The need for recognised educational infrastructures to support superintendents’ professional development

ABSTRACT

This article aims to explore educational infrastructures for superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development and to analyse what kind of professional development these infrastructures bolster. The article builds on a qualitative case study focusing on the central municipal level in Sweden. Findings are based on data from digitally conducted interviews with superintendents and deputy superintendents. The results show that prevailing infrastructures mainly emphasise rational understandings of knowledge and people and practical skills, making it possible for superintendents to carry out their everyday tasks. To a lesser extent, infrastructures support questioning the taken-for-granted understandings on school leadership and challenge and reshape collective professional knowledge in partnership with other professionals. Therefore, the results indicate that theory and research are seldom used as a basis for professional development. In addition, the analysis also showed that superintendents’ professional development is more linked to personal initiatives and motivation rather than planned initiatives the municipal and/or state-level administration designed. The article concludes that infrastructure design, at different levels of the school system, must consider different approaches for professional development given the complexity of and expectations on superintendents’ work.

KEYWORDS:

• Educational infrastructure
• superintendent
• professional development
• Sweden

Introduction

Decentralisation reforms from the 1990s onwards have introduced new frames for educational governance worldwide (Honig and Rainey 2012). In these transformed educational landscapes middle-tier leadership of Local Education Authorities (LEAs) has been revealed as a key factor for successful school improvement and raising students’ results (e.g. Lee et al. 2012, Farrell and Coburn 2017). Therefore, as CEOs and responsible for the municipality’s schools, superintendent’s knowledge and experience are crucial (Nir 2014). During the last decade there has been an increase in task for the LEAs which has contributed to a higher number of leaders in school administration both on the district and school level. At the same time, Sweden has experienced an increased mobility among principals and superintendents (Thelin 2020). A fast societal development has rendered an increased heterogeneity in how schools are governed and what is expected of professional school leaders (Alvesson 2019). This also raises questions on school leaders’ competence and what is considered professional development. School leaders’ education and professional development is a concern both for an individual’s career and for the organisation’s development. Because recruiting principals and superintendents is a task for the LEAs, it also raises the questions on what kind of professional development is available and sought out and what kind of infrastructure can underpin such professional development.

The concept of ‘educational infrastructures’ has received increased attention for understanding professional development and school improvement in various contexts and levels of school systems in recent decades. Hopkins and Woulfin (2015), for instance, detailed that educational infrastructures are often pictured as scaffolds or networks facilitating system improvement. Analogously, infrastructures are typically viewed as formalised structures built to underpin school improvement in different levels of school systems (state, district, local). Research has revealed that teachers and leaders, regardless of infrastructure design, must also receive opportunities to interact and learn from one another around a locally defined vision to reduce the risk for impeding top-down approaches (Hopkins and Woulfin 2015).

Hopkins and Woulfin (2015) also pointed out the importance of identifying key components and characteristics of educational infrastructures across different contexts for broadening the understanding of school system improvement and learning among professionals. That is, school systems across the globe face similar challenges in developing infrastructures that can bolster districts’, principals’ and teachers’ capacity and professional development. In this regard, the Swedish school system, which is often portrayed as an example of decentralisation and marketisation (see e.g. Lundahl 2002, Allen 2010, Seashore Louis 2013) becomes a valuable case. In Sweden LEAs are accountable for school results, school improvement and administrative obligations regulated in the educational act. The prevailing directives clarify that all school organisers (public and independent) are required to have a superintendent, but no formal directives exist on which competence he or she must occupy or develop (see e.g. Government Bill 2017/18:182, Education Act 2010:800). This also applies to directives regarding deputy superintendents with responsibility for different school areas and/or for specific school forms (e.g. pre-school, compulsory school and upper secondary school), which is common in larger municipalities. Thus, local school authorities appoint their superintendents and deputy superintendents and assess what competence they should have because there is no formal national requirement for the position.

