Recognizing LEA Officials’ Translator Competences When Implementing New Policy Directives for Documentation of Schools’ Systematic Quality Work

ABSTRACT

This article aims to deepen our knowledge about the work and competences of local education authority (LEA) officials when implementing new policy directives for documentation in the decentralized Swedish school system. The results show that the LEA officials used strategies and actions that improved relevance for principals and schools through changes in what was documented and how they understood results, supported by continuing professional development. In their brokering position the LEA officials proved to be key actors, contributing to empowerment, confidence and trust. Hence, the results indicate the importance of LEAs finding balance between steering and supporting in policy implementation.

Introduction and Aim

International research, mostly conducted within centralized school systems, has shown that local education authorities (LEAs) play an important role in policy implementation as they can provide principals with advice and support (e.g. Coburn, 2006; Honig, 2006). Yet, research about processes and relations between LEAs and principals in decentralized systems is still scant (Addi-Raccah & Gavish, 2010; Greany, 2022; Hooge, Moolenaar, van Look, Janssen, & Sleegers, 2019). Hence, this study conducted in the highly decentralized Swedish school system can add knowledge to this field of research.

Since 2010, Swedish principals and LEAs (municipalities and independent education providers) have a legally defined joint responsibility for schools’ systematic quality and improvement work. Prior to 2010, quality and improvement work was above all a responsibility of principals and teachers in local schools. At that time each school was required to write a yearly quality report documenting their results. However, as these reports rarely provided any systematic analysis of results or strategies for improvement, the requirement was withdrawn. The current Education Act (SFS 2010:800), introduced in 2010, states that LEAs and principals are responsible for systematically following up on the results of their schools but gives no further directions for how this should be documented, other than that it must be documented. Hence, each LEA is free to design its own model for documentation of its schools’ systematic quality work. However, in practice LEAs’ design options are limited as the Swedish Schools Inspectorate on a regular basis carry out supervision to ensure that systematic quality work and documentation comply with the authority’s general recommendations. To fulfil the recommendations, some LEAs rely heavily on standardized digital quality systems, while others design their own models to a greater extent, but also combine digital documentation with other resources, such as quality dialogs (Hanberger, Lindgren, & Lundström, 2016; Liljenberg & Andersson, 2021). To support the implementation of the new policy directives, LEA officials in positions such as quality strategists and developers of quality and improvement have, in Sweden (e.g. Hall, 2012) as in many other countries (e.g. James & Colebourne, 2004), become more common in recent years. However, our knowledge about these positions, their mandate and possible contribution in the legally defined joint responsibility for schools’ systematic quality and improvement work is limited. To date, previous research has primarily contributed to our understanding of the difficulties in brokering between LEAs and principals and the tensions involved in that interaction (e.g. Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020; Håkansson & Adolfsson, 2022). Hence, more research focusing on how the LEA level can support principals in policy implementation is of interest.

The aim of this study is to deepen our knowledge about the work and competences of LEA officials when implementing new policy directives for documentation of schools’ systematic quality work in the decentralized Swedish school system. The study focuses on LEA officials and principals in two LEAs, in this case two municipalities, selected as deviant and successful cases in terms of progress in taking joint responsibility for systematic quality and improvement work. Further, the analysis is narrowed to a specific focus on LEA officials’ translator competences in the implementation.

The study takes its point of departure in Scandinavian new institutionalism (Czarniawska, 2005; Czarniawska & Sevón, 2005; Røvik, 2008, 2016) assuming that ideas about schools’ systematic quality work as well as ideas about documentation travel between organizations. In order to be implemented, general ideas need to be translated, in the sense that they have to be interpreted, legitimized and materialized to fit and remain in organizations. For this to take place, Røvik (2008, 2016) argue that translators with translator competence, including knowledge, creativity, patience and strength, are crucial. Lack of translator competence is considered to be a factor that contributes to failure in translation processes. In this study, LEA officials with positions as quality strategists, developers and managers of quality and improvement are considered to be translators in their organizations. The research questions posed for the study are as follows:

• What strategies and actions do LEAs apply in the implementation of new policy directives for documentation of schools’ systematic quality work?

• How can progress in the translation processes be understood by focusing on the role taken by the LEA officials?

