Principals’ vision of social learning in school-age educare

ABSTRACT

Work to support pupils’ social learning in Swedish school-age educare (SAEC) may be understood to depend on how the principal leads the staff and how the vision is set. Therefore, in this article the principals’ vision of social learning is investigated. Data are collected from group interviews with principals and analysed from an interactionist perspective, through Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory. The results show a vision of SAEC and compulsory school as one unit. Additionally, work on social learning is viewed as a topic to teach in SAEC. However, the general definition of a vision is not consistent among the participating principals, which gives rise to a need to clarify the construct of the vision, together with the staff.

KEYWORDS:

• Social learning
• school-age educare
• principals
• vision

Introduction

The aim of this article is to investigate principals’ perspectives of the work on social learning in school-age educare (SAEC). The starting point is that their vision will guide how principals lead the staff and thereby the work in SAEC, which in turn will impact the possibilities for pupils’ social learning. The research question addressed in this article is What vision of social learning in SAEC is expressed in the principals’ descriptions?

In Sweden SAEC enrols most pupils aged 6–9 years (Swedish National Agency for Education [SNAE] , 2020, that is the youngest pupils in the primary school years. SAEC is part of the national education system, and the curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare (Swedish National Agency for Education [SNAE] 2019) guides pedagogical planning in SAEC. SAEC is emphasised as being complementary to school (Swedish National Agency for Education [SNAE] 2019) in supporting pupils’ learning, yet with its own function, which in particular is to enhance pupils’ social relations and well-being in the school community, among other functions related to pupils’ social learning. However, in research the role of SAEC is often described with a knowledge-based focus (Haglund 2009; Hjalmarsson, Löfdahl Hultman, and Warin 2017; Närvänen and Elvstrand 2014). Although the role of SAEC is rooted in sustaining pupils’ group relationships and communal life, the practical work varies between different SAEC centres. Consequently, depending on how staff interpret and implement this role, the conditions for social learning differ between SAECs.

Pupils’ social learning enhances their well-being in addition to enhancing over-all learning from a life-time perspective (Persson 2015). Concerning this, Tallberg Broman et al. (2015) highlight the importance of how the staff work, as well as how the management enables the staff’s understanding of the role of SAEC. At the same time, research shows that principals are more or less present as pedagogical leaders of SAEC settings (Jonsson and Lillvist 2019) and that they are not always aware of how the SAEC staff’s work is affected by structural conditions (Andersson, 2013).

Although social learning is often referred to in research results, it is seldom a specific focus for research aims or questions and this article addresses this gap.

Social learning

Research describes social learning in terms of social competence and social interactions. Weissberg et al. (2015) highlight pro-social behaviour and self-knowledge as parts of social competence, and Grover et al. (2020) emphasise that the individual’s ability to communicate and empathic ability are essential to solve social problems. Further, Weissberg et al. (2015) stress the individual’s relational competence as being important for enabling participation in effective interaction. The crucial role of interaction in forming social competence is underlined by Junge et al. (2020), who also state that variations due to the surrounding environment, impact social learning. Junge et al. (2020) point out that social learning can take place both through the individual’s own observations in interaction, and through guidance. According to Ladd and Sechler (2013), the school environment gives pupils the opportunity to create peer relations, as well as to experience consequences of their behaviour, and thereby to practise their social skills.

School-age care in other parts of the world

Many countries provide care (SAC), primarily as a child-minding service for parents working outside the home (e.g. Cartmel and Hayes 2016; Pálsdóttir and Kristjánsdóttir 2017; Plantenga and Remery 2017). Nevertheless, the potential of SAC to enhance pupils’ social learning is emphasised in the research. For instance, in Australia SAC is highlighted as having the capability to improve children’s cognitive, emotional and social development, through certain programmes (Winefield et al. 2011). Such programmes are also highlighted as providing positive outcomes for both children and their families (Dockett et al. 2014). This also applies to U.S. After-School Programs (ASP), which were established to be a societal support to families and to enhance children’s development (Haglund and Anderson 2009). Both the ASP established in the United States and the SAC programme in Australia are thereby focused on educating children and developing their social skills (Cartmel and Hayes 2016; Durlak, Weissberg, and Pachan 2010; Wade 2014), along the same lines as SAC programmes in the EU (Plantenga and Remery 2017).