With regard to school principals, the current directives (Education Act 2010: 800) stipulate that all school organisers must confirm that newly appointed principals attend the National School Leadership Training Programme within one year from employment. The programme’s content (e.g. curricula, study pace, teaching methods) is to a large extent formulated by the Swedish National Agency for Education. Participating universities appeal to organise the programme for a period of six years (see e.g. Brauckmann et al. 2020). A majority of superintendents and deputy superintendents in Sweden have a background as principals and therefore they often have completed the mandatory programme. At the LEA level, there are at times mandatory courses that new leaders are expected to take. These courses are often a more administrative education that address all sorts of municipality leaders.

Accordingly, formal educational requirements in the Swedish school system are rather few and less explicit. In the decentralised governance model, educational infrastructures designed to support superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development can vary between contexts; therefore, they support different types of knowledge and expertise. However, there is limited knowledge both on what current infrastructures in local municipalities look like and on how they impinge on competence as well as superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development at the central municipal level. Such knowledge on LEAs seems relevant, both from an international and national perspective (cf. Anderson 2013).

In this article, the focus is on superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development using Sweden as an example. The article takes its theoretical point of departure in former work on school leaders’ professional development (see e.g. Logan and Dempster 1992, Dempster and Beere 1996) and an analytical framework built up by four approaches to school leaders’ professional development: ‘revisionism’, ‘corporatism’, ‘experimentalism’ and ‘transformatism’ (also detailed further below). This article aims to analyse educational infrastructures in Sweden at the central municipal level and how these infrastructures bolster superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development. The following research questions directed the analytical work:

• What do the educational infrastructures for superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development at the central municipal level in Sweden look like?

• Which approaches for professional development are more or less prominent in the Swedish context?

The article is structured as follows: First, the professional development concept is presented. The following section details material and methods. In the subsequent section, the results are presented in two sub-sections, each addressing one research question. The article ends with a discussion and conclusion embracing some recommendations for future research.

School leadership and professional development

Given that school leadership is crucial for student learning and schools’ results, the demands have increase for school leaders’ professional knowledge and skills. Consequently, the interest of school leaders’ professional development and how to arrange for high-quality learning has also increased (Robinson et al. 2008, Goldring et al. 2012, Leithwood et al. 2020). In this regard, research on school leaders’ continuing professional development emphasises its potential for professional learning and developing a professional knowledge base. However, it also highlights challenges, especially in terms of time, relations and trust (Newmann et al. 2000, Goldring et al. 2012). In many contexts, the initiative and responsibility for school leaders’ professional development is individual. There is a tradition in Sweden that professional development is a part of the work and should be included in the ordinary workday. Given that state and LEAs have become increasingly aware of the need to improve school leaders’ knowledge and skills, they have also extended their offer of courses and professional development for school leaders. An important base for school improvement is to form learning organisations. Hence, national models and central initiatives have increased, although they tend to miss out on local perspectives and to some extent limit professional autonomy (Aas and Blom 2017, Kirsten and Carlbaum 2020, Kronqvist Håård 2021). Mainly the initiatives are addressed towards teachers and principals and do not include leaders on the LEA level.

Up until now, research on school leaders’ professional development has shown there is no best method or strategy. Rather, a mix of strategies and methods, embedded in practice and adjusted to local needs, is recommended (Newmann et al. 2000, Goldring et al. 2012). Often a mix of administrative and educational matters are addressed. However, if school leaders’ professional development should contribute to improving teaching, it has to have a clear focus on students’ results. Moreover, it needs to consider the local school context as contextual conditions frame leadership practices and leadership strategies (Schwarz and Brauckmann 2015, Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz and Pashiardis 2022). In addition, school leaders need to support in their learning from colleagues as well as from external expertise (cf. Hallinger 2011, Ärlestig 2012, Liljenberg and Wrethander 2020). For example, Emstad and Birkeland (2021), who worked together with Norwegian school leaders in a research and professional development project, concluded that if school leaders are to build professional knowledge in a sense that actually challenges prevailing assumptions, they have to be part of professional learning communities and learn together with other school leaders. However, as learning in communities is limited to its members’ knowledge and skills (Hirsh and Hord 2008), external support from the researchers in their role as facilitators turned out to be necessary.