Previous Research on the Work of LEAs

Based on extensive international research on policy implementation, it has become evident that the intermediate level – the “middle tier” (e.g., the LEA level or the district level) plays a crucial role when it comes to capacity building that reaches beyond individual schools and individual school leaders (e.g., Anderson, 2006; Anderson & Young, 2018; Campbell & Murillo, 2005). In terms of the intermediate level, reforms, no matter how relevant they are, tend to create difficulties when it comes to implementation at the local level (Addi-Raccah & Gavish, 2010). As Rorrer, Skrla, and Scheurich (2008) conclude in their research review, “districts do matter” (p. 332).

From the leadership perspective, both Rorrer et al. (2008) and Hooge et al. (2019) conclude that leaders at the LEA level can contribute to successful implementation of educational policy if they orient their work toward supporting principals but also by working to align organizational structure and processes as well as mediating between national and local policy. Leithwood (2010), who followed up on 31 articles on high-performing school districts, concludes that in these districts, LEA officials focus on building a culture that encourages principals and LEAs to share their experiences and learn together. In addition, Honig (2008, 2012) argues that when LEA officials build good relations with principals and help them develop as instructional leaders, they also develop their competences as leaders of learning. Based on studies conducted in the English school system Greany (2022) argues that decentralization requires creative LEA officials that can adjust their leadership to local contexts and histories, especially if they are to support equitable improvement and performance for all students in all schools. Wilkinson, Edwards-Groves, Grootenboer, and Kemmis (2019) as well as Chapman (2019) add to this argument by stressing that, to respond to diversity, one size fits all formulas must be rejected and LEA officials rather foster site-based development initiatives. Although previous research stresses that principals and LEA officials can be resources for each other, a supervisory stance taken by LEA officials, where they monitor principals’ work, is still common. For example, in an action research study conducted by King Smith, Watkins, and Han (2020) in a large school district in the USA, the relationship between principals and LEA officials was initially characterized as hierarchical with major barriers to collaboration. However, a five-year strategic plan scaffolded by the researchers made it possible for principals and LEA officials to break down organizational silos and build a culture of learning across organizations. According to King Smith et al. making it is possible for LEAs to support policy implementation. Also, Muijs et al. (2011, p. 156) following up on large scale networking and collaboration initiatives in the UK conclude that, rather than taking on the role of managing and leading change, LEA officials need to work in partnership with principals to strengthening collaborative ways of working. For experienced LEA officials this implies a change in stance and practice that can be challenging to take on.

Of relevance to this study is also a review study conducted by Honig and Venkateswaran (2012). In this review, which includes studies focusing on the use of evidence in decision-making processes, i.e. how schools use data, research and other forms of evidence to improve practice, the analysis has a special focus on LEA officials as brokers between the LEA level and local schools. The analysis shows that LEA officials play an important role in providing school staff with relevant data but also in assisting in the sense-making of data. In these sense-making processes, LEA officials had a significant role as facilitators of challenging conversations about evidence which was fundamental for addressing specific problems of teaching practice. Further, LEA officials created and communicated professional expectations that contributed to principals and school staffs’ use of evidence in their decision-making, but they also arranged practices where they could “dig into” data and, with support from LEA officials, make their own conclusions and generate their own ideas about actions they might take in response. Following up on the analysis, Honig and Venkateswaran concluded that relationships between LEA officials and school staff deeply matter for how data is used in schools. Consequently, they stated that further research is needed to better understand such relationships. Although, Honig and Venkateswaran’s (2012) review study primarily includes research conducted in the USA similar conclusions can be found in studies conducted in other national contexts (e.g., Tournier, Chimier, & Jones, 2023).

Examining research about LEA officials in the Nordic context, it can initially be concluded that, except for studies focusing on superintendents (Henriksen & Aas, 2021; Moos, Nihlfors, & Paulsen, 2016), research within this field is sparse (e.g., Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020; Liljenberg & Andersson, 2021). However, Mausethagen, Prøitz, and Skedsmo (2018), through the research project Practices of Data Use in Municipalities and Schools (PraDa), made a significant contribution to the field. In this project which included three Norwegian municipalities, they, among other things, analyzed how LEA officials used data and approached principals (Prøitz, Mausethagen, & Skedsmo, 2021). In the analysis, they conclude that when LEA officials are held accountable for student results, they find it essential to follow up on principals’ work. In doing this, two different governing styles could be identified: one controlling and one developing. However, in order to make conclusions regarding differences in outcome between these governing styles, the researchers recommend further studies focusing on LEA officials’ practical actions and their consequences. In a Swedish study of school governance conducted in a larger LEA Adolfsson and Alvunger (2020) conclude that a controlling governing style, expressed by regular comparison of school results and centralized development initiatives to improve student results, made principals critical to the LEA level and caused them to perceive their professional autonomy as being limited. In another study by Håkansson and Adolfsson (2022), the results indicate that standardization of schools’ documentation made it possible for the LEA to follow up and identify strengths and weaknesses in the schools. However, when results were decreasing or quality in analysis was lacking, no strategies for how to give individual support existed.