The Nordic context for care is situated in a certain pedagogical discourse, with a social pedagogical approach (Pálsdóttir 2014). This discourse includes a wide interpretation of education and care, and it can thus be assumed to focus on children’s social learning. In the research (e.g. Ackesjö, Nordänger, and Lindqvist 2016; Lager 2019; Rohlin 2000), this discourse is often referred to as the basis for Swedish SAEC practice.

Social learning in SAEC

Social learning appears in different ways in several studies, although it is not directly addressed in the aim or the research question. For instance, it can be understood that children’s social learning is to a great extent connected to the work on children’s relationships (e.g. Klerfelt and Haglund 2014; Lager 2019). Research shows that social learning is not ignored; nevertheless, from the staff’s different standpoints, social learning takes place on a different basis. While some activities, like board games and different kinds of play (Kane 2015; Lager 2015), are suggested to promote pupils’ social learning (Haglund and Peterson 2017) activities are not specifically planned with social learning in mind. Instead, the pupils’ social learning is more often expected to appear as a result of the pupils’ own interactions (Haglund 2015; Jonsson and Lillvist 2019; Lager 2015; Pálsdóttir 2014). Although the staff aim to support pupils’ social learning, it is not obvious that they actively participate in this learning (Lager 2015). Staff even consider themselves as not being important to the pupils’ learning process in SAEC and therefore stay on the periphery of the pupils’ activities (Haglund 2015; Pálsdóttir 2014). Unlike the above, Haglund and Peterson’s (2017) study shows that staff describe varied approaches when they participate in the pupils’ activities, depending on their intention.

However, Klerfelt and Haglund (2014) highlight the importance of the presence of adults in pupils’ education, also stating that the absence of adults might cause insecurity among the children. The teachers’ ideas of children’s relational work, to some extent, direct how they approach and participate in the children’s relational activity (Dahl 2014). One possible explanation for the teachers not taking part in children’s relational activity might be that they have not analysed or discussed their work on children’s relations (Dahl 2014). Consequently, as suggested by Jonsson and Lillvist (2019), the work might be based rather on assumptions than shared values or interpretations. Thus, to develop awareness of the work and to counteract any reliance on presumed knowledge, it is important for SAEC professionals to continuously discuss their work collegially (Dahl 2014; Kane 2015), which is an activity that can benefit from supervision.

Guidance in discussions

According to Schuepbach and Lilla (2020), collaboration between staff members is a key factor in attaining professionalism in SAEC. Schuepbach and Lilla (2020) conceptualise professional development as a long-term process, emphasising the need to provide SAEC staff with ongoing support in the professional development processfor instance, by the principal. This is similar to what Sula, Dutrevis, and Crahay (2019) accentuate, concerning the fruitfulness of teachers being guided and supported in their collegial discussions. In the same vein, Jonsson and Lillvist (2019) highlight that the principal’s participation in the staff’s collegial discussions is crucial to what is brought up for discussion. The principal’s participation in the staff’s collegial discussions could thus prevent the discussions from becoming predominantly about practical issues.

In terms of the basis for teachers’ work, the concept of vision might be considered. School vision is determined by the principal’s leadership, influenced by a number of factors, including the principal’s own beliefs. Moreover, the vision is also significant in determining the school’s organisational learning (Kurland, Peretz, and Hertz-Lazarowitz 2010). According to Leithwood and Riehl (2003), leaders influence pupils’ learningfor example, by promoting a vision and goals and by enabling teachers to have the resources to teach well. Further, shared goals and effort are emphasised concerning professional learning communities, and a supportive leadership is highlighted as being especially important for this (Leithwood and Riehl 2003). Vision is accentuated by Kurland, Peretz, and Hertz-Lazarowitz (2010) as being a key aspect of leadership, also associated with organisational learning processes at school. In this sense, when a clear vision is combined with coherent organisational learning processes, it is more likely that teachers will succeed in making the school vision a reality (Kurland, Peretz, and Hertz-Lazarowitz 2010). Based on the above, the principal’s vision of social learning is the basis for the work and the development of SAEC settings. Nevertheless, there is a gap in the research concerning SAEC principals, which is why it is important to investigate the principals’ vision.

