernstrøm, E. (2014, September). Facilitating high expectations for a diverse student population – a Norwegian case. Paper presented at the European Conference of Educational Research, Porto.
Møller, J., & Skedsmo, G. (2013). Modernizing education: NPM reform in the Norwegian education system. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 45(4), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2013.822353
Moos, L. (2017). Neo-liberal governance leads education and educational leadership astray. In M. Uljens & R. Ylimaki (Eds.), Bridging educational leadership, curriculum theory and didaktik. Non-affirmative theory of education (pp. 151–180). Springer Open. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58650-2_2
Nordenbo, S. E., Holm, A., Elstad, E., Scheerens, J., Søgaard Larsen, M., Uljens, M., … Hauge, T. E. (2010). Input, process, and learning in primary and lower secondary schools. A systematic review carried out for The Nordic Indicator Workgroup (DNI). Copenhagen: Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Research, DPU, Aarhus University.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thomson, P. (2009). School leadership. Heads on the block? London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203870532
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters. Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Krüger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievements: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03253411
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2018 Jorunn Møller
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Declaration on copyright
- The author/s will keep their copyright and right of reproduction of their own manuscript, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, but give the journal a permanent right to 1) present the manuscript to the public in the original form in which it was digitally published and 2) to be registered and cited as the first publication of the manuscript.
- The author itself must manage its financial reproduction rights in relation to any third-parties.
- The journal does not provide any financial or other remuneration for contributions submitted.
- Readers of the journal may print the manuscripts presented under the same conditions that apply to reproduction of a physical copy. This means that mass reproduction of physical copies or production of copies for commercial purposes is not permitted without the agreement of the author/s.