To conclude, despite the fact that the importance of the LEA level is currently well known, research linked to the decentralized Swedish school context has, compared with international research, put less focus on LEA officials and how they contribute to the joint responsibility for schools’ systematic quality and improvement work in successful LEAs. This may be a consequence of the fact that many Swedish LEAs still struggle with fulfilling their obligations (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2015; Skolinspektionen, 2014). The selection of deviant and successful cases in terms of progress in implementing joint responsibility for systematic quality and improvement work, accordingly, gives relevance to this study. Moreover, as stated by Håkansson and Adolfsson (2022), research focusing on LEAs in both small and mid-sized municipalities is needed. Further, they also recommend future studies to focus more specifically on microprocesses, including LEA officials and principals, thus adopting a perspective that can help practitioners reflect on the relationships and processes that take place within their own organizations, which is a perspective that this study makes a contribution to.

Theoretical Framework

Theoretically, a point of departure is taken in Scandinavian new institutionalism (Czarniawska, 2005; Czarniawska & Sevón, 2005; Røvik, 2008, 2016) and the assumption that ideas, in this case ideas about schools’ systematic quality work as well as ideas about documentation, always undergo changes as they travel through contexts and actors. In order to be implemented, general ideas need to be translated, in the sense that they have to be interpreted, legitimized and materialized to fit and remain in organizations. Transformation of ideas occurs as actors try to make sense of them and do so in relation to the specific situation of their organizational context and in relation to previous ideas and situations that they have been part of. Hence, translation takes inspiration from the work of Weick (1995) and the understanding of sense-making as a retrospective process that takes place in organizations when actors, to reduce the complexity of “new” situations or ideas, make pragmatic interpretations based on their previous experiences.

More precisely, this study builds on Røvik’s understanding of translation. Although implementation and translation processes are context-specific and, hence, unique for each specific context, Rovik (2008, 2016) takes a pragmatic stance in relation to translation and argues that different ways of dealing with translation may be more or less successful in practice. What “successful” means is, of course, dependent on whose perspective one takes. Røvik (2008) argues that in a successful translation process, the idea and the way the idea has been materialized in the specific context, for example as routines and tools, contributes to fostering desired and sustainable change for those involved in practice. Thus, a successful translation process implies that the idea is not rejected or decoupled from practice, nor does it change practice in undesired ways. Still, a successful translation process provides room for the interpretation and adaption of the idea to the local context. In addition, Røvik argues that the performance of the translation process and the outcome, to a large extent, is dependent on “translator competences,” i.e., the skills of key actors given the role of translators in the organization. Translators need knowledge of the translation processes as well as the context. Moreover, translators need to be creative, patient and, finally, competent to deal with resistance to the new ideas that may arise. Røvik (2008) further emphasizes that translator competences or similar concepts for the same phenomena have not only been overlooked in organizational studies but also in practice. Accordingly, failure in translation processes derives from a misunderstanding of organizations as more or less identical systems contributing to an understanding of translations as a rather simple process. However, knowledge of contexts and, hence, of in what way the idea in question can and should be transformed is essential for a successful translation process.

