School principals’ perceptions of autonomy and control in low-SES communities - navigating local school administration on the front line

ABSTRACT

In the decentralized Swedish school system, the local education authority (LEA) level has an important position when it comes to school governance. This article takes a micro-level perspective on principals’ perceptions of autonomy and control as they navigate local school administration in their front-line work in low – socio-economic status (SES) communities. The point of departure is taken in a multidimensional understanding of principal autonomy and street level bureaucracy. Empirical data consist of group conversations among principals, all of them working in a highly segregated Swedish city. The analysis shows that the principals perceive local school administration to be dominated by uniformity expressed through digitalization and specialization lacking contextual adaption. This orientation gives the principals a sense of local school administration being controlling and non-supportive. In addition, lack of adaption to the specific conditions of the low-SES community context tend to increase the principals’ workload and further restrict their autonomy. To cope with the situation and still deliver the education the students are entitled to, the principals act pragmatically in an innovative way. Based on contextual awareness they delay demands, deviate from routines and come up with alternative solutions, hence expanding their autonomy and intensifying their professional judgement.

KEYWORDS:

• principal
• local school administration
• autonomy
• street-level bureaucracy
• coping strategies

Introduction

In the decentralized and market-adapted Swedish school system, local education authorities (LEAs) are accountable for school results, school improvements and administrative obligations, as regulated in the Education Act and the national curricula for the various school forms (e.g. Rönnberg et al., 2019). Since the 1990s, when responsibility for the management and implementation of education were decentralized from the state to the LEAs (i.e. the country’s 290 municipalities and independent school owners) and the ‘free school choice’ opened for students and parents to choose their desired school placement, the differences in grade results between schools have grown significantly (Holmlund et al., 2020). As the free choice of school is mainly used by families where the parents have good finances and a high level of education this has led to a growing school segregation in Sweden. Schools located in low-SES communities are losers in this system, as basically no one outside these communities chooses such a school, often due to stigmatized ideas about the place and those who live there (Bunar & Ambrose, 2016). Moreover, national research and reports indicate that Swedish LEAs have difficulties to fulfil their obligations in relation to these schools and principals (Håkansson & Rönnström, 2021, Utbildningsdepartementet, 2017). A report, following up on schools that over a period of 10 years had a very high proportion of students not receiving passing grades in all subjects, indicates that LEAs offer the same general support to all principals, regardless of school results (Skolinspektionen [The Swedish Schools Inspectorate], 2021). Furthermore, Norberg and Johansson (2007) argue that, although politicians and superintendents have the power to differentiate support, this is rarely discussed enough in relation to financial questions, although the financial resources that are given decide what principals actually can afford to do.

The relationship between school governance and actors, at and between the different levels of the Swedish school system, has been studied for a long time by Nihlfors, Johansson and colleagues (i.e. Moos et al., 2016; Nihlfors & Johansson, 2013). Nihlfors and Johansson (2013) conclude that there are both tight and loose couplings between levels and actors in the local ‘governing chain¹’. Politicians at the local school boards make decisions (prepared and presented by superintendents at the LEA level) to be implemented by the principals in the local schools. However, at times work is hampered by mistrust between politicians and professionals and on other occasions the LEA level find themselves ‘bypassed’ as the state administration turns directly to principals in local schools. In recent years, within this research field Nordholm, Wermke and colleagues (Nordholm et al., 2022a, Nordholm et al., 2022b, Wermke et al., 2022, Wermke et al., 2023) have taken a particular focus on principals’ perceptions of autonomy and control. In a study by Nordholm et al. (2022a), following up on principals’ autonomy and decision-making capacity during the decentralization and re-centralization reforms, the results show that principals’ experienced autonomy has decreased over time due to various strategies that the LEA use to control principals’ room for manoeuvre, especially in relation to budget, administration and quality work. However, in another study by Nordholm et al. (2022b) they found that principals in some respect challenge the current structures to increase their autonomy.

Furthermore, the work of Adolfsson and colleagues (Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020, Adolfsson & Håkansson, 2021, Håkansson & Adolfsson, 2021) gives an important contribution to our knowledge about how LEAs work to support principals. Their results show that Swedish LEAs in the era of new public management (NPM) have increased their focus on quality management systems (e.g. data analysis, templates for documentation and dialogue meetings). However, a lack of adaption to the needs of local schools has given principals a sense of these systems as controlling rather than supporting. In addition, during the past few years, LEAs have been under pressure when it comes to demands for efficiency, often with increased digitalization as a result (Sandén, 2021). This is, however, not unique for LEAs; rather, it is in line with the development of administration in many other public sectors, all with a major impact on the work situation of front-line managers, such as principals (Löfgren, 2021).