Theoretical point of departure

With the theoretical point of departure in Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological system theory (2005), this study takes an interactionist perspective. The bioecological system theory gives the opportunity to view the factors that impact social learning in SAEC and how these factors interact, according to principals’ perspectives. As principals’ views will influence how they support staff in SAEC, which in turn will influence their practice – and thus the conditions for pupils’ social learning – investigating principals’ perspectives could be considered as a didactic point of departure for this study.

Interrelated levels of both close and more distant factors affect learning and development in the bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner 2005). The innermost system, the microsystem, includes the teachers in the collegial group as well as the group of the principal and the teachers, or teachers and peers in the SAEC group. The microsystem can be viewed as a pattern of roles, relationships and activities between the individuals included in the current context (Bronfenbrenner 1979). Roles are behaviours and expectations, connected to an individual’s role in a context or in society. Based on how one is treated by others, the roles affect actions as well as thoughts and feelings. Further, this involves other individuals and entails how relationships are developed. Since reciprocity is significant in increasing complexity in relationships, guidance is especially beneficial, which for children means guidance from adults. What can be considered as activities involves behaviour in processes, with specific goals and with a time continuum. These characteristics of the microsystem can lead to both adaptive and maladaptive outcomes.

The relations between microsystems – for instance, the relation between the principal and the staff group or between the pupils and the staff in the SAEC group – are part of the mesosystem. Then the exosystem has an indirect effect on individuals, with no room for immediate mutual influence. For this study, as well as for SAEC in general, this may consist of the local school’s economy, the number of children attending the SAEC or the supply of trained staff. The most distant level is the macrosystem, which affects individuals indirectly. The factors of the macrosystem are laws, culture or the societal climate, including how social skills are described and valued in the SAEC curriculum. Consequently, the society’s valuing of social skills is mirrored, which guides the focus of SAEC practice, along with the principal’s interpretation of the curriculum and the purpose of SAEC. The chronosystem, which encompasses the above four systems (Bronfenbrenner 2005), acknowledges how the aspect of time influences all the other systems, over both the short and the long term.

Materials and methods

The aim of this study is to investigate principals’ perspectives on work to support social learning in SAEC. The study takes an interactionist approach, consisting of material from four group interviews, with seven principals in SAEC settings. Initially 47 principals in a mid-Swedish region were contacted by email, based on their role as principals of SAEC settings for pupils aged 6–9 years. Also, 7 of the 47 principals agreed to participate, and therefore the sample can be viewed as a convenience sample (Bryman 2016), based on availability as well as participants’ interest in social learning in SAEC. The principals work in different schools, situated in four Swedish middle-income neighbourhoods. Their professional experience as principals or school leaders ranges between 2 and 9 years, and their time in their current role ranges from 1 to 4 years. The principals were informed about the purpose of the study and their rights as participants, and all of them gave their written consent to participate.

The group interviews were held at Mälardalen University and lasted for 2 hours each, with the exception of the fifth interview that lasted only 90 minutes. Only four or five of the seven principals attended each interview due to unexpected issues related to their professional duties. The interviews were recorded with a Dictaphone and notes were taken in parallel to promote the opportunity to follow up with in-depth questions. The basis for the interviews was the intention to gain knowledge and understanding of the principals’ perspectives on work to support social learning. Further, the group interviews provided the opportunity for the participants to discuss and explore similarities and differences concerning their professional duties (Bryman 2016). Additionally, the principals were able to bring up for discussion issues that they found important or interesting at the current time, allowing them to make room for argumentation, questioning and deeper insights related to the topics (Bryman 2016). Although there was room for the participants’ choice concerning topics, the overall frame for the interviews was the work to support social learning in SAEC, a focus which all participants helped to maintain.