Another important result of the current body of research details that if LEAs are to develop professional learning communities for school leaders, they must consider aspects such as relations, time, structures and competence (e.g. Servais et al. 2009, Liljenberg 2021). The results of Nehez’s (2019) study of principals’ professional development conducted in the Swedish context confirmed these results. In Nehez’s study, the arrangements of practice (lack of time and tense relations) did not foster professional learning, but rather contributed to principals focusing on ‘practical issues’, and they ‘pretended to be successful’ and ‘refrained external support’.

To conclude, although school leaders’ professional development has become a concern of educational authorities and scholars in many countries (Huber 2013), the current body of research still stands out as rather fragmented. For instance, few studies have approached the field from a school system perspective, examining educational infrastructures from a wider perspective. In addition, less research has been conducted in countries characterised by decentralised and marked–adopted governance models in which educational infrastructures for professional learning are rather few and informal. Also, hitherto, most research has been conducted within Anglo-Saxon countries. In this regard, the Nordic countries stand out as relevant given a somewhat different tradition regarding governance and values forming a specific context for superintendents and deputy superintendents (see e.g. Moos 2013, Moos et al. 2016). Consequently, the current article offers a valuable contribution to the current body of research, as well as to the development of continuing professional development for superintendents and deputy-superintendents globally, in addition to highlighting the variation among local contexts.

Material and methods

This article is part of a larger project focusing on school leaders’ (superintendents, deputy superintendents and principals) competences, professional development and careers. The qualitative case study design had a purposive sampling (Merriam 1998). Case study design is beneficial when a specific phenomenon, in this case competence, professional development and career for school leaders, in specific contexts are to be understood in depth. The purposive sampling strategy was used to include superintendents and deputy superintendents from a wide variety of municipalities (see Table 1). In Sweden, there are 290 local municipalities with between 2,000 and 900,000 inhabitants (SKL 2016). Only three municipalities have over 300,000 inhabitants. The average municipality in Sweden have about 40,000 inhabitants. In addition to being classified based on the number of inhabitants, the municipalities are also classified based on their location: 1a) municipalities with major cities, 1b) municipalities close to major cities, 2a) municipalities with large cities, 2b) municipalities close to large cities, 3a) municipalities with smaller cities, 3b) municipalities close to smaller cities and 3c) rural municipalities. For the sample, nine municipalities were selected with between 2,000 and 135,000 inhabitants. The municipalities’ locations give a broad representation of Sweden and its heterogeneity.

Table 1. Sample of municipalities and interviewees.

Municipality	Inhabitants	Interviewee – Position	Years in the position
A	23 000	Superintendent	2
B	23 000	Superintendent	12
C	95 000	Superintendent	5
D	8 000	Superintendent	13
E	135 000	Area managers	3 & 5
F	2 000	Superintendent	3
G	85 000	Area manager	7
H	27 000	Compulsory school Manager	3
J	40 000	Compulsory School Manager	2

The article builds on data from nine digital interviews conducted with five superintendents and five deputy superintendents in the selected municipalities. A request for participation was sent to the respondents by email. In one municipality, a deputy superintendent wanted to be interviewed together with a colleague. In order not to lose their participation, this was approved. All superintendents and deputy superintendents, both men and women, and based on the different sizes of the municipalities, have responsibility for one or more school forms and a different number of employees. The participating superintendents and deputy superintendents have between two and thirteen years of experience in their current position.

An interview guide structured by broader themes and open questions was designed. The themes gave superintendents and deputy superintendents the opportunity to reflect upon and freely speak about their professional development, its format and content and if it had contributed to their learning. They were also interviewed about the professional development that was offered to them and that the principals in the municipality requested. When needed, follow-up questions were asked to obtain clarifications and exemplifications. The interviews lasted about 60 minutes. Afterwards, the interviews were transcribed verbatim.

In the first phase of the analytical work, transcripts were examined several times to attain an overall image and detect emerging themes on current infrastructures for superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development according to the first research question. In this step of the analysis, qualitative content analysis with open categories was conducted (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). Themes that emerged were, for example, required and needed competence, formal and informal professional development, responsibility and frequency.

