A short Summary of a Case Study
of two Upper Secondary Schools in Norway
Presentation in Latvia, Friday,
March 9th, 2001
Anne
Marie Presthus
Department of education Agder University College,
Kristiansand, Norway
In this section B¸rre Nylehn and I will give a very short summary of a case study we have done of two schools in Vest-Agder, Mandal and Flekkefjord upper secondary schools. We both work with the University College of Agder, in two different departments and have been engaged five weeks each to do the work. We have made a field report, containing a description and analysis of two upper secondary school organisations in Norway.
An intention of the study is to provide background material for the co-operation between the five Latvian schools and the five Norwegian schools, present here today. I will start the presentation, with some of the background and intention of the study, and also point out some limitations. Next, I will give a presentation of the two schools and their organisations as we have described them in the report.
After this B¸rre Nylehn will present the analysis and some of the concluding remarks. In the report we have a chapter with a more theoretical presentation of “the school as an organisation” and a chapter presenting the Norwegian educational system. These two chapters will only as an exception be mentioned in this presentation.
In both countries research projects are initiated. The intention is to have some systematic presentation of the practices and experiences of school management as a basis for the co-operation.
Initially, a study of all the five schools present here from Norway was planned, but the resources were not sufficient for this, neither with regard to money nor time, so the research was limited to two of the institutions. The County Director of Education selected the two schools, and obtained acceptance from the two principals, who had discussed the matter with their staff. In May last year we as researchers were asked to carry out the study.
Our report, then, is the outcome of this work and, so far, the Norwegian research contribution to the project. The main differences between the Latvian project and ours is, as we see it, that here in Latvia the five schools are more directly involved in carrying out the project; and that the project represents attempts at initiating processes of change. The Norwegian research project is a more traditional, descriptive study of how a school organisation may be perceived and what experience the staff and the students have with this organisation. Which forms or types of organisations the staff in the schools or their superiors at some later stage choose to introduce, is something that we do not consider an issue for us at this time. We have been more reluctant to consider “solutions” in general.
In the study of the two schools and their organisations, we have used, both generally available literature and public documents. From the two schools we have been provided with a number of documents concerning the physical layout and structures, the staff, the organisational structures and systems, and the accounts and budgets. The contents of these documents have been useful in their own right, but also as checks on the information collected in the interviews.
We have made in all, about twenty interviews. Wherever we visited, we were very much welcomed, and given the necessary time, in a busy day. We have, to a great extent, relied upon the information, the opinions and the judgements expressed by our interviewees. By this we mean that the many, varied and not always exact information that we have received, to some extent has been processed, meaning that in typing out the interviews and in writing the report we have tried to integrate, reconcile and hold up against each other the many pieces of information we have collected. The final report has been sent as a draft to all the interviewees for scrutiny. This was done not only to obtain corrections as to how we had presented the information we had collected, we also have asked for more general advice and comments.
Which topics did we focus on in the study? First we had a cluster of questions about the school. The intention with this cluster was to provide a set of variables which described the framework for the activity in the given school. The students, the teachers, the culture and the history are important in this connection. Second, a cluster of questions about external relations. We tried to obtain an understanding of who are the important external actors or institutions for each school. Third, questions about the organisation. With them we tried to go a little deeper into some aspects of the structuring and functioning of the organisation. Fourth, about the work environment We tried to see what the general picture was like. What characterises the work environment at the school, positive and negative aspects? We asked for relations between the management and the other employees. Last, but not least important, the management We would try to get a more detailed knowledge about the management positions and their content: tasks, responsibilities, areas of competence and authority.
It is important to bear in mind one limitation of this case study. It is strictly about school organisation and management, not for instance about pedagogy, the learning environment, the social relations, the school as a community, etc; neither is it about Norwegian educational policy. All of such matters are of course of relevance and are touched upon in the report, but only to the extent that it will help us say something about what is in focus - the organisation.
