Curriculum leadership of cross-curricular teaching in lower secondary school – the Finnish principal as a mediator

Figures & data

Table 1. Contextual information on participants.

	Professional experience	Rural/Urban School	Teacher experience	Municipal involvement	Forms of cross-curricular teaching in the schools
Principal 1	30–35 as a teacher, 20–25 years as a principal	Urban	Class teacher	Not involved in the everyday work of the school.	Cross-curricular teaching is integrated into ‘normal’ teaching. A continuous process.
Principal 2	20–25 years as a teacher, 1–5 years as a principal	Urban	Subject teacher	Rarely involved in everyday schoolwork.	A long-term project involving most subjects. Ongoing for several years.
Principal 3	10–15 years as a teacher, 1–5 years as a principal	Rural	Subject teacher	Rarely involved in everyday schoolwork	Theme weeks. External actors provide the service, with the aim to integrate it after a few years.
Principal 4	15–20 years as a teacher, 1–5 years as a principal	Rural	Subject teacher	Rarely involved in the everyday work of the school.	Short-term projects due to the building of a new school.
Principal 5	30–35 years as a teacher, 20 years as a principal	Rural	Subject teacher	Rarely involved in the everyday work in the school.	Long-term project pre-pandemic, involving most subjects and cooperation with external actors. Post-pandemic ‘fatigue’ resulting in short-term projects
Principal 6	1–5 years as a principal, several years as a university teacher	Rural	Subject teacher	Weekly conversations on daily activities and long-term, joint visions.	A joint vision for the entire school. Smaller modules of cross-curricular activities throughout the school year based on the shared vision.

Figure 1. A multi-level and processual perspective on curriculum leadership (Uljens, 2018).

Figure 2. A visualisation of the hermeneutic analysis, inspired by Ricoeur (1976).

Table 2. Examples of the naïve and deep analysis regarding the principal’s mediation between and within classroom and school levels and the theoretical input.

Quotes	Naïve analysis	Structural analysis
We recently moved to a new school, so cross-curricular teaching has been on hold because of moving, technical issues, etc. Cross-curricular projects are going on, but not as many as before. A lot of thinking and energy has gone into building the new school. We have a planning day during the Spring term to discuss how to start more cross-curricular collaboration. The teachers and I feel it has been too little lately, and everyone is too occupied with their subject to start. There are shorter projects lasting maybe a week. But there are no longer projects where teachers collaborate intensively. Unfortunately, there are mainly short projects that just about meet the requirements of the curriculum. (Principal 4)	Curriculum leadership (CL) is a multi-level process on classroom and school levels. The principal and the teachers identify a need for more long-term cross-curricular teaching (CCT), suggesting a shared CL. New CCT initiatives are hindered by urgent issues (e.g. moving to a new school), suggesting CCT is not an integrated part of the school organization like regular subjects.	The interview confirms CL as processual and multi-level mediation between and within external demands and contextual factors. Previous experiences with CCT were positive, suggesting long-term projects, planning, and structures within the school may support the faculty and principal. The analysis uncovered conflicts concerning CL and issues affirming CCT on classroom and school levels (urgent matters, didactical positions, scheduling). Faculty discussions may serve as non-affirmative starting points for school-level visions, where all teachers are invited to share their experiences and join current or future CCT initiatives.

Figure 3. A visualisation of the principals’ mediating curriculum leadership.

Uljens, M. (2018). Understanding educational leadership and curriculum reform: Beyond global economism and neo-conservative nationalism. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 2(2–3), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.2811

 Google Scholar

Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning (5th ed.). Texas Christian University Press.

 Google Scholar