In the second phase of the analysis, an expanded framework that Logan and Dempster (1992) and Dempster and Beere (1996) developed, built up by the two intersecting dimensions (1. people as subject – people as object and, 2. reconstruction – reproduction), was integrated to address the second research question, i.e. to attain an in-depth image on which approaches to professional development are more or less prominent in the local municipalities (see Figure 1). In their framework, Dempster and Beere (1996) define four perspectives for school leaders’ professional development, termed: ‘revisionism’, ‘corporatism’, ‘experimentalism’ and ‘transformatism’.

Figure 1. A framework for school leaders’ professional development initially developed by Logan and Dempster (1992) and later adjusted by Dempster and Beere (1996)

More precise, revisionism is based on rational understandings of knowledge and people. In a revisionist approach, knowledge and skills make it possible to carry out everyday tasks that are of a certain focus. The approach is, for example, linked to educational policy, which authority sets and is dependent on initiative and system administrators’ support.

Corporatism, in turn, emphasises the effective and efficient use of resources to achieve centrally determined objectives. A corporatist approach focuses on values and attitudes consistent with those of the parent system. Professional development with this approach provides school leaders with the possibility to learn about how to make changes in their schools’ structure and function in system-determined directions to achieve quality assurance objectives through evaluations and with system administrators’ support.

Experimentalism, in contrast, emphasises the educational leadership human dimension. An experimentalist approach is based on personal professional needs and the students’ and teachers’ needs in the specific school organisation. It is grounded on needs arising in the specific school organisation, dependent on personal initiative and colleagues’ support.

Finally, a transformatism approach is based on achieving social justice and equity goals. The approach encourages school leaders to consider the social and institutional constraints on their practice. Professional development for actors with this approach enables school leaders to question taken-for-granted understandings about schooling and school organisation, and challenge and reshape collective professional knowledge in partnership with others. Dempster and Beere (1996) argued that if school leaders were to fully address their responsibility to society, to the school system, to the local community and to themselves, their continuing professional development must be balanced and include initiatives related to the framework’s four dimensions.

Accordingly, in the second phase, data were analysed through a lens considering the four approaches. That is, the analysis strived to detect how superintendents and deputy superintendents described and related their professional development linked to the four approaches. This second phase of the analysis is presented in a separate subsection.

Results

In this first section of the analysis, results are presented starting with a broader overview followed by a closer examination of educational infrastructures for superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development presented under the four headings. Each heading represents an element of the identified infrastructures revealed in the analytical work: 1) education and courses, 2) networks and assignments, 3) collegial meetings and 4) the work itself. Finally, the result presentation ends with a section highlighting which approaches to superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development were identified within these categories.

An overall result that emerged through the analysis was that professional development for superintendents and deputy superintendents took place primarily on their own initiative and did not follow a particular timeline. None of the superintendents and deputy superintendents had an individual professional development plan. In addition, they believed that professional development was something they have in a lesser extent compared to when they worked as principals.

J: In my opinion, I have not actually had continuing professional development to the extent that I am used to. … I have worked as a principal for almost fourteen years and since I became deputy superintendent, I barely take part in any professional development at all. I can see that this is an area that I have to address with my superior, because it cannot be like this. If I should be a role model, I have to know, for example, what they work with in the principal education. To be able to have conversations with them, I cannot sit there like a fool and not know what they are talking about.

As the quote indicates, superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development tends to become an ‘individual project’ where the leaders must orient themselves and also take responsibility for their professional development. Below, we take a closer look at the four elements that were described in the interviews as important parts of the infrastructure available.

Education and courses

The first element of educational infrastructures for superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development detected in the empirical analysis was formal education and courses. In Sweden, the superintendent association offers courses that are open for superintendents as well as for deputy superintendents. The respondents who had participated thought the education was a good opportunity for reflection and networking. In their opinion, the educators from the university were very competent and through participating, they became updated on the Educational Act and other knowledge relevant for their position. Other courses the respondents had undertaken were courses arranged by the Swedish National Agency for Education, universities and private education organisers. These courses stretched over a wide range of contents, for example, conversation technics, public health and multilingual students. Preferable these were shorter courses with topics relevant from a LEA perspective. Worth emphasising is that few of the respondents expressed they had undertaken advanced academic courses after their employment and several of them also reflected upon this lack of academic courses.