Flekkefjord upper secondary school is situated a couple of kilometers outside the centre of the town of Flekkefjord, in a quiet neighbourhood close to the sea, and with a magnificent view of mountains and water. The school is a medium sized upper secondary school. The number of students is about 550. There is a staff of 70 teachers and some other personnel. Four other local authorities in the region are also served by the school. But the young people in these communities may also choose to go, or in fact sometimes have no other choice than to go to other schools within the county, outside the local region, depending on which type of courses or studies they are requesting.
Mandal upper secondary school is more or less 50% larger than Flekkefjord, with a staff of about 100 teachers, some other personnel and nearly 800 students. The school is located about one kilometre from the centre of Mandal. And this school also serves other areas around the town. Being close to Kristiansand, the county centre, Mandal sends some of its youths away to the schools in this city and also receives some in return.
The upper secondary schools in Norway have been through almost continuous processes of development. Back in the seventies the upper secondary school was extended and given a new national curriculum and structure. The secondary schools were extended even further into the eighties, and also the number of students increased from 140,000 in 1980 to more than 200,000 in 1990.
In 1974 we got a new act, and students with handicaps or disadvantages obtained full rights of entry to upper secondary schools. Further in 1987 students in these categories were given preference. It was also decided that all new secondary schools should be built as combined schools, offering both general and vocational studies.
After some time, and partly as a consequence of this, there was also a merger of the existing small and specialised schools into larger, often comprehensive institutions. For Vest-Agder county and our two schools these processes took place during the 90s. This year, in Vest-Agder there is slightly less than 50 % of the students in the general studies, and slightly more than 50% of the students in the vocational studies. In the other counties in Norway it is the other way around. As we see from the figures, Mandal upper secondary school has 48% of the students in general and business studies and the school in Flekkefjord has 62% in the same studies.
During this development it became evident that the upper secondary school had problems. The intentions were not satisfied. A new White paper on upper secondary education was presented in -91, and the government followed this up with a proposal to the Storting in 1994, where a large majority passed it.
The most important points in “Reform 94” were: All young people between 16 years and 19 years have a legal right to three years of upper secondary education. Ports of entry, foundation courses, were reduced from 100 to 13. The largest reduction was done in the number of vocational courses. After Reform 94 three courses correspond to the more traditional gymnasium, while ten, or now twelve are more vocational. This meant that the reform changed the structures of courses and options for the students, with corresponding changes in subjects and subject content for the teachers. After three years in upper secondary education the students get either a skilled worker certificate or a diploma giving general access to higher education. Young people who do not apply for upper secondary education or drop out of school, shall be contacted and offered alternative courses or a combination of formal education and work. Each county is required to provide this service.
In order to ensure that Reform 94 did achieve its objectives, an evaluation of the Reform took place during a five-year follow-up period. We will, to simplify a little, like to point out two main results of the evaluation.
First, compared to the past, in the opinion of the ME the upper secondary schools now have a better structure, and an increased number of students now complete their education. Secondly, and this gives the challenges and problems, the Ministry points out that there is a need for: an examination of the syllabuses or contents in many subjects; a better adaptation to the individual needs of each student; more contribution and participation by the students in the planning as well as the regular work in the classroom; and that the teachers (in more theoretical subjects) should function more as mentors than before.
Our impression is that the upper secondary schools in Vest-Agder have tried to follow this up. Amongst other things by: attempting to increase the level of competence of the teachers; introducing a new organisation in the management of the schools; trying to have IT taken into use in more subjects; participating in a national project to differentiate teaching in regular classes, and as part of all this emphasising “learning” rather than “teaching”.
To what extent this will lead to the intended results remains, of course, to be seen.
Not all upper secondary schools have all the vocational studies. In our two schools we see that the students in Mandal have more alternatives, and of course an important factor here is the size of the school. A speciality for Mandal, on a national level, is a class within the Mechanical study, that qualifies students in Glass fibre Reinforced Plastics construction. In addition to the general and vocational studies both the schools have resource centres. They have, in a way, the same function in the two institutions, but they have a different background and have developed differently.
