Abstract
After decades of performing on an international top level, Finnish schools demonstrate a plurality of dilemmas. As a response to these urgent challenges, this initiative aims at identifying and constructing research based concepts for multilevel collaborative pedagogical leadership of curriculum work between the schools, municipalities, national education authorities and university. This project draws on and expands the international research program Non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung at ÅAU.
Background, objectives and implementation
The challenge and societal relevance of the project
Finnish comprehensive education reached global awareness in the year 2000 (Uljens, 2007; Uljens, Wolff & Frontini, 2016). After years of harboring an internationally top performing school system, the decline of students’ achievements in Finnish comprehensive started about a decade ago (Minedu, 2013) – and it continues. On top of this, recent international and national evaluations continuously confirm that Finnish schools feature among the largest differences not only between immigrant and native students, but also between boys and girls. School related variance is also increasing, especially in larger cities, while it is still small in international comparison. Taken together, these and related developments represent serious cracks in the picture of Finnish compulsory education as a high-performing and egalitarian system. These results do not correspond well with ambitions to raise the percentage of the cohort entering higher education institutions from 40% to 50%. For the time being, the public debate is confused, as neither researchers nor education authorities seem to be able to provide conclusive explanations (e.g. Ukkola & Rautapuro, 2023). The situation is awkward and the system is in need of repair. But how?
This project aims at producing research based knowledge on how multi-level pedagogical leadership in Finland may contribute to developmental processes aiming at solving dilemmas similar to those presented above, in a shared manner between practitioners, administration and research. The project acknowledge that Finnish education system features large degrees of freedom and high professional qualification in teaching and leadership. In three steps below, we will point at how we anchor this developmental research initiative empirically and theoretically.
(a) How to explain successful change processes in schools – empirical findings
The research literature on school effectiveness research regarding malleable factors paints quite a coherent picture. For example, a meta-analysis made by a Nordic research team, including the main applicant (Nordenbo et al., 2010), covered more than 300 publications on school factors explaining students’ performance. The consistently strongest malleable predictors of students’ performance were: 1) teacher-related factors (e.g. behavior and beliefs, self-efficacy, subject knowledge, organizational action), 2) management and leadership activities, 3) curriculum and scheduling, and 4) school culture and climate (disciplinary climate, achievement/progress orientation, inter-relational climate, social norms and values).
However, identification of malleable factors explaining students’ performance level is not identical to identifying activities resulting in changes in a school’s pedagogical operational culture (curriculum work, teaching practices and climate). To run schools on a given level is one thing, to initiate and lead change is another thing. As Möller (2018) observed “less research has been done on how leaders at different levels work to build such school cultures”. A study of our own confirm this. Let us explain.
Ten years ago, we re-analyzed parts of the Finnish PISA 2009 data (Uljens & Korhonen, 2012), provided to us by Finnish Institute for Educational Research in Jyväskylä. Totally unexpected, the results showed that by 2009 the Åland schools were over-performing. These students’ performance level was ‘higher than could be expected given the socio-cultural composition of the region’. In addition, Åland region was the single over-performing Swedish speaking/bilingual region in Finland. While Helsinki, Turku and Vaasa schools were all performing well, they did not perform better than what was reasonable to expect. We realized that from 2003 to 2009, the district of Åland significantly improved the level of students’ achievements in mathematics in schools. These results proved that it was possible to raise the student performance level from a low-performing level, via an over-performing level, even to a level above the national average. At the same time, the national PISA 2012 results in the Finland started to decrease (Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2014).
In order to explore the reasons to the Åland turn around, interviews were carried out during two consecutive years at all levels, from teachers to the highest administrative actors. We discovered that the change in Åland was highly dependent on leadership on the municipal and the regional level (Uljens, Sundqvist & Smeds-Nylund, 2016). These results clearly deviated from the standard explanation saying that the Finnish PISA wonder depends on the extraordinary level of teacher education (Simola, 2005; Uljens, Wolff & Frontini, 2016). Thus, a teacher perspective is insufficient in explaining successful change or turn-around processes. Our own survey supported that conclusion: 50% of the teachers in the successful Åland schools had received their teacher education in Sweden, not in Finland (Mertaniemi & Uljens, 2015; Roos et al., 2018).
(b) Research supported interventionist school development
Utilizing these results, our research group engaged in interventionist research, designing, testing and studying three different school development projects, with a focus on educational leadership.
The results from these form a crucial point of reference to the present proposal:
1) In the Toppkompetens-project (2012-2015) led by the National Board of Education we realized how the significant, but overseen, role of district and municipal education leaders was. This professional development project gathered all municipal education leaders from Swedish and bilingual municipalities in Finland (see Uljens, 2021; Sundqvist, 2021). This project resulted in a significant renewal of the operational culture among school leaders in Swedish and bi-lingual municipalities – district leaders developed a new professional identity from acting administrators to pedagogical leaders.