In the following, the four skills of translators that Røvik (2008, 2016) presents as essential will be described in more detail. A similar compressed presentation of Røvik’s translator competence was previously done by Møller (2019). First, as noted above, knowledge is needed. Translators need to have a deep understanding of the idea in question. Deep understanding makes it possible to identify conflicts and ambiguities and, hence, be prepared to handle these if required to do so. Translators also need to have deep knowledge of contexts, the context from which the idea comes as well as the context to which the idea is to be implemented. Knowledge of context includes knowledge about regulative aspects, such as laws and mandatory directives, and normative elements that form routines, expectations and attitudes about how work should be done to be appropriate. Finally, cultural-cognitive elements are linked to actors’ shared cognitive and discursive conceptions of legitimate beliefs and common sense (Scott, 2008). Also, knowledge about the local history of the organization, past experiences and possible failures, as well as knowledge about any competing ideas, is crucial for the translator’s ability to act in line with the needs of the organization and, thus, to become credible and gain legitimacy in the translation process. Second, translators must be creative. To make the idea understandable in the organization, the translator must be able to verbalize the idea and carefully introduce new concepts. In addition, the translator must be knowledgeable in respect to making decisions about to what extent the organization should follow the way other organizations, similar to their own organization, have translated the idea into practice. Or, if the idea falls into the category of a popular and more general idea (i.e. an institutionalized super standard) suitable for any kind of organization (Røvik, 2002), they must have the creativity to make adjustments based on the local context. Third, the translator needs to understand that change in organizations takes time. Thus, the translator must be patient and hold on to the idea in order to capture how the translation process unfolds in practice. Finally, the fourth skill that translators need to possess is strength. As translation processes also imply change processes, there are always actors that have an interest in preserving the existing way of working or advocate a divergent way from that of the translator. To manage this, the translator needs to identify potential conflicts and power plays among actors in the organization, but also be willing to consider different perspectives in order to build legitimacy and collective understandings.

Method

This section describes the design of the study and the selection of LEAs, as well as the methods by which data were collected and analyzed.

Study Design and Selection of LEAs

The study used a multiple-case study design. A case study design is a research method recommended when complex social phenomena are to be investigated in their real-life context (Yin, 2009). Case studies strive to illustrate particular situations by giving detailed descriptions of participants’ lived experiences, thoughts and understandings about the situations in which they take part (Geertz, 1973). Empirically, this study is based on data from two Swedish LEAs (Lake Municipality and Sea Municipality) selected as deviant and successful cases (Flyvbjerg, 2001). A deviant case, Flyvbjerg (2001, p. 77) argues “is selected to obtain information on unusual cases which can be especially problematic or especially good in a more closely defined sense.”

Our selection of LEAs is based on the Swedish Schools Inspectorate’s regular supervision reports. The two LEAs chosen for this study had for several years worked hard to determine and implement their ideas about how joint responsibility for quality and improvement work should be taken. In the regular supervision conducted by the Inspectorate none of them received any remarks on their systematic quality and improvement work. In addition, employee surveys in the two LEAs showed a positive trend when it came to principals’ leadership and responsibility for school improvement. Both LEAs are part of municipalities with about 40,000 inhabitants. On a national scale, this is about the size of nearly half of Swedish municipalities. In addition, the two LEAs have about the same political governance, number of schools and achieve similar results in relation to prerequisites. Consequently, the two LEAs have several similarities. The study included the superintendents and the LEA officials responsible for the compulsory schools within the two municipalities and the specific principals with responsibility for compulsory schools.

Documents and Interviews

Data were acquired from an initial analysis of documents providing information about the LEA organizations and about the schools’ systematic quality work. Information was also acquired from semi-structured individual interviews with superintendents (n = 3), LEA officials working with quality and improvement work at the LEA level (n = 3) and a strategic selection of principals (n = 16) working in different school areas in the municipalities and with various years of employment in the position (Table 1). In the interviews, a process-oriented approach was taken to cover the years from the introduction of the new policy directives to the present. The interview questions covered topics such as organizational issues, artifacts (e.g. tools for systematic documentation and forums for communication), relationships and mandates. Each interview lasted 60–75 min, was audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim. All respondents gave written informed consent to participate in the study.

Table 1. Overview of the participants.