The origin of the resource centre in Mandal is a centre for work and vocational training for adults. The former centre is organised as a department alongside the other departments in the school and the head of department is subordinated the principal.
The corresponding centre at Flekkefjord is smaller, amongst other things because it was started from scratch by the school itself, and did not have the benefit of a history and an established market and a network. In addition, a couple of years ago another small centre was established in the area of information technology.
During the last couple of years a new organisation structure has been introduced in Vest-Agder. The schools have been reorganised so that there is now a layer of ”middle management”. A small number of departments have been established, each with a department head, and these have among other things relieved the principal of some of his or her duties in relation to the staff.
Previously, the organisation was strictly related to subjects, containing persons teaching in the same field, for instance science subjects or foreign languages. A number of so-called inspectors, depending upon the size of the school, assisted the principal in running the school. They did not have direct subordinates, and all teachers related directly to the principal as to all personnel matters. The position of inspector was of an administrative nature, and it was usually occupied by an experienced teacher.
This simple organisation chart shows, the main structure of Flekkefjord upper secondary school. The number of departments is four, and the percentage of the job as head of departments is 70%, which means that they teach 30% of the time. Another aspect of the structure of Flekkefjord upper secondary school is that it may be considered in the perspective of “integration” of the school, as no department is “pure”. Three of them consist of some general subject teachers and some who teach vocational subjects. Two departments are concerned not only with teaching, but also with some other function in the organisation. For instance in one department the head of department is responsible for the janitors in addition to a number of teachers.
This organisation chart shows the main structure of the
organisation of Mandal upper secondary school. Here it is five
departments and particular for Mandal is a central staff led by
the vice principal. Two of the departments serve General and
Business Studies, two serve Vocational studies and the last one
is the Resource centre mentioned earlier. The principal as well
as the vice principal work full time with administrative tasks,
whilethe positions of Head of department include 10% teaching.
There are three basic ideas or reasons behind this new structure
in Vest-Agder: Firstly, the head of departments and the principal
now constitute a management team, which has the function of a
forum for contact and discussion of the operation and development
of the school. Secondly, the head of departments are given a
number of tasks and responsibilities in order to relieve the
principal and to increase the management capacity. This may be
regarded as a response to the drive towards delegation of tasks
from the county to the institutions, and also as a contribution
towards making the schools function more autonomously. Another
consequence is that the principals will have more time available
for pedagogical leadership. One of the tasks that has been
delegated to the heads of departments is that connected with the
direct responsibility for individual employees, and here we find
the third and perhaps the most important reason for the new
structure.
There is presently an increasing development of the pedagogical practice in schools. Important aspects are the new teacher role and that students have more responsibility for their own learning, etc. This means a development toward more freedom for each school.
However in other areas the school are much more restricted. They are given budgets and number of students. The course selection is determined on the basis of national and regional considerations. The teachers unions have had and have a strong position in Norway. The tradition, has for many years, been that the salaries are determined in national negotiations. The criteria have been “objective”, education and experience. The first attempt at modifying this system, has taken place in 2000, and local negotiations have been arranged to supplement the national agreements this year. However to obtain this the teachers had to accept a more specified working time agreement and more specified use of time.
To day school organisation is exposed to varying signals, some increase freedom, and some imply more control.
In our view the centralised and standardised element is quite consistent with the Norwegian system of education, which is public, unitary and centrally governed. There are strong historic trends in this picture, and it is closely connected with the basic ideas of the welfare state. The authorities are expected to provide equal education for all, and this education should ideally be of the same quality for everybody. For instance there has been, and to some degree is also to day, a quite negative attitude towards private institutions.
This was some of the background and intention of the study. In addition it was an attempt to give a presentation of the two schools and their organisation as we have described them in the report and as a picture of the secondary education in Norway. Much has not been covered - but I hope the most important items have appeared. B¸rre Nylehn will now continue and present the analysis and some of the concluding remark in the rapport.