2) To find out how we could utilize quantitative data as a resource for developmental dialogues with principals and district leaders, we designed and collected data with the SKUTT 2014 Leadership Inventory, very much developed with support from the ISSPP-project (International Successful School Principal Project, Moos, Johansson & Day, 2011; Uljens, 2014). This data was then analyzed and prepared for each municipality separately to be used for critical and constructive developmental dialogues. In this process we learned how important longterm engagement is for reaching results.
3) Together with the Pedersöre municipality we designed a three year longitudinal multi-level development project applying our insights thus far and generating new (Uljens 2014; Sundqvist 2014; 2021).
4) District school leaders in Swedish and bi-lingual municipalities engaged in several regional large-scale developmental projects (Skola i världsklass, Toppkompetens II, etc.), coordinated by Center for Lifelong learning at Åbo Akademi. In retrospect, there is empirical evidence of a large scale turnaround process among these districts. While the PISA results in mathematics continued to decrease among Finnish speaking students, the decrease between 2003 and 2012 stopped among Swedish speaking students (Hiltunen, et al., 2023).
(c) Theory development and conceptual framing
In addition to the previous empirical studies and interventions, this initiative is anchored in theory development carried out within the ongoing international research program on non-affirmative education theory and research.
The position argues that reinterpreting Bildung centered general education theory offer a conceptual system that allows us to deal coherently with educational governance, leadership and teaching in a unified multilevel approach. Non-affirmativity refers to the character of pedagogical influencing and didactical work as a mediating interpretative activity. Non-affirmative pedagogy conceptualizes the relative degrees of freedom for pedagogical work at different levels of the education system. Thus, curriculum work, including leadership and teaching, need to recognize both the societal and individual interests, yet without affirming these interests. Affirmative pedagogy, it is argued, risks turning education into a mere instrument for making real interests external to education. Such affirmative pedagogy is counter-productive in non-teleological and democratic societies where the task of education is to introduce the growing generation into existing practices and knowledge, but in a problematizing way that prepare for innovative and transcending practices. Non-affirmative school didactic theory offers a critical approach beyond education as societal reproduction and transformation. Furthermore, it allows us a) to better understand the relation between processes of Bildung as supported by educative teaching, b) to bridge educational leadership research, Anglophone curriculum research and European Didaktik and b) understand pedagogical dimensions of educational leadership as a multi-level phenomenon (Uljens & Ylimaki, 2017), an insight that draw on the school didactic approach developed back in the 1990s (Uljens, 1997). In July 2023 a second major open access volume (Springer) on non-affirmative theory was published (Uljens, 2023) focusing on theoretical issues alone, while a third volume (Springer) was published 2024 focusing higher education leadership (Elo & Uljens, 2024). This research has also resulted in bridging, for example, discursive institutionalism and non-affirmative theory (Smeds-Nylund, 2023).
Besides this strong theoretical grounding, non-affirmative education approach will be complemented with the change laboratory methodology developed on the basis of cultural-historical activity theory (Mäkiharju, Autio, & Uljens, 2023).
Objectives
Drawing upon the empirical results described, interventionist experiences and non-affirmative education theory combined with cultural-historical activity theory, this project aims at constructing and testing concepts for pedagogical change leadership on curriculum issues, adapted to a Finnish context. We will refine concepts and procedures on educational leadership for curriculum development. While developmental concepts need to be sensitive for conditions between and within various countries, the present project does not search for the one and only solution valid in the whole country. Rather, given the substantial variation between municipalities, we need experimental collaborative designing and testing out of various leadership practices.
Our research questions
(a) How do the municipal superintendents, principals and teachers interpret and translate multiple policy demands to raise academic standards and develop the quality of practice?
(b) How do school leaders (at different levels) and teachers interact to build a culture of high expectations and a commitment to change?
Implementation
Based on non-affirmative education theory we apply both cultural-historical activity theory or CHAT (Engeström, 2016; Sannino, Engeström & Lemos, 2016; Mäkiharju, Autio & Uljens, 2023) as the main empirical methodology in our pedagogical design research.
References
Ahtiainen, R., Hanhimäki, E., Leinonen, J., Risku, M. & Smeds-Nylund, A-S. (eds.), (2023). Leadership in educational contexts in Finland: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Springer Open Access.
Elo, J. & Uljens, M. (2022). Theorising pedagogical dimensions of higher education leadership – a non-affirmative approach. Higher Education https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00890-0
Engeström, Y. (2016). Expansive learning. Learning what is not yet there. Cambridge University Press.