The group interviews were held during one semester and evolved to become increasingly participatory, in comparison with the original intention. With a standpoint in the work on social learning in SAEC, I gradually gave the participants more freedom to suggest and initiate what would be discussed. This was because they expressed the need for, as well as the benefit of, discussions which allowed them to share their practice. Nevertheless, the interviews were guided by certain topics, rising from the aim of the study, as well as by the ideas and discussions raised by the participants. I introduced the topics and led the discussions initially, and the participants then took over the discussions themselves, although I also occasionally took part in the discussions.

Analysis

The recordings were transcribed verbatim and then analysed as an exchange between the data, the theoretical approach and previous research, which implies an abductive approach (Bryman 2016). The transcripts were read thoroughly to identify elements related to the purpose and the research question of the study (Merriam and Tisdell 2016). During this part of the process, excerpts consisting of the participants’ statements were extracted from the transcripts. The excerpts were sorted into groups thematically, based on similarities and differences. During this work themes emerged in the exchange between the theoretical perspective and previous research, as well as from my interpretation. Accordingly, the themes were not defined in advance but emerged from the data (Gibson and Brown 2009). To develop a theoretical understanding, the themes were analysed based on the bioecological model’s systems: the micro-, meso-, exo-, macro- and chronosystem, along with the concepts of roles, relationships and activities, from the microsystem (Bronfenbrenner 1979).

Ethical considerations

The ethical principles of the Swedish Research Council (2017) guided considerations through the processes of this study. All the principals were informed about the aim of the study, orally and in writing, before the interviews, and they all gave their written consent to participate. Further, they were informed that their identities would be kept confidential, and that all the data would be anonymised in presentations of the research results. They were also informed that the data would be used only for research and handled with care. They were also informed about their rights as participants, including the fact that participation was voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw their participation at any time, without further explanation and without any negative consequences for them.

To the above must be added that the ethical dimension of group interviews was highlighted initially. Consequently, the participants’ joint approach to one another was stressed, including my appeal to remain respectful in relation to each other’s different prerequisites concerning their respective professional practices as the basis for the discussions in the interviews. The participants were also asked not to disseminate the content of the discussions outside the participants’ group.

Results and analysis

In this section, the results and the analysis of the study are presented to answer the research question What vision of social learning in SAEC is expressed in the principals’ descriptions? The results reveal two prominent themes, the holistic school and an educating culture. Additionally, the analysis highlights the principals’ perspectives of opportunities and challenges concerning working towards the vision. The principals’ understanding of the definition of a vision is also revealed.

The definition of a vision

While, on one hand, the interviewed principals did not completely agree on a shared definition of vision concerning SAEC, on the other hand vision was broadly described in terms of a goal, or a milestone, with the clarification that it might be possible to evaluate and reconsider. In this case, the aspect of time (chronosystem) appears, with the added complexity that there is a need for variation in the time required. From this perspective, the vision is explained as being attainable, with the possibility that more time may be needed. Otherwise the motivation is hindered, as one of the principals stresses:

It feels hopeless if I can never reach the vision. […] I think that a vision should be possible to reach. (Principal 3)

The need of the opportunity to attain the vision is explained in terms of motivation, which is why the vision ought to be dynamic. In contrast to the above-described adaptable vision is the expression of the vision as something more abstract. In this description, the vision is explained to be the motivating power, although more out of reach. Principal 1 puts the vision in words as follows:

The vision is more … it is more spiritual, somehow.

In this view the vision is defined as non-measurable and not fully attainable, but rather something to strive for.

The vision related to work with social learning in SAEC

The results show that the vision (in general) is considered as the basis for the work, and thereby the vision is assumed to guide the activities in SAEC. Consequently, in accordance with the bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner 2005), the vision is revealed as the blueprint of the SAEC, the macro system. The principals’ visions are a part of the macrosystem. Their vision of social learning in SAEC recognises that the activities should be based on a distinct goal, as well as that the work on social learning needs to be grounded in a clear assignment for the SAEC staff. From this standpoint, the principals stress the importance of also having a clear vision concerning the staff’s work in support of pupils’ social learning. The vision is highlighted as being both useful and important regarding early negotiation of a shared understanding of work on social learning.