Taking our point of departure in the understanding of principal autonomy as a multidimensional phenomenon and principals as street-level bureaucrats, the purpose of this article is to examine how local school administration influence principals’ perceptions of autonomy and control and their front-line work in low – socio-economic status (SES) communities. The study is based on group conversations among principals taking part in a network collaboration between a large LEA in a Swedish municipality and a university. The research questions are as follows: (1) What characterize local school administration from the perspective of principals working in low-SES communities? (2) How do the principals perceive autonomy and control in their leadership practices? And as a result of these perceptions (3) How do they navigate local school administration in their front-line work?

The relevance of the present study lies in the fact that micro-level research about the LEA level is still limited. In addition, little attention has been paid to contextual dimensions of principal autonomy (Cheng et al., 2016, Kim & Weiner, 2022). Addressing this research gap by taking a specific focus on principals responsible for schools with challenging conditions becomes further relevant as it has been found to be difficult for LEAs to fulfil their obligations in relation to these schools and principals (Skolinspektionen [The Swedish Schools Inspectorate], 2021).

The current article is structured as follows: First, the theoretical point of departure is presented. Then, a section introduces the empirical study, after which the results are presented in two subsections. The article ends with a discussion and conclusion, including some recommendations for future research, as well as for practice.

Theoretical framework

Principal autonomy as a multidimensional phenomenon

To reach a more nuanced understanding of autonomy in education, researchers have conceptualized autonomy as a multidimensional phenomenon (Frostenson, 2015; Ingersoll, 2003; Wermke & Salokangas, 2021). Although researchers agree on this, they define autonomy differently. Kim and Weiner (2022) stress that autonomy is generally constructed three-dimensionally: 1) general professional autonomy, 2) institutional autonomy, and 3) individual autonomy of which the latter two dimensions operate on the local level. Institutional autonomy assumes the local school organization as the unit of analysis and refers to the degree to which those in the organization have collective freedom to make decisions and have control over their practice. This dimension of autonomy is granted from ‘top-down’ through laws and LEA policy. Individual autonomy, on the other hand, emanates from the individual actors and how they, based on individual and collective norms, come to understand their room for decision-making in local school practice (see i.e. Frostenson, 2015, Wermke, 2013). In this study we build on a four-dimensional comparative perspective of autonomy developed by Wermke and Salokangas (2021) and later by Wermke and colleagues (Nordholm et al., 2022a, Nordholm et al., 2022b, Wermke et al., 2022, Wermke et al., 2023). This perspective builds on Ingersoll’s (2003) theorizing on power distribution and control in relation to decision-making in US schools. In the perspective autonomy and control are seen in relation to who has the power to make decisions on the most important matters, and who ensures that these decisions are made on the most appropriate foundations. Following this, an analytic device with four different domains in which teachers, as well as principals, make decisions and can be controlled in their decision-making by others, is proposed. The four domains, presented from the perspective of principals’ decision-making, are presented below:

• The educational domain refers to matters related to activities and responsibilities connected to teaching and learning.

• The social domain refers to building relationships with students, parents and other stakeholders in the local community.

• The developmental domain refers to identifying the needs of the school and steering towards a vision to reach development.

• The administrative domain refers to administrative work of principals providing conditions for teaching and learning such as budgeting, resource allocation and quality documentation.

Previous studies (Nordholm et al., 2022a, Nordholm et al., 2022b, Wermke et al., 2022, Wermke et al., 2023) that have developed and applied the four-dimensional device have made analytical and conceptual contributions to our understanding of principals’ autonomy. However, Wermke et al., (2022) stress the need for further empirical studies. In this article we respond to this need. To allow for a more detailed picture of principals’ lived experiences we focus primarily on the administrative domain. This can be motivated by previous results indicating that Swedish principals experience increased control from the LEA level within this domain (Nordholm et al., 2022a, 2022b). Still, as the four domains are interrelated, the three other domains will also be included to varying extents.