LEA organization	LEA level	Years in position	School Level	Years in position
Lake Municipality	Superintendent A	2	Principal 1	> 15
	Superintendent B	2	Principal 2	< 5
	LEA official	10	Principal 3	> 5
			Principal 4	< 5
			Principal 5	> 5
			Principal 6	> 25
			Principal 7	< 5
			Principal 8	> 10
Sea Municipality	Superintendent	10	Principal 1	> 10
	LEA official A	2	Principal 2	> 10
	LEA official B	5	Principal 3	> 10
			Principal 4	> 25
			Principal 5	> 25
			Principal 6	< 5
			Principal 7	< 5
			Principal 8	< 5

Analysis

Initially, the interviews were read several times to get a good sense of the whole. The reading, in combination with doing the literature review of the field, generated thoughts and reflections that provided input for further analysis. In the first step of the analysis, a detailed examination of data was conducted to identify emerging themes and patterns responding to the overall purpose of the study. In this step, qualitative content analysis was used (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and open questions (Why?, How?, What?, Who? and When?) asked to the data material to gain knowledge about strategies and actions in the implementation of the new policy directives (i.e., designing and setting up a new model for documentation of schools’ systematic quality work) in the two LEAs. By the end of this analytical step, the theoretical framing of translation (Czarniawska, 2005; Czarniawska & Sevón, 2005), including interpretation and sensemaking, materialization and legitimization of ideas into practice, was added to the analysis. The second step of the analysis focused on the role of LEA officials in the translation processes. Based on Røvik’s (2008) concept of translator competence, the four dimensions of skills characterizing a competent translator (knowledge, creativity, practice and strength) were used to analyze how the work of LEA officials was presented by others and how the LEA officials themselves talked about their role in the translation processes. Coding and analysis can thus be characterized as both data-driven and concept-driven (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009).

Results

Here, the results of the study are presented in five sections. The first section gives an overview of the work of LEAs, i.e., the strategies and actions used in the implementation of the new policy directives for documentation of schools’ systematic quality work. In the following four sections, the role taken by the LEA officials through their attributes in terms of translator competences such as their knowledge, creativity, patience and strength are presented.

LEAs’ Strategies and Actions in the Implementation

The implementation of the new policy directives for documentation of schools’ systematic quality work in Lake Municipality was initiated more than 10 years ago. At that time, documentation of schools’ systematic quality work was written based on predefined questions sent to the principals by the superintendents. As the questions primarily asked what activities they had done, the principals perceived documentation to be something they did for someone else. Reinforced by the fact that they sent their documentation up in the system but never received any response, they also perceived systematic quality work to be “a series of black holes.” Principal 6 explained this:

I remember certain times when I was going to do the documentation. I ran around the day before and asked ‘Has anyone done anything?’, trying to satisfy the LEA level. But this has turned around completely.

Thus, when materializing the idea of documentation of schools’ systematic quality work, it first and foremost became important for the LEA to set up a model of value for those who worked in the schools. Second, it also became important to make a change in what should be documented. In the new model, it was the results of what they have done, the analysis of the results and their strategies to improve the results further that should be documented. Making this change entailed a major shift in how to understand systematic quality work and the results. This meant that principals and teachers had to adapt the fact that the results mirrored the work they had done. The LEA official concluded that it took almost five years until changes in understanding could also be detected in the documentation in the sense that it provided a good picture of students’ development and learning together with strategies for how to improve teaching to support further improvement. That it took so long depended on the fact that principals and teachers had to learn how to make analyses of student data. To support them, continuing professional development was given priority. The LEA also invested in a three-year collaborative research project with a university to get further support in this. Based on these prerequisites, no predefined strategy for analyses was provided to the principals; instead, they were trusted to develop their own. The LEA official explained that their strategy was to empower the principals to make them better at understanding the needs of their respective school organizations. Following this strategy required that the LEA level should not review the analyses of the schools done by principals and teachers, but rather continue the analysis on an aggregated level. As a result, this gave the principals ownership of their analysis and documentation. Principal 6 concluded that this approach meant that “I have never felt controlled. I have just felt encouraged.”

A few years ahead of the implementation of the new policy directives in Sea Municipality, a “visionary document,” mainly authored by the former director of the LEA, had been presented. This document, based on educational research, addressed three prioritized themes for the LEA level and the schools: inclusive education, formative education and collaborative learning. The document was well received by principals and teachers as it empowered them to keep the focus on teaching and learning, as stressed by Principal 6:

I still think it is crucial. And it is a strength, I think, that it somehow also signals trust and confidence in employees.