B¸rre Nylehn
Department of economics and social science
Agder College,
Kristiansand, Norway
TENTATIVE ANALYSIS OF UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOL ORGANISATIONS
1. Introduction - the process of organising
1. Anne Marie has presented our study and given an overview over background and framework of the upper secondary schools. She also has provided a description of some elements of the school organisations. My intention is comment upon some aspects of these organisations and in order to convey a picture of some of the options and challenges that confront these institutions.
2. I have used the word "tentative" in the title of my presentation, and the reason is that our study has been rather limited, and our ideas are not conclusive. We are inviting a discussion on the aspects of the organisation that will presented here.
3. A fundamental issue is the processes involved in the development of organisations in general, and more specifically school organisations. I believe that it is quite importent to realise that these systems are not primarily the result of rational anaylsis on the part of the principal or higher authorities, and perhaps rational decisions on design represent a minor element. Organisations develop partly as "natural systems", mirroring and expressing the society in which they exists; partly as "institutions", embodying ideas about what is right, about what is perceived as essential characteristics of this type of organisational field, or simply as part of the cultural heritage.
4. A consequence of these perspectives is that attempts at change in these organisations may come to very little unless they are more or less in line with norms, standards and beliefs in the given society, and also, of course, with the organisational field of Aewducation@. Organisations cannot be changed at will, and there is a need for patience and a certain humbleness; there are serious limits to the power of those who formally are in charge!
2. School organisations as bureaucracies
1. School organisations, as we have found them in our two schools, have quite pronounced bureaucratic traits, although there are some traits that point in other directions also. A bureaucracy, as an ideal type, is an organisation with specialisation, with hierarchical lines of authority, with selection of staff acording to formal competence, with a sharp distinction between the private sphere and affairs and the work place and its activity, and a bureaucratic organisations is, perhaps most distinctly, governed by rules.
2. "Bureaucracy" is often perceived as something negative, but to me this is a neutral, technical term, signifying a way of organising which may be very effeicient and suitable, dependding upon the context. Many factors contribute to the development of bureaucracy in school organisations: - That the field of education is under the authority of a Ministry that controls the institutions through its bureacratic structures. - School organisations are complex, with many elemenets that have to be coordinated and planned, and a bureacratic system is functional in this respect. - Students are admitted and they graduate, and in both cases there is a need to treat them fairly and neutrally. - The teachers are organised in national unions, and negotiations and agreements result in rules and procedures that contribute to the bureacratic system.
3. A bureaucratic structure represents one of the most efficient ways of organising, but there are also some negative aspects of it. One of them is that the local units may be stifled and function according to centrally given rules and not on the basis of a local understanding and interpretation of the the specific conditions under which it operates.
4. Another weakness is the "impersonality" of the system. The ideal type of bureaucracy is not inhabited by "people" but by "holders of positions". It is as if the individuals should not be seen, only the "official", or in this case the "teacher". And there are indications that the schools are bureaucracies in this respect, as they are not very good at taking care of or relating to the individuals.
5. There is, however, also a certain ambivalence on the part of the teachers as regards such bureaucratic elements in the organisation. Their ideology is in many ways anti-bureaucratic, especially as regards their work in the class-rooms, but some of their interests are well served by the bureaucratic organisation.
3. A process of de-bureaucratisation
1. The tendency in the Norwegian educational system is in the direction of local autonomy, and there are two aspects of it. One is that the authorities seem to believe that central control is both costly and inefficient, perhaps even not functioning very well, and they are implementing a drive towards decentralisation or delegation. Secondly, there is an increased acceptance of local variation and autonomy, meaning that the official ideology now is that local managers should be allowed to design and operate their own organisation to a greater extent, and that this has two advantages. The school will become better, and the work situation for the employees will be more challenging and rewarding, since the teachers will be allowed to reflect and decide on more aspects of their own situation.
2. Thus we may say that there is a drive towards reducing the bureaucratic element of the school organisations, but such a change is not always easy. There is the inertia of the organisation, and people are socialised into a system and will not automatically change their behaviour or attitudes even if there has been a change in organisation, in policy or in strategy.