Professional development for superintendents and deputy superintendents also included courses the LEA organised. These courses were often connected to the respondents’ position as officials in the municipal administration and included topics as economy, media, payroll processes, trust-based leadership and sustainable development goals. The respondents argued, on the one hand, that these courses contributed to their professional development. However, they also expressed hesitations.

G: To work in a municipality also includes working with prioritised goals for carbon dioxide and to cooperate across administrative boundaries. I do not say that it is not important, but I do not consider it to be professional development. I do it because I have to.

Networks and assignments

The second element detected involves superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ networks and assignments. The respondents highlighted that networking together with school leaders from other municipalities as being fruitful for their professional development. Networking gives them the opportunity to widen their perspectives and share experiences. In the interviews, a range of networks different organisations arranged are presented. Several superintendents and deputy superintendents take part in networks arranged by the region their municipality belongs to. These networks tend to be of different character but preferably connected to how to deal with different aspects related to their position in the municipality. The respondents initiated other networks and included colleagues with equivalent positions in nearby or comparable municipalities.

Networks for superintendents and deputy superintendents are also arranged by the Swedish National Agency for Education and by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. These networks are based on general issues of importance for improving the Swedish school system. Due to the participants’ competence and the networks’ impact, the respondents that attend these networks stress it as being a privilege to be part of them.

C: I participate in the National Agency’s network for the supply of teachers. It is on the Director-General’s own initiative, he has decided to try another form of support for the school providers, namely allowing superintendents and deputy superintendents to meet regularly in small constellations to work with a common issue and with the mission to work action-oriented. That group is a gift to be included in and meet in. There, you meet colleagues who’s work [is] based on other prerequisites.

Another form of networks the superintendents and deputy superintendents participate in are networks arranged in collaboration with nearby universities. These networks contribute with other dimensions to the respondents’ professional development. In the interviews, the respondents presented it as a more challenging dimension that also helped them to stay updated on research:

D: It was really quite good as long as we had the seminars for superintendents. I thought these seminars were fantastic. We were given the opportunity to meet and exchange experiences. But from the university, you stressed and added a science ground to our meetings that was incredibly valuable. Since the seminars disappeared, it has not become at the same deep level. I really miss the connection to research and science in a more clear but also continuous manner.

Superintendents and deputy superintendents who have temporary assignments as supervisors at the university described their experiences of these forums similarly. They argued that working together with people at the university added an additional dimension to their work and their professional development.

In sum, different types of networks and assignments, according to the respondents, are important for their professional learning from different perspectives. There is also a mix between local, municipal, regional and national networks to pay attention to.

Collegial meetings

The third element prominent in the analysis involves collegial meetings. In the three largest municipalities, the superintendents and deputy superintendents took part in professional development together with colleagues with equal or similar positions. In collegial meetings specially assigned for professional development, they worked together with invited lecturers from the university. In these meetings, they read and discussed books to build capacity and hopefully also be challenged in their understanding of their assignment. However, when time was set aside for similar meetings but without external support, the respondents argued that the meetings tended to emerge into problem solving discussions and less about professional development.

In the smaller municipalities, the superintendents took part in these kinds of collegial meetings, with support from universities, together with the principals. These superintendents considered the meetings to be good opportunities for professional development. However, they also expressed they could see a potential in these meetings that they had not yet reached, for example, to have an increased focus on teaching quality and principals’ agency related to this focus.

In other municipalities, to support professional development in collegial meetings, the superintendents and deputy superintendents had taken in experience from private training providers or used the Swedish National Agency for Education’s digital training modules. An example of this was to make updates in the steering documents about digitalisation. However, in the analysis, other ambitions for collegial meetings were also identified. Although it did not occur so frequently in the interviews, ambitions to make school leadership at all levels more of a collaborative work and in addition challenge prevailing understandings and work orientations were also identified.