Regarding the relationship between autonomy and control, Cribb and Gewirtz (2007) underline the importance of avoiding the widespread normative presumption that autonomy is always good and control is bad. Rather, they recommend us to consider the complexity surrounding the two concepts and view them as ‘both “always in process” and ubiquitous’ as they are ‘constantly being made and remade, negotiated and renegotiated in all of our daily interactions’ (p. 205). Kim and Weiner (2022) also urge us to pay attention to the fact that although multiple policy efforts aimed at providing schools and principals greater autonomy, studies have shown mixed effects on organizational outcome and student results. In addition, they stress that we know relatively little about principals’ actual level of autonomy and how they negotiate autonomy or potential tensions, especially in everyday practices. Hence, they argue that rather than studying principals’ perceptions of autonomy in the context of specific policy intentions, addressing principals’ autonomy from the perspective of street-level bureaucracy can “shift the focus from the formal structural view of autonomy to individuals’ enactment of it” (p. 490). Following their recommendation, we do not limit the study to any specific LEA policy, but rather open up for principals’ lived experiences in their front-line position and integrate Lipsky’s (1980/2010) perspective of street-level bureaucrats in our analysis.

Principals as street-level bureaucrats

When Michael Lipsky first introduced the theory about street-level bureaucracy in 1980, he made a distinction between street-level bureaucrats meeting face to face with clients and ‘public managers’ working in the back office (Lipsky, 1980/2010). As time changes, many public managers are today expected to work in the front line, meeting face to face with clients (e.g. Agger & Damgaard, 2018). Given the expectations put on Swedish principals we define them as street-level bureaucrats. This is in line with other studies drawing on Lipsky’s conceptualization of street-level bureaucracy when studying principals (e.g. Kim & Weiner, 2022, Moletsane et al., 2015, Reid, 2019).

In his work, Lipsky (1980/2010) identifies several challenges in street-level bureaucracies that street-level bureaucrats must deal with in their daily work. Demands or goals, not only those set by laws and regulations, but also by politicians and managers are often unclear and sometimes conflicting. Street-level bureaucrats are under pressure from different stakeholders, but also from their own ethical and moral considerations and judgement as Lipsky (1980/2010) recognized that many street-level bureaucrats have a strong motivation and belief in their ability to work for social equity. Consequently, street-level bureaucrats’ leeway for action depends on personal and formal and informal aspects of the organization of which they are a part (Brauer et al., 2021). Based on their professional judgement and in relation to the specific situation of the clients, they work to expand and strategize their autonomy when they find it relevant to do so (Kim & Weiner, 2022). Thus, how street-level bureaucrats define their autonomy and act in practice depends on how they conceive their work and their clients. Although studies of street-level bureaucrats have foremost placed emphasis on coping (i.e. limit client demand for service) and creaming (i.e. concentrate on a limited number of clients) strategies with negative consequences for clients (Vedung, 2015), it is also important to pay attention to the moral and ethical judgements made by street-level bureaucrats as a way to direct service to the most worthy clients, which can be understood as a form of a positive coping strategy (Durose, 2011). In addition, Maynard-Moody and Musheno (2012) stress that the mismatch between prescribed practice and everyday living regarding the people and problems that street-level bureaucrats confront encourage them to ‘be creative’ and practice pragmatic improvisation. Identifying those who are worthy of service beyond the routines becomes part of their professionalism, which Brodkin expresses as ‘[street-level bureaucrats] do not do just what they want or just what they are told to want. They do what they can’ (1997, p. 24).

Introducing the empirical study

The context of the present study is an ongoing network collaboration between LEA representatives and those principals responsible for schools in low-SES communities² in a larger Swedish city, and researchers from the university. The main goal of the network collaboration, which began in 2020, is to establish a sustainable regional network that supports, challenges and develops knowledge for all actors involved to ultimately achieve more equitable and inclusive education for all students in the city. The city, which constitutes the context of the present study, is, from a national and international perspective, highly segregated (e.g. Östh et al. 2015). Increased housing segregation because of changing demographics and increased student sorting because of parents’ ability to choose school placement for their children (Holmlund et al., 2020) have contributed to growing differences in results between schools in different areas in the city. In the low-SES communities, which are characterized by a physical living environment classified as less good, high unemployment, poorer health, a low average age of population, large groups of young individuals who are easily affected by norm-breaking behaviours and a high rate of crimes, the negative difference in school results are particularly noticeable. Hence, providing equal education for all students, independent of family background and SES, is a challenge for the LEA.