Likewise, the visionary document gave the LEA officials a direction as to what to include in the new model for documentation, but it also provided an insight into the fact that this implied a major change compared with previous documentation. Also, in Sea Municipality, documentation of school’s systematic quality work was something that the principals had experienced being negative. Documentation was something they had done to satisfy “someone else” but also something burdensome that they had to take a large responsibility for, since the previous system did not have any common elements. With the new model based on the visionary document, principals’ attitude toward documentation had changed. Instead of doubting their local invented model they now got something to hold on to that included mutually agreed upon themes for benchmarking. Moreover, the LEA officials in Sea Municipality had chosen to provide the principals with guidelines for how to conduct their analyses and set directions for further improvement. To further support them, they organized workshops and were available for individual support when needed. Despite the demands of alignment in the documentation, the principals had the ability to make local adjustments when needed. Overall, the documentation of schools’ systematic quality work had in a relatively short time taken major steps in its development. Despite this, the LEA officials stated that now, more than ever before, it was important that they continued the work that they had started. This, they noted, was important because they needed to be able to find out if documentation also gave them the information they required in order to allocate resources and set strategies to provide equal education for all students.

In conclusion, implementing the new policy directives for documentation of schools’ systematic quality work included strategies and actions to improve the relevance of documentation for the schools and to bring about a changed understanding of results supported by continuing professional development, as well as strategies and actions to empower principals and teachers in taking responsibility for quality and improvement in their schools based on research within this area. In the implementation, the LEA officials appeared to be key actors. The following sections focus on how they, based on their competence in their role as translators, contributed to the translation processes.

Attribute of LEA Officials’ Knowledge

In terms of translator competence, the LEA officials in both municipalities had previously worked as principals for several years. This meant that they had substantial knowledge about the principals’ situation and about difficulties in documenting schools’ systematic quality work. Principal 9 from Sea Municipality stated that this gave the LEA official “cultural competence.” The LEA officials also had considerable knowledge about the requirements that documentation had to fulfil according to the Swedish Schools Inspectorate but also knowledge about how to extract relevant data from the digital systems to conduct an analysis based on different variables. All of this, they noted, was of great importance in their ambition to educate and empower the principals to make decisions for school improvement based on systematic analyses and documentation. The two superintendents in Lake Municipality explained their view on the LEA official’s knowledge as follows:

Superintendent A: The LEA official is available for the principal if there is anyone who needs help with studying data and conducting the first analysis of the results. It is not always what you, as a principal, know about how to handle it. It is the same for us. It is not always that we can know what to do. We need help in sorting the results so that we can go deeper in the analysis and be able to make wise decisions.

Superintendent B: We get very qualified support from him that I think is valuable for us in order to be able to set the direction for this organization.

In addition, the LEA officials’ knowledge also established them as being credible with politicians and external stakeholders. Despite the fact that the LEA officials had extensive knowledge themselves, the principals also highlighted that the LEA officials showed great interest in their knowledge and opinions, thus enabling them to improve the basis for the documentation even further. For example, Principal 2 in Lake Municipality stated:

He [the LEA official] can come to a meeting with a question and say, “We need to follow up on these results in a better way. We cannot get enough information in the way that we do it today.” Then we have discussions to find ways that become relevant to us, but at the same time, make us improve our analysis so that we can get the information that we need to make decisions. In that way, we get involved.

Attribute of LEA Officials’ Creativity

As the previous requirement for yearly quality reports had been withdrawn in favor of locally decided upon models for documentation of systematic quality work, the situation had opened up the possibility for creativity. Although many different models could be chosen, the models had to comply with the Swedish Schools Inspectorate’s general recommendations to pass without remarks in their regular supervision. In addition, local politicians also requested documentation of a range of aspects. For example, in Sea Municipality, the visionary document stressed the importance of students’ learning identity, an aspect that both LEA officials and principals had to work hard to find a way to follow up on and make suitable for documentation. Principal 3 from the Sea Municipality reflected on the situation by saying:

We have had seminars where they have explained how the process has gone so far, “Yes, now we have come this far. What do you think about it?”, and we have been given the opportunity to reflect on it, and it has been further developed and presented again.

Also, in Lake Municipality, the LEA official’s creativity was taken into account in different ways. The superintendents explained that the LEA official’s role involved internal and external scanning to make sure that their model for documentation did not overlook any new regulations but also to come up with ideas and suggestions for how they could adjust their local documentation to meet changes. For example, Principal 8 from Lake Municipality stressed that when the Swedish Schools Inspectorate started to pay extra attention to how they analyzed and documented quality in the leisure centers, she turned to the LEA official to get support and ideas for how to improve both analysis and documentation.