Social learning in the holistic school

The results show that the principals’ vision of social learning encompass the pupil’s educational situation as a whole.

The principals put the pupils as the focus for the SAEC educational programme, highlighting a way of working with social learning which identifies the pupils’ learning and development as the goal. The vision reveals the staff’s continuous consideration of social learning and that social learning should be borne in mind in every situation in SAEC. The following quotation is a summary of the principals’ vision of an approach worth pursuing, in the work on social learning:

… to create a teaching culture, somehow, in the SAEC. That is, a general approach. To approach the pupils in an educating way. (Principal 7)

The teaching culture that the principals describe is prominent in the results, which also implies that social learning is a topic for education. The vision shows that the staff’s general approach concerning social learning is expected to entail both pupils’ learning and their well-being. The microsystem (Bronfenbrenner 1979) is thereby illuminated through the relationships that are expected to be developed through the staff’s roles.

The teaching culture is, on the one hand, understood as an activity taking place over time in SAEC (Bronfenbrenner 1979), not as specific educational activities, but as an activity itself. On the other hand, the educating culture could be understood as the macrosystem, as the cultural blueprint that sets the direction for work in SAEC.

Regarding the teaching culture, the results prominently show the principals’ vision of social learning from the perspective that primary school and SAEC should be viewed as one unit, rather than as separate activities. The principals accentuate that the two educational programmes (school and SAEC) are equally important and, accordingly, that the work should be done jointly, for the benefit of pupils’ learning and development. This is illustrated in the following quotation:

That is exactly what I think too, since in my world I have a vision for the whole school, which includes everyone working there. […] That is ‘we’ and we are there for the children, we play different parts in this. (Principal 2)

The quotation highlights the pupil’s central position in the activities, as well as that all work is expected to be done with the aim of promoting the pupils’ learning and development, although the different occupational groups have different assignments. This underlines the pupils’ transitions between the different microsystems in which they participate, also revealing the required communication (mesosystem) between the occupational groups that share this educational responsibility. The principals highlight the fact that the SAEC teacher’s assignment and the schoolteacher’s assignment are overlapping, yet they stress that they are both equally important. It is mutually emphasised that ‘one cannot do without the other’ (Principal 4). In accordance with this, the principals emphasise a vision that incorporates both SAEC and school. Further, they emphasise that it would be obstructive to host two visions, not least since the pupils are part of both educational programmes.

Challenges and possibilities for the vision

Alongside the vision of social learning, the results suggest a couple of challenges concerning the work. The organisational structure of schools often entails the SAEC staff deputising for the teachers. Accordingly, the implementation of the SAEC is put on hold, for instance, due to the loss of planning time and the necessity to move from one assignment to another. From this angle the exosystem (Bronfenbrenner 2005) is revealed as the conditions of the organisational structure. The principals are aware of the difficulties that this creates concerning SAEC activities, as the following quote illustrates:

Yes, but it also causes the SAEC difficulties in working with their goals […] when all the time they are the ones to be plundered if you say so. (Principal 7)

The quotation shows the principals’ awareness concerning SAEC staff’s work and the task of SAEC. At the same time, they express the benefit to the pupils if the SAEC staff substitute for absent teachers. Further, the benefit of the SAEC staff being the substitute schoolteacher when needed is also illuminated in terms of the SAEC staff’s understanding of the necessary arrangement. However, the results suggest that the persons who get to be substitute teachers are most often those who the principals call the efficient SAEC staff. This entails their being removed from their SAEC activities in the afternoons. Accordingly, the SAEC activities are affected negatively with less quality as a consequence, which is an example of the exosystem (Bronfenbrenner 2005) – a course of events not possible to influence, yet with an effect on the conditions for the work in the SAEC. This is illuminated in the following quotation:

They [the staff] have great understanding of the importance that they are the ones doing this, yet we have to be aware that it also entails less quality in the SAEC activities. (Principal 7)

The quotation above shows the principal’s awareness of the set of problems arising from the structure, alongside their expression of the negative effect on the SAEC. The principals recommend a clear vision of the SAEC staff’s work, regarding the duty to promote the pupils’ knowledge development in school. Otherwise, according to the principals, there is a risk of concentrating the SAEC work solely on supporting classroom activities, which they find contradictory to the focus on social learning in SAEC.