Hardy, I. & Salo, P. (2022). The particularity of practice: superintendents’ agency for school development. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25:2, 211-237. DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2019.1629696
Harju-Luukkainen, H., Nissinen, K., Stolt, S. & Vettenranta, J. (2014). PISA 2012: Resultatnivån i de svenskspråkiga skolorna i Finland. Jyväskylä: Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä. http://ktl.jyu.fi/julkaisut/julkaisuluettelo/julkaisut/2014/d111
Hiltunen, J., Ahonen, A., Hienonen, N., Kauppinen, H., Kotila, J., Lehtola, P., Leino, K., Lintuvuori, M., Nissinen, K., Puhakka, E., Sirén, M., Vainikainen, M.-P., & Vettenranta, J. (2023). PISA 2022 ensituloksia. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja, 2023:49. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-949-3
Karlsson, B. (2012). Toppkompetens. En projektplan. Helsingfors: Utbildningsstyrelsen https://docplayer.se/4441746-Toppkompetens-genom-professionellt-samarbete.html
Kemmis, S., Rönnerman, K., Groves, C.E. (2017). Pedagogy Education Praxis Network (PEP): International Research Program. In: L. Rowell, C. Bruce, J. Shosh, M. Riel, (eds.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_29
Mertaniemi, R. & Uljens, M. (2015). Lärares, rektorers och skolchefers bedömningar av den pedagogiska verksamhetskulturen på Åland och i Finland. Vasa: Åbo Akademi: Opublicerad rapport.
Minedu (2013). PISA 2012: Proficiency of Finnish youth declining. Ministry of Education (Minedu), Press release, 3.12. 2013. https://okm.fi/en/-/pisa-2012-proficiency-of-finnish-youth-declining
Moos, L., Johansson, O. & Day, C. (Eds.) (2011). How school principals sustain success over time: International perspectives. Springer-Kluwer.
Mäkiharju, A., Autio, P. & Uljens, M. (2023). Non-affirmative theory of Education and Cultural-Historical Activity Theory – Where do they meet? In: M. Uljens (ed.), Non-affirmative Theory of Education and Bildung. Cham: Springer.
Möller, J. (2018). Creating Cultures of Equity and High Expectations in a Low-Performing School: Interplay Between District and School Leadership. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 2/3-2018.
NAT (2023). Non-Affirmative Theory and Research in Education – An International Research Program. https://blogs2.abo.fi/nat-book/
Nordenbo, S., Holm, A., Elstad, E., Scheerens, J., Gustafsson, J-E. , Søgaard Larsen, M., Uljens, M., Fibæk Laursen, P. & Hauge, T. E. (2010). Input, Process, and Learning in primary and lower secondary schools. Copenhagen: Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Research.
Roos, S., Kinnunen, J., Lindberg, V. & Uljens, M. (2018). Utvärdering för utveckling. Ålands gymnasium 2011–2017 (Rapport 2018:1). Mariehamn: Ålands Statistik- och Utredningsbyrå. 159 s. ISSN 1455–1977. http://www.asub.ax/sv/utredning/alands-gymnasium-2011-2017
Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 599–633.
SKUTT (2014). Multilevel and -professional Development of Leadership, Pedagogy and School Culture.
Smeds-Nylund, A-S. (2023). Understanding municipal education leaders in the tension between politics, professionals and parents. In M. Uljens (Ed.), Non-affirmative Theory of Education and Bildung. Springer.
Sundqvist, R. (2014). Skolutveckling är små och systematiska steg. Interview in Tidningen Läraren 4.12.2014. https://issuu.com/lararen/docs/l__raren_25_2014/5
Sundqvist, R. (2016). Skolutvecklingsseminarium för Pedersöre rektorer. https://lppedersore2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/skolutvecklingsseminarium-for-pedersore-rektorer/
Sundqvist, R. (2021). Systematiskt skolutvecklingsarbete. In: M. Uljens & A-S Smeds-Nylund (Red.), Pedagogiskt ledarskap och skolutveckling (p. 383-404). Studentlitteratur.
Ukkola, A. & Rautapuro, J. (2023). Suomen koulujen oppimistuloste romahdusta on liioiteltu. Helsingin Sanomat 10.2.2023.
Uljens, M. (2015). Curriculum work as educational leadership – paradoxes and theoretical foundations. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1(1), 22-31. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3402/nstep.v1.27010
Uljens, M. (2018). Understanding Educational Leadership and Curriculum Reform – Beyond global economism and neo-conservative nationalism. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 2(2-3), 196-213.https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/nordiccie/article/view/2811
Uljens, M., Sundqvist, R. & Smeds-Nylund, A-S. (2016). Educational leadership for sustained multi-level school development in Finland – A non-affirmative approach. Nordic Studies in Education, 36(2), 103–124. http://web.abo.fi/pressmaterial/Uljens_Sundqvist_Smeds-Nylund.pdf
Uljens, M., Wolff, L-A. & Frontini, S. (2016). Finland – NPM resistance or towards European neo-welfarism in education? In: H. M. Gunter, E. Grimaldi, D. Hall, & R. Serpieri (Eds.), New Public Management and the Reform of Education: European Lessons for Policy and Practice (pp. 39-52). Routledge.
Uljens, M. & Ylimaki, R. (2017). Non-Affirmative Theory of Education as a Foundation for Curriculum Studies, Didaktik and Educational Leadership. In: M. Uljens & R. Ylimaki (Eds.), Bridging Educational Leadership, Curriculum Theory and Didaktik – Non-Affirmative Theory of Education (pp. 3-145). Springer. http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319586489
Uljens, M. (ed.), (2023). Non-affirmative Theory of Education and Bildung. Springer Open.