B: We started a work many years ago where we worked out a leadership declaration. It was very exciting work. I nagged and continued with this for two years when we met. I know that sometimes it’s not enough to say it once. … The concept everyone should succeed, it was … Some said, ‘No, you have to understand that it is not possible’. We came back to it over and over again. I was stubborn and said, ‘We have to understand that we need to talk about the results and nothing else’. So, then it actually happened two years in a row, our ninth graders had the best results in the region. I think that we are on the right track when it comes to understanding what our mission is.

To conclude, the analysis identified different types of collegial meetings directed to superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development, with or without external support, for instance, from universities, and in some cases, also directed to principals’ professional development. Hence, note that the respondents have different approaches regarding the collegial meetings they organise where some are beneficial for their own learning and some are more directed towards others’ learning.

The work

The fourth and final element of the current infrastructure is linked to superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ experiences that their work is a valuable source for their professional development. That is, they voiced that experiences and challenges they face at work require continuous learning and that they are open to new areas and reflective in relation to the environment and other people’s opinions.

B: I usually say that, ‘as long as I learn, I have fun at work’. And the job in itself is a huge continuing professional development. I have also worked with very skilled people and met challenges that have forced me to think and so on. So, I would probably say that I … I learn by doing and reflecting.

An opportunity for learning and professional development that superintendents and deputy superintendents met in their work was when principals faced challenges and turned to them for support. When this happened, the respondents thought about themselves as principal educators and about the situations as an opportunity to learn from both their own and the principals’ experiences. Based on the analysis, also evident was that superintendents and deputy superintendents tried to work proactively to keep themselves updated and well prepared by reading reports and books in areas they thought they had to work better at within the organisation. Throughout, reading literature was an approach to professional development that was prominent in the interviews. However, as deputy superintendent H concluded, individual reading was relevant but not ideal for professional development.

H: I read a lot myself, research reports and so on. But you need to discuss it with others for something to become of it. We have identified that we need to talk more with each other to bring about shared learning.

Summarising the content of the four elements, the analysis showed that the educational infrastructures for superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development include both formal and informal forums in which learning is both planned for and takes place incidentally. In addition, the analysis also showed that professional development, for many of the superintendents and deputy superintendents, is largely dependent on not only the local infrastructure at the central municipal level, but also their individual initiative and motivation.

Professional development by four approaches

Focusing on which approaches for professional development are more or less prominent in the educational infrastructure at the central municipality level, it becomes evident that revisionism and corporatism are dominating, while experimentalism appears to lesser extent and transformatism is almost non-existent.

As revealed above, the revisionist approach became prominent in educations and courses given by national authorities, the municipalities, in networks arranged by regions as well as in collegial meetings. More specific, in educations and courses given on behalf of national authorities’ educational policy documents regulate the content. In courses the LEA and the local municipalities give, the idea on making superintendents and deputy superintendents knowledgeable to carry out their daily tasks, preferably related to their position as civil servants in the municipality and hence supported by system administrators, was dominating. This approach was in some cases also prominent in some of the networks, for example, when the Swedish National Agency for Education arranged for superintendents and deputy superintendents to meet in order to support the supply of teachers.

The analysis also showed that quality assurance is a common theme for professional development. Therefore, the corporatist approach also becomes evident. Digital courses, networks and collegial meetings are all forums were superintendents, deputy superintendents and in some cases also principals work, separate or together, to learn and develop strategies for how to conduct quality assurance work within their area of responsibility, all in line with the regulations in the Education Act and the curriculums. Moreover, in networks and collegial meetings, the corporatist approach was identified when regions and municipalities conducted targeted efforts to superintendents and deputy superintendents with the responsibility, for example, of the preschool and the school-age educare to improve their competence in organising and leading effectively in relation to the recourses provided. Another area where the corporatist approach was detected was in digitalisation. In this area, private education providers or internal process leaders worked with school leaders at all levels to set strategies for digitalisation that could fulfil the obligations stated in policy documents, but also aligned with a shared understanding of what digitalisation in education could be.