3. Thirdly, a bureaucratic structure is one of power, and when local units are allowed greater autonomy and local variation, there is a danger of a more or less corresponding reduction in both status and power for central institutions and positions, and this they may not accept or allow.
4. Thus we might expect that debureaucratisation is a process with setbacks and something that does not run by itself. And we may expect to find contradictory or conflicting elements in a given organisation. It is not possible to change everything at the same time, and a new system will always have to be implemented by people who are quite firmly embedded in the former mode of operating.
5. An important aspect of the process of debureaucratisation is that it is not a question of eliminating this organisational form altogether, since it has many qualities. The problem is to avoid some of its drawbacks, or to find out in which areas there should be a sound bureaucratic system and where to develop other forms. Perhaps one also will find that there is a need to strengthen the bureaucratic element in some areas, while reducing it in others. For instance, in order to be able to operate a school organisation as an autonomous institution under local control, there is a need to develop sound administrative systems of accounting, of archives, of rules and regulations for employement, for admission of students, for the use of resources, etc.
6. Here is, we believe, an important challenge for the authorities and the principals, to develop the school organisation, and in this process strike a balance between the need for a sound bureaucratic structure; tthe need to develop the new roles of heads of departments; and to involve the teachers so that their traditional roles as quite free agnets are respected.
4. Non-bureaucratic traits in the school organisations
1. An interesting topic is the trend of introducing into the school organisation elements that are non-bureaucratic, and even in conflict with this organisational model. A central element in this connection is Management by objectives, (MBO), which may be considered as a "modern" touch, being part of a trend towards a more management-like way of operating. The main idea is that people be allowed to choose their means and ways of doing things according to their own judgement, and that they be evaluated on the basis of achievements rather than on behaviour. The goals that they are to be evaluated against, are to be agreed upon by the manager and the employee.
2. This deviation from the bureaucratic organisation may be considered in two perspectives. One is symbolic and institutional. Operating the school organisation according to such principles the school is "changed"; it becomes "modern", and the principal becomes a "manager". These are heavy symbols of a larger change, about which the teachers and other may be sceptical and they may feel that the school is no longer theirs; they may become estranged. Perhaps such a change is "necessary", but there is at least such a cost in the form of a transition that concerns fundamental aspects of the institution and the way the employee feel about it.
3. This is to say that an introduction of new models is not just functional, and that brings up the question of whether the use of MBO in fact is a good idea, whether it "fits" the tasks and the organisation. There are good reasons for believing that this question has not been adressed properly, and we know that there is a tendency among consultants and managers to choose organisational means on the basis of their reputation or on the symbolic value rather than on their documented merits. Whether MBO, and other modern organisational elements, are effective and efficient, we cannot say for sure, but there are reasons to believe that they are introduced for their symbolic value. This is not to say that they are useless, but that there is the question of where, in connection with what tasks and positions, these instruments are functioning well and according to their intentions.
5. A school as two organisations
1. The school may be perceived as a management system to be operated, and an organisation is built around the institution, so that there is a management, a small administration, a number of teachers who are employed and there are the other types of staff and all the service functions and the physical framework to be established and maintained. Within this context the daily operations take place, but one may perceive some lack of continuity, something that is missing or disconnected, because the classrooms and the activity inside them do not seem to belong in this perspective; it is something of a "black box".
2. What happens in the classrooms is the core activity of the school, and the classes seem to be operated on the basis of another organisation, built from below, and we believe that this "discontiuity" may be captured by the concept of "project organisation".
3. By definition a project is a task which is unique, limited in time and scope, and for which there is one or a set of quite clear goals. In order to accomplish this task, ideally, activity is organised around it so that its unique features and demands are taken care of, and the people involved will participate over time and according to the needs of the project, while attending other projects that they also are involved in. They also have their employment and position in the "basic organisation", and this gives rise to another set of responsibilities and tasks.