Data

In the network, LEA representatives, principals with responsibility for the schools with the lowest SES in the city and researchers meet on a regular basis to exchange experiences, learn together and develop common knowledge. In the start-up of the network in 2020–2021 school year, the network consisted of 20 compulsory school principals, three LEA representatives and four researchers from the university. Gradually, however, the number of participants has increased. In addition to working all together, the principals work in smaller groups of three to six. The current article is based on audio-recorded data from digital and real-life group conversations taking part in these smaller groups of principals during the 2020–2021 school year. The conversations included, among other things, brief presentations of each principal’s leading practice, followed by conversations based on different issues regarding leadership, framing factors, decision-making, support, and challenges provided by the researchers: What do you as principals have in common? Is it possible to talk about a special way of leading, that is, being a school leader, when working in a school in a low-SES community? What is required of you to maintain focus on the core mission of education? What support do you get from the LEA organization? What challenges do you meet in your work? Each conversation lasted for about two hours.

In each group, one of the participating principals assumed the role of conversation moderator. The moderators had been carefully prepared to assume their conversation-leading role by the researchers. This type of group conversation can be classified as mini focus group discussions with respondent moderators (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2005). Mini focus group discussions are preferably used when the potential pool of participants is small but where each individual has a high level of expertise in the topics to be discussed. The main reason for the use of respondent moderators is related to the fact that the network is not primarily aimed at research, but rather at collaboration for development. However, respondent moderators are also a strength of the method as it limits the risk of managerial entrapment Noordengraaf (2014). Principals are good with words and in researcher interviews there is always a risk that principals give answers serving organizational purposes rather than analytical purposes. The method also has its limitations. Because the researchers were not present in the conversations, follow-up questions that could potentially have added additional information to the study could not be asked. Each group conversation (n = 12) was recorded and later transcribed by the researchers for further analysis. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection.

Analysis

Initially, the transcripts were examined several times to attain an overall image and detect emerging themes on what characterize local school administration from the perspective of principals working in low-socio-economic status communities and what this means for their perceptions of autonomy and control and their front-line work. In the first phase of the analysis, qualitative content analysis with open codes was conducted (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The first round of open coding included different themes that the principals brought up in their conversations, for example, administrative support, digital systems, documentation, resource allocation and communication, along with a second round of coding including notes on principals’ perceptions of these.

In the second phase of the analysis, the analytical device for empirically investigating principals’ perceptions of autonomy from a comparative perspective developed by Wermke and colleagues (Nordholm et al., 2022b, Wermke & Salokangas, 2021, Wermke et al., 2023) was applied. The first round of analysis in this phase focused on the administrative domain of principals’ work and thus built on the analysis conducted in the previous phase. The codes related to expression of principals’ perceptions of decision-making capacity and control in the specific domain. In the second round of analysis the three other interrelated domains (educational, social, developmental) were added, albeit more superficially, in order to track how principals’ perception of autonomy and control in the administrative domain influenced their perceptions of autonomy and control in the other domains. Moreover, all four domains were included in the last step of the analysis when Lipsky’s theory of street-level bureaucracy with its concepts of coping strategies and professional judgements, together with Maynard-Moody and Musheno’s (2012) understanding of street-level bureaucrats as creative pragmatists, were used to analyse the different strategies principals used to navigate local school administration in their front-line work. Based on an abductive analytical approach, pragmatic innovation was identified as an overall concept of principals’ strategies. Thus, coding and analysis can be characterized as both data and concept driven (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). For trustworthiness, member checking was practiced (Creswell & Miller, 2000). After completing the analysis, the researchers presented their findings to the participating principals and opened up for their response. At the study’s close, the respondent moderators were invited to read the full paper and give additional feedback.

Results

The results are presented in two sections. In the first section, the principals’ perspective on the characteristics of local school administration is presented, together with excerpts that illustrate principals’ perceptions of autonomy and control in their leadership practices. The second section presents how principals navigate local school administration in their frontline work.