Further, the vision is seen as needing to be holistic and therefore to include the SAEC. The results show that the mutual vision is what the principals believe brings about fellowship between the occupational groups, the SAEC staff and the schoolteachers. The principals state that a shared vision counteracts possible hierarchies between the occupational groups, which the following quotations illustrate:

If one splits the vision, there will be hierarchies again, which is exactly what I want to work against. […] In my world there cannot be several visions. (Principal 3)

The quotation also suggests that unwelcome hierarchies do exist at the principals’ respective settings. However, they mutually express that they intend to work against hierarchies between the occupational groups and that they have an ambition to bring the groups together. The results show that this work includes working against perceived differences among the SAEC staff who, according to the principals, express the experience of being disregarded in their work. Further, the principals suggest a distinction inherent in the concept of ‘the school’, since the SAEC staff do not always consider themselves as part of the school. The quotation below illuminates one principal’s experience of this:

… I have always taken for granted that when I say ‘school’ I refer to … well, that it encompasses … everyone, which I had to elucidate, particularly to the SAEC staff, who took part as observers. (Principal 2)

To accomplish a community feeling in the whole staff group, SAEC and school, collegial discussions are highlighted as being advantageous, also for achieving consensus and a mutual point of departure in the common task of supporting pupils’ social learning. The interpretation could be either that the mesosystem is represented by the communication between the two microsystems (the occupational groups, schoolteachers and SAEC teachers), or that it is seen in the principals’ wish for all to be united in the interests of the pupils. In the latter case the school’s whole staff group can be considered as a microsystem that benefits from the activity (discussions) that promotes collegial relations (Bronfenbrenner 1979).

Collegial discussions are also considered to contribute to a common (professional) language, which is regarded by the principals as a prerequisite for working towards a common vision. The interplay between the systems thus illustrates how the macrosystem influences the microsystem and vice versa: the microsystem activities may possibly influence each individual’s attitudes (macrosystem). Further emphasised is that all the staff need to be familiar with the vision, to be able to work with this as a goal, which is highlighted in the quotation below:

If there is a vision for the school, then everyone working towards it should be familiar with it. (Principal 4)

Additionally, the results reveal the principals’ view of the necessity to reserve time for collegial discussions in order to prevent a wholly practical focus. This is further emphasised with reference to the fact that the SAEC staff are less likely to have formal teacher education. Consequently, the principals find they have to communicate the task of supporting social learning to the SAEC, which is illustrated in the quotation that follows:

Well, yeah, I think that it is even more important, like someone just said, this thing about being aware of social learning, since we get many more unqualified staff in the SAEC. (Principal 6)

The principals highlight their own responsibility, regarding initiating and structuring the collegial discussions, including what content is to be brought up for discussion. Although the principals acknowledge their task as pedagogical leaders, they explain that it is sometimes difficult to implement. Since there is a lack of organisational time, some of them need to delegate the task of leading the collegial discussions. They also imply that it can be more difficult to hold pedagogical discussions with staff who are unqualified. This is because the discussions then need to be more basic and educational. The situation with unqualified staff relates to the exosystem (Bronfenbrenner 2005), as it is not possible to affect, and also since non-qualified staff are preferred to no staff at all.

Discussion

The aim of this article is to investigate principals’ perspectives of the work on social learning in Swedish SAEC. To answer the research question, the principals’ vision of social learning is accentuated with a starting point in the school as a whole. This highlights the fact that the concept of school comprises both the SAEC and the compulsory school, and also that everyone who works in school has a shared responsibility for the pupils’ social learning.