The experimental approach that implies personal professional needs and the students’ and teachers’ needs in the specific school organisation and school context became prominent in the analysis in relation to other networks the superintendents and deputy superintendents also participated in, as well as in collegial meetings. In the networks where the experimental approach was visible, it was to a larger extent the participants’ own agenda that constituted the meetings’ content. In other cases, it was the high quality of the discussions and the participants’ competence that enriched superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ learning and contributed to giving them new perspectives on their own organisation. In collegial meetings where the experimental approach permeated, for superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development, colleagues’ support was central, but also the ambition to collaboratively develop shared understandings within areas of particular importance for the local organisation and broader school context. These meetings were highly valued but the importance of getting external input to improve the level of learning even further was also prominent in the analysis.

Finally, as stated initially, the transformatism approach was almost invisible in the infrastructure for professional development. However, it was identified when superintendents and deputy superintendents talked about collegial meetings where they, and sometimes also the principals, worked together with researchers from universities. In these initiatives, presentations of research accompanied with dialogues and questions that the researchers moderated gave prerequisites for challenging understandings that were taken for granted. Hence, professional development taking place in these collegial meetings also opened up for other perspectives that could, for example, strengthen equity in education. However, to think and work within this approach without external support appears to be challenging and thus demands some work to be more accepted. This becomes particularly evident if the lessons learned also are to be realised in practice.

Discussion

This article aimed to analyse educational infrastructures in Sweden at the central municipal level and how these infrastructures bolster superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development. A theoretical point for departure was taken in the work of Dempster and Beere (1996) and Logan and Dempster (1992) on school leaders’ professional development and an analytical framework constructed through four approaches to school leaders’ professional development, termed revisionism, corporatism, experimentalism and transformatism, directed the analytical work.

Starting in the inductive analysis the first research question is address: What do the educational infrastructures for superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development at the central municipal level in Sweden look like? The analysis identified four reoccurring elements of educational infrastructures termed: education and courses, networks and assignments, collegial meetings and the work. Regarding the second research question: Which approaches for professional development are prominent in the Swedish context? The analysis revealed that educational infrastructures at the municipal and state level tend to prioritise some approaches for professional learning. More precise, the analysis showed an emphasis on revisionism and corporatism, while experimentalism appeared to a lesser extent and transformatism was almost non-existent. However, in some cases, the infrastructures bolstered both an experimentalist and transformatist approach, and thus a more comprehensive approach for superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development. In more detail, regardless the context of the municipality, the prevailing infrastructures emphasis rather rational understandings of knowledge and people and practical knowledge and skills making it possible for superintendents and colleagues to carry out their everyday tasks. School authorities have a prominent position in how educational policy and regulative directives are interpreted and understood. The identified infrastructures also emphasise effectiveness and efficient use of resources to achieve centrally determined objectives and how to meet quality assurance objectives, through evaluations. However, what becomes less prominent are leadership qualities based more on personal professional needs arising in the local context. Finally, current infrastructures give less support to question taken-for-granted understandings on issues related to educational leadership and to challenge and reshape collective professional knowledge in partnership with other professionals. This indicates that theory and research are seldom used as a basis for learning.

As noted in the introduction, Hopkins and Woulfin (2015) pointed out the importance of identifying key components and characteristics of educational infrastructures across different contexts and levels. In this regard, this paper provides important results taking a school system perspective. To begin, in the decentralised Swedish school system, superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development, in many ways, becomes an ‘individual project’ for which they become personally responsible. Therefore, professional development also becomes quite vulnerable as it is driven by ad hoc decisions. The results also imply that superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional development is dominated by issues and perspectives that are very close to their own practice. Linked to this finding, the analyses also indicated that superintendents and deputy superintendents tend to stop their university studies after completing the principal training programme and instead participate in different networks and take shorter courses they can use directly in their daily practice. A result not least relevant to consider for those who decide about infrastructures for superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ professional learning. Analogously, another important aspect of the identified infrastructures holds that the opportunities for continuously problematising issues based on available research and theory, i.e. by an transformatist approach, are quite few. Here, it is also worth noting that these processes tend to stand still when representatives from participating universities are no longer in the picture – instead issues of practicality come in focus.