4. In this way we see the school organisation partly as the basic organisation, a structure that is established to provide a context in which it will be possible to have a number of classes, and the central management is responsible up to this point. But then, every year, a specific number of classes with a selection of students and teachers have to be launched, and each of them represents a project, which ideally should be organised and operated on the basis of an understanding of what characterises this unique task and the conditions under which it is carried out.
5. In many ways it seems as if this organisational form of project fits well with what one might consider as an ideal for a teacher: that the class be considered unique; that teaching and the activity of the class be designed not according to standard procedures or school rules, but on the basis of what would seem to be most wanted or needed among these specific young people and what would seem to be possible with the given resources, most important of which are of course the teachers who are allocated to it.
6. We are not saying that the school organisation "is" the "two organisations", but that this is a possible way of seeing it, and that there are some aspects of the situation that seem to fit well with this conception. And there is a choice here, since a given school may decide that this is how they will choose to define their organisation. In that case there are some consequences. The first and and most obvious one is that there is a need to discuss the implication of running the classes as a number of projects, and ask oneself if the head of the class really sees him- or herself as a project manager, and whether the staff has an adequate understanding of what a project is.
7. Another aspect of this is that the question of whether the HoDs are to be perceived as supporters of a number of project managers, and more generally whether the "interface" of the "basic organisation" and the "projects" is sufficiently understood and organised.
6. Mangement in a school organisation
1. We have seen that a new structure has been introduced in the two schools, including a new set of positions as HoD. One of the intentions is to provide the school with a better or more professional leadership, as these 4-5 new people in "middle management" are to function both as managers heading a department each, but also as members of a management team, led by the principal.
2. For the principal the new structure will mean that he or she may share the tasks and responsibilities of leadership, and as a consequence of this be able to concentrate upon what may be considered most important, for instance, as suggested by the CDE, the challenge of "pedagogical leadership".
3. Another is that of concentrating on the "market position" of the school, a concern that possibly may become greater in the future. This is based on an assumption that the schools are redefined as not only providers of education, but as centres of competence that should exploit their resources to increase the income.
4. The change of the role of the principal in the direction of a professional manager, is of course quite dramatic for the the holder of the position, but also for the teachers. Of particular importance is the question how they perceive themselves. The change is significant especially for those who came from the previous general schools. Not only are they now members of a comprehensive school with vocational studies and somewhat changed values and modes of operation, but they may even come to see themselves as part of a medium-sized business enterprise.
5. In addition, the principal is no longer directly accessible for the teachers. Traditionally, a teacher would seek the principal when in need of talking to someone about professional or personal matters, but now there is in his place the HoD, a colleague as much as a superior. When the teachers turn to the HoD, he or she may find someone who is quite able and hopefully even professionally competent as a leader, but the HoD may also be seen as a colleague. And to talk in confidence and trust with the principal is different from talking to somebody who is a colleague. At least there is a need to accept that the new HoD, recently a colleague, now is a leader and someone to go to. And the principal is, to some extent, not longer the leader of the teachers - their man og woman - but the representative of the employer.
6. For these managers themselves, there is also a challenge, and they are probably those who experience the greatest change with the new structure. They are given a position which is new, and the role is not clear; it has to be developed. Among other things there is the question of whether the department heads are in charge of the department as a work unit, or just, as the case seems to be now, a number of loosely connected individuals.
7. The HoDs are expected to participate as managers in a team, and this team is responsible to the authorities outside the school, to the CDE, not the colleagues, and it is responsible for more than operating the school as a learning system; the managers are responsible for an entreprise that is required to find its position in a market. One part of this is quite trivial, but still important; the managers have to function as members of an administrative system, and there is a demand for following procedures, being precise and consistent, being formal and follow rules and regulations. In addition they have to develop their relations to their former colleagues, and perhaps experience that they are no longer "one of the boys". To become a manager is to some extent to lose the intimacy and relaxed relations between members of a group of equals, and to enter a position of authority.