Specialisation and digitalization – uniformity in local school administration

In 2018, the LEA underwent a major reorganization. One central organization, with responsibility for the city’s roughly 60,000 compulsory school students, was established, and the previous division into geographical areas was abandoned. Although the intention of the reorganization was to optimize the use of available competences, ensure quality and equality and provide each principal and school with the support they needed, the analysis reveal that the principals characterize local school administration as dominated by uniformity expressed through specialization and digitalization. Due to lack of contextual adaption, they also perceive increased workload and high control. With the centralized LEA organization, the principals note experiencing increased distance. Even if each department occupies several LEA specialists with high competence in their different areas, the principals’ possibility – thus the students’ and the parents’ possibility – to get the support they need based on the contextual conditions of their schools are perceived as being limited:

Principal 11:

There is a lot of talk about the support being individually adapted, but I think that the support from the LEA is very … ; it is based on the collective.

The principals argue that lack of contextual adaption becomes particularly noticeable in relation to school placements because immigration and difficulties in obtaining a permanent home contribute to the high mobility of families in the areas and, hence, of students in their schools. One aspect of school placements experienced by the principals as particularly demanding is the central LEA’s longer processing times. Long processing times also restrict principals’ autonomy in the educational domain as it limits their ability to provide the students their right to education, hence challenging their professional judgement:

Principal 4:

For our part, student placements are still problematic; it should be supportive, but it is not how we experience it. On the contrary, it is something that causes a lot of concern and extra work and that gives poor treatment of students and parents.

Principal 5:

… if you compare it to how it was before, when I could quickly leave a message in response [to parents]. Because … you may eventually have a child who refuses to come [to school] because he/she is the only child that has been misplaced and it is four weeks processing time [at the placement unit]. It cannot work that way. We have lots of children sitting at home now. They want to come to school, and they should be allowed to start, but the processing time means that they are not allowed to come and do not get their education either and so on.

Another aspect of school placements is the digital system that parents are required to use to apply for schools for their children. The standardized digital system aims to ensure an equivalent application process. However, the principals perceive the digital system to contribute to inequality as it does not meet the needs of the parents struggling with language barriers. Hence, when parents show up in schools with questions, the principals consider it necessary to drop their ongoing tasks and assist, but also support when errors occur because of previous misunderstandings. Although the principals perceive that parents’ needs increase their workload and hence restrict their autonomy, they feel an obligation to prioritize the parents so to live up to the assignment of providing equal opportunities for education for all.

Digital systems are also used to support principals, for example, in economy and quality management. In addition, LEA specialist with competence in these areas are linked to each school. However, the principals perceive a mismatch between the support provided by the LEA specialists and the needs they identify for their schools. From the principals’ perspective, this mismatch is because of the LEA specialists’ lack of knowledge about the specific conditions that the low-SES communities entail. The principals, who argue that they always have ‘the best interest of the students’ in mind when placing their priorities, perceive the LEA specialists’ recommendations to be based on ‘the optimal model’ or ‘the mainstream school’. When the LEA specialists give their recommendations, the principals perceive their competence being questioned and their autonomy in the administrative domain restricted:

Principal 6:

So often, I am very hopeful … but on other occasions, when you work with economy and so on. They are not evil people [the LEA specialists], they have their missions, but they do not have the knowledge and understanding of the complexity. ‘But, Principal 6, you have not directed the student money’. But it was only enough for a few new windows and interpreters. Are you with me?

Principal 2:

It’s the same for me, in school year one for example, […] we added half classes, and we added practical aesthetic classes, and suddenly, it looks like I …

Principal 1:

You have not optimised your resources.

Principal 2:

But I have, I have extended the school day [for the students] instead, but it looks completely wrong in the digital Stratsys system.

Principal 3:

It’s because the needs are different. So again, it’s the frames and squares that we have to adapt to. Our schools do not really fit into them, and that makes it look like we are doing it wrong.

Rather than arguing for increased autonomy, the principals express a strong wish to meet up with LEA specialists in the schools to give them the opportunity to understand their context and visualize their needs for support. However, the principals perceive that the central LEA preferably wants to ‘collect’ information about the needs of the schools in numbers and text through the many different digital systems to which the principals are required to deliver data. In addition to the increase in workload that the principals perceive that digital communication entails, it also brings with it a perception of local school administration as controlling rather than supporting:

Principal 4:

My experience is that a lot of what is called support risks falling into control and additional tasks, submission of statistics and reports that take time and effort from what you would like to do.

Principal 5:

It increases the abyss that is being created, or at least the distance, between the schools and the LEA—the things we talked about earlier, confidence and trust.