Attribute of LEA Officials’ Patience

In both municipalities, the time perspective for the implementation of the new policy directives for documentation of schools’ systematic quality work was several years. This gave the LEA officials the opportunity to be patient and, hence, well prepared when new steps were to be taken. In Sea Municipality, LEA official A reflected on this by saying:

Now that we have set this, it is very important that we do not turn and change immediately. Rather, we must try to keep this for a couple or three years at least and only make small changes … To be able to evaluate what works well, you have to know exactly how it works and to know that you have to have done it at least a couple of times to really know how it works. Then, you can do changes.

The LEA officials’ patience was also perceived by the principals. They took notice of LEA officials’ patience when they took part in meetings or when they turned to them for individual support. The principals used words such as systematic, thoughtful and supportive to describe their views, as in the following comment made by Principal 4 from Sea Municipality:

It feels like there is a structure, there is a plan for everything. Sometimes, when you are in the middle of it, you do not see the whole. But then, when you start looking back, it is clear that there is a red thread¹ running through the work.

Also, in Lake Municipality, the LEA official was well aware of the need to have patience and continue the translation process over a long time period. The LEA official explained:

I think that many people underestimate the importance of doing the same. It will be boring, they think. No, it is not boring, it is good, it creates security, and it contributes to the common story. It is my job to keep the story and the systematics alive and recurring all the time. Never compromise on it.

Consequently, by firmly establishing the new models for documentation, capacity was built in the organizations but also confidence, something that the principals in both municipalities argued was something that principals and teachers were in great need of due to the intensity of the reforms in the Swedish school system that they were all part of.

Attribute of LEA Officials’ Strength

When new principals started their work in the municipalities, the LEA officials’ strength proved to be of particular importance. The LEA official from Lake Municipality explained:

I have the responsibility to honor our model and keep it maintained, because there are always forces in other directions. It feels like a law of nature. When new people come in, they say this is not what we did in my previous municipality. No, but that is the way we do it here. This is probably the mandate that I have which is not to let anyone step out of the framework that we have decided.

Moreover, as learning is a demanding process that in many instances requires courage to review and question your own work, the LEA officials also had to show their strength in order to actually help the principals to learn and, thus, empower them further. LEA official B from the Sea Municipality concluded that some principals would truly have a hard time if they did not receive support from the LEA level. For the LEA officials, this part of their work meant that they had to have confidence to ask the hard and challenging questions in order to help the principals see both the strengths and weaknesses in their documentation. However, to do this in a respectful manner was a balancing act that had to be taken into account so as not to lose trust in the organization. Principal 4 from Lake Municipality explained what this had meant for her and her colleagues:

It may be that we have learned, that he [the LEA official] probably thinks that we are doing better now. Otherwise, he usually asks critical questions in areas where he wonders, “Is it really like this?” So that it is not just a nice story. For us, it has been a process to actually own the document. I think that is a crucial point. You have to have an ownership so that you understand what is really there.

In conclusion, by focusing on the role taken by the LEA officials in the translation processes, progress can be understood based on their broad knowledge within the field of formal regulations and systematic quality work as well as their context-specific knowledge from previously working as principals. Further, their creativity supported the translation of LEAs’ responsibility for systematically following up on their results, as stated in the Education Act, and implementing materialized models for documentation of schools’ systematic quality work that also met local needs and ambitions. Being patient and setting aside a longer-term perspective for translation made it possible for principals and teachers to get a collective understanding of the model as well as to learn and gain confidence about how to work with the new model in their schools. Finally, the strength to deal with divergent ideas and to critically examine their own work contributed to holding the translation processes together.

