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

References

• Adolfsson, C.-H., & Alvunger, D. (2020). Power dynamics and policy actions in the changing landscape of local school governance. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(2), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1745621
   Google Scholar
• Adolfsson, C.-H., & Håkansson, J. Data analysis for school improvement within coupled local school systems: Which data and with what purposes?. (2021). Leadership and Policy in Schools, 22(3), 714–727. online print. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2021.2010101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agger, A., & Damgaard, B. (2018). Interactive policy Processes: A challenge for street-level bureaucrats. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 22(3), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v22i3.11410
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, S. E., Mascall, B., Stiegelbauer, S., & Park, J. (2012). No one way: Differentiating school district leadership and support for school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 13(4), 403–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-012-9189-y
   Google Scholar
• Brauer, J., Johansson, B., & Bruhn, A. (2021). Social representations in street-level bureaucracies – production and reproduction of knowledge within public administration. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 25(2), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v25i2.7120
   Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. Z. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion in state welfare administration. Social Service Review, 71(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1086/604228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunar, N., & Ambrose, A. (2016). Schools, choice and reputation: Local school markets and the distribution of symbolic capital in segregated cities. Research in Comparative & International Education, 11(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499916631064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, Y. C., Ko, J., & Tai Hoi Lee, T. (2016). School autonomy, leadership and learning: A reconceptualization. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2015-0108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cribb, A., & Gewirtz, S. (2007). Unpacking autonomy and control in education. European Educational Research Journal EERJ, 6(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.203
   Google Scholar
• Durose, C. (2011). Revisiting Lipsky: Front-line work in UK local governance. Political Studies, 59(4), 978–995. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00886.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frostenson, M. (2015). Three forms of professional autonomy: De-professionalisation of teachers in a new light. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(2), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28464
   Google Scholar
• Håkansson, J., & Adolfsson, C.-H. Local education authority’s quality management within a coupled school system: Strategies, actions, and tensions. (2021). Journal of Educational Change, 23(3), 291–314. Online print. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09414-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Håkansson, J., & Rönnström, N. (2021). Samverkan för bästa skola – skolförbättring som politiskt styrd nationell angelägenhet genom samverkan och forskarmedverkan. [collaboration for better schools - school improvement as a politically controlled national issue through collaboration and researcher participation]. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 26(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.15626/pfs26.01.01
   Google Scholar
• Hallinger, P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216670652
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsh, Å., Liljenberg, M., Jahnke, A., & Karlsson Pérez, Å. (2023). Far from the generalised norm: Recognising the interplay between contextual particularities and principals’ leadership in schools in low-socio-economic status communities. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, Online print. 10.1177/17411432231187349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmlund, H., Sjögren, A., & Öckert, B. (2020). Jämlikhet i möjlighet och utfall i den svenska skolan. [Equality in opportunity and outcome in the Swedish school] Rapport 2020:7. IFAU. https://www.ifau.se/Forskning/Publikationer/Rapporter/2020/jamlikhet-i-mojligheter-och-utfall-i-den-svenska-skolan/
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Who controls teachers` work? Power and accountability in America´s schools. First Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). Focus groups: Strategic articulations of pedagogy, politics, and inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 887–907). Sage Publications Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, T., & Weiner, J. (2022). Negotiating incomplete autonomy: Portraits from three school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(3), 487–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X221080374
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipsky, M. (1980/2010). Street-level bureaucracy – dilemmas of the individual in public services (2 ed). Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Löfgren, K. (2021). Changing the Gameplay: Digitization and the public Servant. In H. Sullivan, H. Dickinson, & H. Henderson (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of the public servant (pp. 1037–1053). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard-Moody, S. W., & Musheno, M. C. (2012). Social equities and inequities in practice: Street-level workers as agents and pragmatists. Public Administration Review, 72(S1), S16–S23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02633.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers, C. V., & Hambrick Hitt, D. (2017). School turnaround principals: What does initial research literature suggest they are doing to be successful? Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 22(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2016.1242070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moletsane, R., Juan, A., Prinsloo, C., & Reddy, V. (2015). Managing teacher leave and absence in South African rural schools: Implications for supporting schools in contexts of multiple-deprivation. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(3), 386–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215574508
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moos, L., Nihlfors, E., & Paulsen, J. M. (Eds.). (2016). Nordic Superindendents: Agents in a Broken Chain. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Nihlfors, E., & Johansson, O. (2013). Rektor – En stark länk i styrningen av skolan. SNS Förlag.