So far, the analysis shows that the principals characterize local school administration as being dominated by uniformity, here as expressed through specialization and digitalization. The lack of adaption to the specific conditions of the school context tends to increase the principals’ workload and limit their ability to control their work, hence restricting their autonomy. When they perceive their contextual competence as being overlooked in favour of the ‘mainstream school’, it contributes, at least for some, to a sense of powerlessness and insignificance.

Pragmatically innovative based on context awareness

To cope in their work situation, without giving up on their professional judgement, the principals navigate local school administration slightly differently compared with how they perceive LEA’s recommendations. Hence, they use their autonomy to ‘make’ local school administration contextually adapted. For example, keeping up with documentation in the many different digital systems is argued by the principals as being too time consuming. Although they can understand the benefits of documentation, they have to weigh this against the advantage of being present and supportive in the constant flow of urgent problem solving that the specific context of their schools brings with it. This could include anything from dealing with gang fights and drug sales in the school yard to observing lessons and talking with parents about student’s health, all of which require their attention and energy:

Principal 7:

When I talk to the police … And then they say, ‘But have you not documented it?’ or ‘Have you not reported it?’ … No, because we have not HAD TIME within our own organisation. … Even though I document A LOT. But it is still not enough. And then you protect your bad conscience … although I understand that it is good to document.

Principal 1:

But when I talk to HR and they tell me that: ‘You know that you should go in [in the digital system] about twice a week and look … ’. You know, it should be a living document with risk analyses and everything. You have to go in several times a week … But you do not do that … I say: ‘Can’t you send me an email when it is time for it to be taken up in the LSG meeting?’ [And they answer:] ‘No Principal 1, that is not how we work, you should be in there all the time’ … I think everyone safeguards their area of responsibility, you work in the LEA administration, and you have been given this area as your responsibility … and you protect it, and then, they come out and tell us … they are very good at their work, but I know that I do not HAVE TIME to do all that. I think that it is very important [that I come to that conclusion] because I would not have made it otherwise.

Consequently, to cope in their frontline work, the principals find it necessary to extend their autonomy by delaying the demands for digital documentation set by the LEA and to eventually try to catch up, if the work situation gives them the opportunity to do so.

Holding a principal position in Sweden includes financial responsibility for the local school. To take on this responsibility, the central LEA allocates each school and principal a budget predominately based on the number of students in the school. However, some of the principals who took over poorly run schools with high principal turnover stress that the central LEA does not take the contextual situation into account to the extent that is needed when allocating the school budgets. If these principals are to fulfil the legal requirements, that is, providing the students with the education they are entitled to, they judge it to be professionally defensible to deviate from keeping the budget. Hence, the principals challenge the current structure to increase their autonomy.

Principal 10:

If you get to take over the Titanic, you cannot say that, ‘Now, all ships stand on the runway and all ships get the same amount of money’. If I take over a ship that is at the bottom, then it costs money to get it up first. We had to make a huge investment to get the school up and running.

Moreover, having over 80% of students with migration backgrounds, there is an extensive need to support students in learning the Swedish language. Providing students with books to read, extra teaching hours and adequate support take both time and money far beyond what the principals perceive is possible within the allocated budget:

Principal 8:

[To support the learning of reading] I renovated the library and hired a librarian, even though I was 7 million back. They were not very happy about that at the LEA administration a few years ago. But I said that I had to do it.

Students’ migration background also has an impact on other aspects, for example, on the ability to keep all parents informed about school issues. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this became particularly noticeable for the principals. Although LEA’s communication department was to support the schools with information to pass on to inform parents, without contextual adaption, the principals state that the information lost its purpose:

Principal 3:

The communication department supports Corona times with a lot of things, but it does not matter for us because we have to do it ourselves anyway. We try to explain that we want to be supported in a different way. Can you please give it [the information] to us, in Arabic, Somali and Kurdish, but it has not come yet, and now we have had the pandemic for …

Principal 5:

For a year and a half and we have not received a single form as we have wanted it, translated correctly. They think they provide us with support, but it does not fit into our context … And then, we end up writing the information ourselves. Now, you no longer care [about policy] but take help from those around you.