At the same time this seems to be the greatest challenge, both concerning the organisational structure and about the SAEC staff’s view of their position in relation to the compulsory school. Possibly this is an indication of the fact that subcultures (Bronfenbrenner 2005) emerge, although the vision is meant to include all in the school’s cultural blueprint. From a bioecological perspective, this can be understood as the fact that the macrosystem is not solely an expression of a common interpretation of steering documents, attitudes or formal intentions. Rather, it points towards the fact that the macrosystem, as well as the other systems, contains several parts in its whole.

The set of problems emerging from principals’ views can also be understood from the concept of school, which, on the one hand, is generally used when compulsory school education is referred to. On the other hand, as stressed by the principals, it is a concept that is used as an umbrella term, sometimes tacitly understood to comprise both the SAEC and the compulsory school. This ambiguity may lead to confusion, perhaps also because the SAEC and the compulsory school have partly separated educational programmes. Nevertheless, concerning norms and values (Swedish National Agency for Education [SNAE] 2019), the task is mutually shared. However, the description of SAEC as being a complement to school (Swedish National Agency for Education [SNAE] 2019) might be a conceivable reason for the hierarchies experienced between SAEC and compulsory school staff. Therefore, to prevent ambiguities, it appears to be important to make such a vision explicit and to put it into words in order to promote increased staff awareness and shared values (Dahl 2014; Jonsson and Lillvist 2019; Kane 2015). It follows then, not only that the SAEC staff should be aware of their belonging in school, but also that the schoolteachers need to acknowledge SAEC and understand the work of SAEC.

Although the principals highlight their responsibility to push forward the discussions on SAEC values and activities, it is not clear to what extent they actually participate and guide the staff in these discussions (Sula, Dutrevis, and Crahay 2019; Schuepbach and Lilla 2020). However, they point out that the lack of time requires them to delegate certain tasks, so it can be understood that they are not always in actual control of what is discussed. According to Leithwood and Riehl (2003) a supportive leadership is especially important to promote professional learning communities. It is also conceivable that the work towards the vision is hindered by the need to keep discussions more basic when staff are not formally educated.

Social learning in the SAEC is expressed in terms of interaction, in which the pupils’ learning and well-being are considered as a whole. The results show that the vision of social learning in the SAEC is to create a teaching culture. This shows the perception of the importance of the presence of adults (Klerfelt and Haglund 2014) to guide the pupils. Further, the view of an educating culture highlights social learning as an educational content, just like the subject focused content of the compulsory school. Accordingly, it can be understood that the work requires awareness and that the staff are expected to guide the pupils’ social learning processes. In contrast to how the SAEC staff think of themselves (Haglund 2015; Pálsdóttir 2014), the principals expect their SAEC staff to teach the pupils about social understanding.

The upshot of this may be that the vision should leave no room for ambiguity, since the vision is a crucial aspect of the collegial learning processes, based on the leadership (Kurland, Peretz, and Hertz-Lazarowitz 2010). Hence it is not only important to clarify what the vision is but, additionally, it may be necessary to explore what a vision is in general and how it is supposed to guide the work. The findings in this article show that the principals are not of one opinion concerning the aim of a vision, since, on the one hand, it is described as spiritual, and on the other hand it is described as being more like a goal. Likewise, there may be a discrepancy between the principal’s view of a vision and the staff’s view of a vision. Thus, the construct of a vision would benefit from being perceived as a long-term process (Schuepbach and Lilla 2020), in order to build a consensus around it through professional development. In turn, this will result, in the long run, in improved social learning among pupils in SAEC.

The findings show how principals describe social learning, but it is not possible to know what is actually expressed in practice. Additionally, the results reveal that the principals’ work involves several tensions that contribute to the challenges. The implication for future research is that further investigation is needed into the interaction between the principal and the staff, as well as the conditions for principals to carry out their work.

However, the findings from this study must be considered in the light of its possible limitations. The study investigates the perspectives of a small number of principals so the conclusions are drawn from a modest sample and it is not possible to generalise the results.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).