   Google Scholar
• Noordengraaf, M. (2014). Shadowing managerial action instead of recording managerial text. Qualitative Research in Organizations & Management: An International Journal, 9(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-02-2014-1197
   Google Scholar
• Norberg, K., & Johansson, O. (2007). Ethical dilemmas of Swedish school leaders: Contrast and common themes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(2), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143207075393
   Google Scholar
• Nordholm, D., Wermke, W., Andersson, A., & Kotavuopio Olsson, R. (2022). State, municipality and local community. Exploring principal’s autonomy and control in the rural north of Scandinavia. Education Inquiry. Online print. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2022.2149059
   Google Scholar
• Nordholm, D., Wermke, W., & Jarl, M. (2022). In the eye of the storm? Mapping out a story of principals’ decision-making in an era of decentralisation and re-centralisation. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 1–21. Online print. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2022.2104823
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Östh, J., Clark, W. A. V., & Malmberg, B. (2015). Measuring the scale of segregation using k-nearest neighbour aggregates. Geographical Analysis, 47(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/gean.12053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polisen. (2017). Utsatta områden – social ordning, kriminell struktur och utmaningar för polisen. Nationella operativa avdelningen. https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/utsatta-omraden/
   Google Scholar
• Reid, D. (2019). What information do principals consider when evaluating teachers? School Leadership & Management, 39(5), 457–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1576167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rönnberg, L., Lindgren, J., & Lundahl, L. (2019). Educational governance in times of Marketization: The quiet Swedish revolution. In Handbuch Educational Governance Theorien, R. Langer & T. Brüsemeister, Eds., Educational Governance Book Series (pp. 711–727).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22237-6_31
   Google Scholar
• Sandén, J. (2021). Närbyråkrater och digitalisering. Hur lärares arbete formas av tidsstrukturer. [Local bureaucrats and digitization. How teachers’ work is shaped by time structures]. Södertörn Doctoral Dissertations 197. Södertörn Högskola.
   Google Scholar
• SFS 2010:800. Skollagen [The Education Act]. Utbildningsdepartementet.
   Google Scholar
• Skolinspektionen [The Swedish Schools Inspectorate]. (2021). Långvarigt låga kunskapsresultat. Grundskolor som under 10 år haft en hög andel elever utan betyg i alla ämnen. [Prolonged low knowledge results. Compulsory schools that for 10 years had a high proportion of students without grades in all subjects]. Tematisk kvalitetsgranskning. Dnr: 40-2020:2189
   Google Scholar
• Utbildningsdepartementet. (2017). Samling för skolan. Nationell strategi för kunskap och likvärdighet. Slutbetänkande av 2015 års skolkommission (SOU 2017:35) [Together for the school. National strategy for knowledge and equivalence. In Final report of the 2015 school commission]. Nordstedts förlag.
   Google Scholar
• Vedung, E. (2015). Autonomy and street-level bureaucrats’ coping strategies. Nordic Journal of Studies in Education Policy, 2015(2), 15–19. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28643
   Google Scholar
• Wermke, W. (2013). Development and autonomy: Conceptualising teachers’ continuing professional development in different national contexts. Doctoral theses of the Department of education. Stockholm University.
   Google Scholar
• Wermke, W., Jarl, M., Prøitz, T., & Nordholm, D. (2022). Comparing principal autonomy in time and space: Modelling school leaders’ decision making and control. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(6), 733–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2022.2127124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wermke, W., Nordholm, D., Anderson, A., & Kotavuopio-Olsson, R. (2023). Deconstructing autonomy: The case of principals in the North of Europe. European Educational Research Journal EERJ, 147490412211386. Online print. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041221138626
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wermke, W., & Salokangas, M. (2021). The autonomy paradox: Teachers’ perception on self-governance across Europe. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65602-7
   Google Scholar