The number of leaders who are involved in school decisions are growing. To create the right prerequisites for student learning is becoming more and more complex. Consequently, continuing professional development at all levels in an organisation becomes important. Both organisational and individual capacity, expectations and competence will affect outcomes. An increasing diversity in how schools and LEAs are organised make the question about infrastructure interesting and important. This also raises the question of what is meant and included in infrastructure and professional development and if it is necessary to strive towards a more common understanding. Based on the results of this article, it becomes clear that individual understanding and agency are important to initiate and take part in professional development. It is also evident that what is seen as necessary and important professional development differ. All in line with, the well-known fact that context do matter in school leadership (Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz and Pashiardis 2022). However, as schooling is a national responsibility as well as a responsibility for LEAs and local schools, it also raises questions about how infrastructure on diverse hierarchical levels interact and support each other. Is there one or many infrastructures that leaders need to combine? In the Swedish case, it is obvious that a mutually identified infrastructure as well as expectations on continuous professional development on the LEA level are vague.

On a more general level, these results also expose expectations on superintendents and other school leaders of the municipal administration in Sweden and what professional knowledge they are expected to have and develop. That not one of the respondents had written professional development plans shows that this is considered an individual responsibility rather than an organisational task. This contributes probably to the large variation in both roles and what kinds of organisations there are at the LEA level.

That superintendents and deputy superintendents feel that they have less professional development than principals, at the same time, they point out the necessity to follow and understand all the societal and organisational changes that may directly impact their organisations and expectations on principals. Moreover, many of the given examples of when they learn are in not formalised courses, such as networks and assignments, collegial meetings and the actual work. These interaction forms do not always have professional development as its core aim. Instead, it can be a way of dealing with and learning new issues and use others’ experience and knowledge. The results indicate that practical issues and short-time knowledge dominate, and more theoretical and reflexive professional development is missing. That the interest in university courses is low can complicate the national ambitions that all activities in schools should build on research and proven experience. It is a challenge that less formal professional development might not be structured or documented at the same time as knowledge built on proven experience needs to be documented and communicated (Hörnqvist 2019). It might also put a larger focus on administrative issues than leadership for learning.

Conclusion

With regard to advantages and limitations, it is initially important to emphasise there may be a difference between the infrastructures that actually exist and those that superintendents and deputy superintendents experience. The results indicate there may be a need to discuss what is meant with infrastructures and what kind of professional development the prevailing infrastructures generate. One possible conclusion of this article is that existing infrastructures would need to be supplemented or complemented with other infrastructures underpinning the two approaches that are less prominent right now, i.e. experimentalism and transformatism. This also wakens issues on the universities’ role and responsibility to provide up-to-date courses and activities that can contribute to practicing leaders’ professional development and to a larger extent, include the kind of knowledge that is constructed in networks and meetings. If traditional courses do not correspond to the practicing school leaders’ needs, it is necessary to find new formats and content.

Thus, in future studies, it is relevant to also examine the infrastructures at the state, regional and local levels more in detail, for instance, by document studies. This can put focus on how contexts as well as agency varies and affect role understanding and prerequisites. It is also relevant to note that the article is based on a limited sample of respondents and therefore larger studies can reveal a more comprehensive picture. The focus in this article has clear connections to the wider interest in how LEA leaders’ professional development is linked to their own career as well as to principals’ professional development and career. In Sweden, there is a mandatory national principal programme that is a part of a national infrastructure. On top of that, there are several offers to principals to take part in implementation projects and online courses the Swedish National Agency offers. Superintendents’ and deputy superintendents’ own professional development and how LEA organise professional development for their principals has a direct impact on schools and prerequisites for students. It also raises questions about whether school leaders mainly participate in professional development due to organisational needs or in relation to their own career needs. Our initial study raises new questions and visualises that how infrastructures is understood and used, which can have an important impact on the organisations’ competence to attract and keep leaders.

Disclosure statement

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