When the principals do not receive a response to the needs for contextual adjustments that they raise, they find it professionally defensible to address the situation the best they can. Thus, to cope with situations that otherwise can have a negative impact on students and parents, the principals come up with alternative solutions. With support from co-workers with skills in different languages, the principals find ways to bypass the communication policy, stating that important information needs to be centrally checked by the communication department before being distributed. Although the principals find their actions to be professionally defensible, they also express apprehension:

Principal 3:

I can only say one thing about this with a lack of trust. We often talk about trust. In all good faith. But when we talk about the things that create a gap, and if we stop trusting the LEA administration, then we will be even more on the side—the fussy ones on the side.

Principal 9:

Who makes up their own solutions.

Principal 3:

Yes, because we are very good at making our own solutions, we have solved all these issues with language and forms and information, DESPITE the support, if we say so. But it’s dangerous. I feel like we’re a little, out in the deep water in our relationships.

To conclude, working in low-SES communities has given the principals contextual awareness that the central LEA does not possess. To cope in their work situation without giving up on their professional judgement, the principals act pragmatically in an innovative way. Based on contextual awareness and with the best interest of their students in mind, the principals extend their degree of autonomy as they navigate local school administration by delaying demands, deviating from routines and coming up with alternative solutions. However, the principals are conscious of the fact that sidestepping the LEA means that the workload remains in their possession and contextual shortcomings in the local school administration become unaddressed. Of course, this is not a good solution for anyone in the long term, not for students, not for the LEA and not for themselves.

Discussion

The purpose of this article was to examine how local school administration influence principals’ perceptions of autonomy and control and their front-line work in low – SES communities. Hence, the study adds to previous research about local school governance (e.g. Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020, Håkansson & Adolfsson, 2021, Nordholm et al., 2022a, Wermke et al., 2022), as well as to the discussion about LEAs’ capacity to support ‘all’ principals in their work (e.g. Håkansson & Rönnström, 2021). Even though the Education Act emphasizes that LEAs are responsible for building a school administration that can follow up and support schools and principals based on local needs, what is considered ‘effective’ school administration will have an impact. Addressing the first research question we identified three characteristics of local school administration from the perspective of the principals: 1) uniformity, 2) digitalization and 3) specialization. We conclude that this is in line with a broad trend in many public sectors (Löfgren, 2021, Sandén, 2021). However, as context matters in leadership (e.g. Hallinger, 2018), how this trend influence principals’ perceptions of autonomy and control in low-SES communities and how they navigate accordingly nevertheless make a valuable contribution to the still fragmented body of research on principals’ autonomy and front-line work in various contexts (Cheng et al., 2016).

Following up on the second research question we conclude that uniformity and specialist departments giving general, rather than contextually adapted support, contributed to principals’ perceiving their autonomy as being restricted. The reconsidering and downgrading of principals’ context-based decisions in favour of decisions made by LEA specialists in various fields also contributed to the feeling of control and to the fact that the principals expressed loss in trust in the LEA. These results add to Durose’s (2011) arguing that street-level bureaucrats’ contextual expertise and experience obtained in their actual meeting with their clients tend to be overlooked in favour of the general and ‘context-free’ knowledge that can be addressed to everyone. Moreover, digitalization increased principals’ administrative workload and gave them less time for what they defined as the core work of principalship. Not only did this restrict the principals’ perceptions of autonomy in the administrative domain, but it also contributed negatively to their perceptions of autonomy in the other interrelated domains. In a parallel study carried out within the same network collaboration as the present one (Hirsh et al., 2023), we conclude that principalship in low-SES communities entails both quantitatively and qualitatively more complex work tasks because of high mobility, comprehensive linguistic and cultural diversity, comprehensive knowledge diversity and extensive problem complexity in the school area. Consequently, local school administration lacking in contextual adaption constitutes a particular challenge for principals in low-SES communities, whose work situation in relation to the three other domains (i.e. the educational, the social and the developmental) already entails complex challenges.