8. Some of the HoD told us that they were not satisfied with their own ability or opportunity to emphasise pedagogical leadership, and they were of the opinion that there was too little time available. This may be true, but many of them are as a matter of fact new as leaders, and this may provide another understanding of the situation.
9. The new managers may take some time to develop their understanding and skills as managers, but they also have to confront a culture where there is little tradition for hierarchy and leadership. In a professional system, as a school may be perceived, the professional competence is an important basis for action and for status. When there are challenges, these should ideally be met with responses based on professional competence, not on authority. But when there is a professional management, there is also a hierarchy of authority and power, and decisions are taken by the management team as persons in a superior position.
10. One of the important issues, therefore, is whether the schools are able to adjust their attitudes and perception of what constitutes an organisation and of leadership, perhaps even of subordination. For the HoDs this amounts to a challenge of developing their role from that of "administrator" to one of "leadership", but this is not just a matter of personal preference or ability, but of institutional culture and accept. Teachers are not very accustomed to having "leaders", and they may not easily come to accept such a role either. And nobody can be sure that there is a need for it in a school organisation, even though it probably is something that the authorities take for granted.
6. Issues that we have found to be of special interest
The items and issues mentioned below are strictly expressions of what we as researchers in this study have come to consider interesting. We present this list, saying that here are some questions that one might find challenging to consider.
1) The organisational understanding in the school organisations. Perhaps the "organisational consciousness" might be an issue to discuss and develop in the schools. In organisations it is not unusual to find that the staff are not normally engaged in reflections upon the structures and systems they are a part of, and there may be something to gain by increasing the level of consciousness in these matters. What are the perceptions the staff, primarily the teachers, of their own organisation, and what do they consider as adequate measures in order to make it function better?
2) How embedded is a bureaucratic way of thinking? The bureaucratic perspective on organisastions is perhaps dominant and pervasive in the field of educational institutions. This seems to apply to the management with their belief in defining the organisation clearly, and the unions, with their emphasis on precisely defined and work loads and procedures. Whether the teachers also think along these lines, we do not know for sure, and it might be an idea to try to look into this matter.
3) The attitude towards "organisation". Teachers are at the same time autonomous individuals and members of a collective, and it might be an idea to sort out the balance to strike between these two somewhat contradicting aspects. Possibly, teachers have an attitude of ambivalence towards management on the one hand, and towards organisation and co-operation on the other?
4) Does "management" belong in a school? The attitude towards management is maybe also a little ambivalent, in the sense that it may not be seen as belonging in a school. If it does not, the implications of this should be excplicated. There is a danger that the principals carry on with management development while the staff finds this to be a strange and not very welcome activity.
5) Pedagogical management Pedagogical leadership (management) is a key concept, and the opinions in the two schools are that there is too little of it. At the same time there is perhaps not a very precise or shared understanding of what is meant by this concept. It might be an idea to try to discuss possible meanings and implications of the concepts that are defined.
6) The interface between "two organisations". We have proposed that the school be perceived as two organisations, and that the head teachers of the classes may be seen as project managers. Whether this is a promising line of thought is not certain, but one could speculate on the possible implications of it. For instance, a consciousness would need to be developed among the teachers of this understanding and of their own functioning; another that the "interface" between the school bureaucracy and the various "projects" would have to be discussed, and the HoDs would have to redefine their role accordingly.
7) The departments and the role of the HoD The structure of departments and HoDs is quite new, and it is reasonable to assume that it has not found its final form, perhaps not even as to what the departments are meant to be, and what is the role of the HoD. These questions have been posed and tentative answers given, but they may be discussed more explicitly, we believe.
8) The new role of the teacher - and a new school Traditionally the teachers in the general studies have been lecturing in class rooms and have taken much responsibility for the learning of the students. New ways of working are being developed, and the consequences may be that the schools will have to be reorganised quite fundamentally both as regards physical structures and formal structures. There are indications of such changes, and this is probably the main topic within the broader issue of "school organisation" in the years to come. The implication may be quite dramatic for students as well as teachers, and a "new organisation" is a likely outcome.