Discussion and Conclusions

The aim of this study was to deepen our knowledge about the work and competences of LEA officials when implementing new policy directives for documentation of schools’ systematic quality work in the decentralized Swedish school system. Two research questions directed the analytical work. Starting in the inductive analysis addressing the first research question, What strategies and actions do LEAs apply in the implementation of new policy directives for documentation of schools’ systematic quality work?, the analysis identified strategies and actions in both municipalities to increase relevance for principals and schools through changes in what was to be documented and how to understand results supported by research-based continuing professional development to empower principals and teachers to take responsibility for quality and improvement in their schools. In both municipalities a bottom-up perspective permeated the strategies. In Lake Municipality the bottom-up perspective was especially prominent as they decided not to assist principals with guidelines for analysis or any other predefined templates, but rather give time to continuing professional development. In a second step, the analysis took its theoretical point of departure from Røvik’s (2008, 2016) understanding of translation and the analytical framework of translator competence based on four skills: knowledge, creativity, patience and strength. Regarding the second research question, How can progress in the translation processes be understood by focusing on the role taken by the LEA officials?, the analysis revealed that the LEA officials in both municipalities achieved legitimacy in their work and contributed to progress in the translation processes based on their broad knowledge and practical experiences from principalship, their willingness to consider principals’ perspectives and adjust to local needs, together with their long-term perspective and skills to maintain cohesion. Thus, overall, there is a brokering interaction that occurs between LEAs and principals to build confidence and capacity in the organization.

As noted in the introduction, principals and LEAs in the decentralized Swedish school system have since 2010 been assigned a legally defined joint responsibility for systematic quality and improvement work, as the result of a legislation introduced to reach equity in education both between and within schools. As Prøitz et al. (2021) conclude, this is in line with a “global policy trend in education […] assigning responsibility for educational change and improving students’ learning outcomes at the municipal/district level” (p. 2). This trend can, of course, contribute to a higher degree of centralized initiatives at the district level at the expense of schools’ local needs and principals and teachers’ professional knowledge. However, to assign responsibility at the LEA level can, based on previous research, also be considered a wise strategy, as LEAs can support policy implementation at the local level (Coburn, 2006; Rorrer et al., 2008). Based on the results of this study, translator competence at the LEA level as well as trustful relationships throughout the wider organization seem to be critical prerequisites for making this possible.

Previous research stresses that when LEAs, based on the information they get from the documentation of schools’ systematic quality work, make decisions about actions and activities to be implemented in the local schools, their centralized top-down strategies are perceived by principals as a restriction of local autonomy. Moreover, when actions and activities do not take the local context into account, LEAs’ intentions to give support are further perceived as controlling. This contributes to additional tension between the LEA level and the principals (Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020; Adolfsson & Håkansson, 2021). The two municipalities included in this study are, however, examples of the opposite. According to the findings of this study, a trusting relationship between the LEA level and the principals dominated, thus contributing to finding a good balance between the central LEA and the local schools and providing good conditions for the implementation of new models for documentation. Although the models for documentation were common for all schools, the models opened up the possibility for principals and teachers in the local schools to decide about what strategies to try out in order to improve the results that were identified. Upholding joint responsibility meant that LEAs were to support principals and local schools based on their level of competence and the needs they brought forward. This division of responsibilities prevented LEA officials from “stepping into” the principals’ arena, but also from implementing general ideas without adoption to local conditions. However, it also prevented principals and local schools from underperforming without being noticed and without getting sufficient support from the LEA level. In the implementation, the joint responsibility was also promoted by including the principals in the process of developing and revising the models for documentation, a translation process that strengthened both the principals and LEA officials’ knowledge, thus contributing to the collective capacity of the organization. On a more general level, the results of this study reveal the importance of finding a balance between steering and supporting, that is, a balance that ensures a trusting relationship among professionals at all levels in the organization.

With regard to limitations and advantages, it is important to emphasize that the results of this study can be of great value for practitioners as the results point out crucial aspects in terms of knowledge, roles and relationships in order for joint responsibility between the LEA level and principals to be possible. The study does not claim to give generalizable results; rather, with its unique focus on translator competences it provides an optimistic and contrasting picture of LEAs and principals’ possibility to take joint responsibility for schools’ systematic quality and improvement work. Research about the LEA level and the work of LEA officials in decentralized school systems, is as stated in the beginning limited; hence, this study provides an important contribution. In addition, Håkansson and Adolfsson (2022) stress the importance of studies conducted in small and mid-sized LEA organizations, which this article is an example of. In its entirety the study illuminates how the two Swedish municipalities work to implement new models for documentation of schools’ systematic quality work recognizing the LEA officials’ translator competences. Moreover, the study contributes to research and practice by once again highlighting the importance of empowerment, confidence and trust when implementing new policy directives in local schools.

Disclosure Statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by The Swedish Research Council: [grant number 2021-03821; Vetenskapsrådet [2021-03821].

Notes

1. A Swedish metaphor referring to a main theme, essence or motif that ties disparate elements together.