Previous research on school governance has identified how state administration bypass the LEA level (top-down bypassing) as they turn directly to the local school level (Nihlfors & Johansson, 2013). However, studying rural principals’ autonomy Nordholm et al. (2022b) conclude that bypassing is a process that also goes in the opposite direction (bottom-up bypassing). Addressing our third research question we conclude that this entails also for the low-SES community principals included in this study. Contextual awareness contributed to principals’ decision to bypass parts of the local school administration directing their work, hence, preventing context irrelevant control. This increased their autonomy over decision-making in the administrative domain. Bypassing administrative demands also partly reduced the principals’ workload. The time the principals ‘saved’, they reinvested in the other domains. In the educational and developmental domains, the principals pushed their autonomy to ensure their students the support and schooling that they were entitled to, and in the social domain, they directed support to students and parents beyond what local school administration policies prescribed. Thus, the principals bypassed LEA recommendations to ensure the students their rights as prescribed in the national steering documents. Doing this, we argue that the principals, guided by their professional judgement, took agency to secure all students’ equal rights to education. This further confirms the principal’s position as a relationship-based and client-oriented street-level bureaucrat (e.g. Brodkin, 1997, Durose, 2011).

Lipsky (1980/2010) recognized that many street-level bureaucrats enter their jobs with strong commitments in social justice but face the fact that the nature of their work and the prerequisites they receive rarely support their idealistic goals. Experiencing one’s own opportunity to make a difference in work as decreasing, often results in a sense of powerlessness. However, as Kim and Weiner (2022) conclude, principals do not passively accept their situation, but rather work to expand and strategize their autonomy in practice. We conclude that this corresponds well to the principals in the present study. Even if they were unable to help all students and families, the ones that they made a difference for gave them the confirmation they needed to cope and continue in their work.

The report from the Swedish School Inspection (2021) presented in the introduction, show that schools in low-SES communities over 10 years have not been able to raise student results. Concerning governance, it is worth noting that during the same time period principals have experienced increased control from the LEA level (Nordholm et al. 2022a). Hence, it becomes relevant to highlight Cribb and Gewirtz’s (2007) recommendation not to see autonomy and control as value-laden opposites but rather as two concepts that covariate. We conclude that neither autonomy nor control tend to be the answer to school turnaround processes (Meyers & Hambrick Hitt, 2017). Although, the principals in this study worked to strategize their autonomy in practice they also desired contextually adapted support from the LEA specialists. Consequently, long-term educational change builds on deep understanding of the conditions of each school, as well as the capacity at all levels, i.e. national, LEA, and school, to customize governance and support to school-specific circumstances (Anderson et al., 2012, Håkansson & Rönnström, 2021).

Finally, in relation to local school governance and LEAs’ possibility to support principals and schools based on local needs, the results of the study provide implications for practice. First, the results highlight the need for LEAs to take the local context into consideration when building a central administration that can govern and support principals in a diversity of schools with different challenges because of the specific school areas. A prerequisite for taking this point of departure is to adopt a learning-oriented approach and initially build deeper knowledge about the circumstances that the contextual conditions entail for principals and for teachers. Second, if school administration is to bridge the challenges that schools are facing, a more adaptive approach among LEA specialists would be needed, giving the principals the possibility to have their say about the support given, but also move beyond the contemporary accountability systems created based on the idea that one size fits all.

Conclusion

The present study has shed light on how those principals responsible for schools in low-SES communities perceive autonomy and control in their leadership practices and navigate local school administration in their frontline work. By taking a micro-level perspective on the LEA level the study has shown how the analytic device can be used to contribute to the still limited research about the LEA level. Focusing primarily on one domain has shed light on the need for further research closing in on principals’ perception of autonomy and control in relation to the LEA level also in the other domains. Although the study makes a significant contribution, it has its limitations. First, the case was not independently selected because the principals were already involved in the network collaboration. Second, in the present study, local school administration is presented from the perspective of the principals. Presenting the perspective of the LEA could have enriched the study and is therefore a suggestion for further research. Despite these limitations, the results provide knowledge about contextual aspects of local school administration, and specifically how it influences principals in their front-line work. In research, the principals have repeatedly been highlighted as those who, second to teachers, have a significant influence on students’ results (Leithwood et al., 2020) and, thus, on students’ future. To be a principal in a low-SES community, being aware of this significance while perceiving one’s competence and decisions to be questioned when taking context awareness into account can undoubtedly be challenging. To truly achieve ‘a school for all’ that evens out difference between schools and student performances diversity in school contexts must be considered in the designl administration.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. The governing chain refers to educational governance at and between the different levels in the Swedish school system.

2. The Swedish Police define these communities as vulnerable areas: ‘a geographically delimited area that is characterised by a low socio-economic status, where the criminals have an impact on the local community’ (Polisen, 2017, p. 4, our translation).