Introduction

In many countries, a clear trend with an increasing focus on students’ results and school quality has become evident. Consequently, questions related to effective school reform and school improvement have become increasingly important, and substantial resources, particularly time and money, have been invested in educational reforms and school improvement programs to improve school and student achievement (Desimone, 2009; Kennedy, 2016). That is, school improvement has become highly political and is viewed as a crucial issue not only at all levels of the school system, from policymakers to school actors in individual schools, but also in the research field of school improvement. Nevertheless, the history of school improvement reform has witnessed difficulties in accomplishing sustainable changes in school instructional practices. Payne (2008) summarizes this everlasting reform dilemma with the words: “so much reform but so little change” (p. 4). Consequently, educational reform and school improvement have been, and still are, a true challenge for schools and policymakers (Cuban, 2013).

To overcome these difficulties, a movement toward large-scale and more systemic approaches to school improvement has been taking place in many countries (Hopkins et al., 2014). This implies a shift in focus from working with one school at a time to the school as a system in terms of its different organizational levels and subsystems. Behind such a systemic approach to school improvement is the idea of activating and involving several subsystems and organizational levels within the school system and making them work in the same direction to meet common objectives. In terms of systemic tri-level reform, Fullan (2009) understands this as the intention to strengthen the links and interplay between the national, district, and local school levels to create deeper involvement and legitimacy in the improvement processes, which in turn generates better conditions for sustainable and pervasive educational change (Fullan, 2009; Håkansson & Sundberg, 2016; Hopkins et al., 2014).

However, large-scale systemic school reform approaches face huge challenges. Research has revealed that because of the complexity of the school system in terms of its multiple layers and the high degree of professionalism and autonomy among school actors, the local school system is often described as loosely coupled, which may imply difficulties when it comes to implementing and managing large-scale school improvement efforts (Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020; Orton & Weick, 1990; Spillane et al., 2011). Furthermore, this implies that how school actors at different organizational levels make sense of a reform or improvement effort will play a central role in how the current implementation process will play out and with what consequences (Spillane & Burch, 2006; Spillane et al., 2011). Without overlooking the profound body of research concerning systemic large-scale school reform (e.g., Fullan, 2000, 2009; Harris, 2011; Hopkins et al., 2014), knowledge concerning the conditions for and the results of systemic large-scale school reforms still appears limited. Through a multi-level analysis and a theoretical framework inspired by organization- and sensemaking-oriented theories (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Orton & Weick, 1990; Spillane et al., 2011; Weick, 1995), the aim of this study is to contribute to this research field by exploring the enactment of the large-scale school improvement program “Collaboration for the Best School Possible” (CBSP; subsequently detailed) in two Swedish municipalities. The study examines and compare the changes in the couplings within these two organizations as a result of the CBSP through how school actors at four organizational school levels (at the National Education Agency, Local Education Authority [LEA], school leader, and teacher levels) made sense of central aspects of the CBSP. Addressing school actors’ sensemaking, the following research questions (RQs) have guided the study:

RQ1: What characterizes the large-scale CBSP school improvement program when compared to school actors’ earlier experiences of school improvement?

RQ2: What are the main challenges and obstacles to running a systemic-oriented, large-scale school improvement program, such as the CBSP?

RQ3: What can be distinguished as the most prominent results and non-results from the CBSP program in terms of educational changes and school improvements?

The RQs point to three crucial aspects concerning school reform and school improvement programs: (i) the idea behind, focus on, and premises of the current reform or improvement program (RQ1); (ii) the reform’s and the program’s processes and activities (RQ2); and (iii) the outcomes of the reform or the program (RQ3). How school actors at different organizational levels made sense of these aspects will contribute important knowledge about the couplings between these organizational levels. This knowledge are in turn crucial for understanding conditions for educational change in general and large-scale school improvement in particular, and why school reform programs work or does not work in given contexts.

The article is structured as follows. First, the background sets the focus of the article from a historical perspective and introduces the Swedish school system. This section also presents the CBSP program. In the next section, the theoretical starting points are detailed. Thereafter, the materials and methods are presented, followed by the results. The article ends with a discussion and some conclusions.

The development of the school improvement research field and its couplings with national school reform

The overarching question of how to improve and make schools and educational systems more effective has been central to the emergence of the school improvement research field (Garcia-Huidobro et al., 2017; Hargreaves et al., 2010). Accordingly, due to school reforms and school improvement initiatives’ close connection to contemporary societal and political contexts, national school reforms have had a different focus and different key features over time (Fullan, 2009; Håkansson & Sundberg, 2016; Hopkins & Reynolds, 2001; Hopkins et al., 2014). Going back to the 1960s and 1970s, we can, for example, notice that, in many countries, the reforms had a strong focus on organizational development and the analysis of organizational and behavioral conditions for quality in educational settings (Hopkins et al., 2014). With this focus, understanding and developing the organizational culture of the school implied that the couplings to teaching practice and students’ learning were often indirect and secondary. Taking Sweden as an example, Håkansson and Sundberg (2016) similarly described how national school reforms during this time were primarily occupied with questions of how the educational system should be organized, dimensioned, and structured to create the conditions for educational quality. Accordingly, with a clear top-down reform logic, the focus was mainly on building up a modern educational system, but with no or few references to students’ learning (Håkansson & Sundberg, 2016).

In the 1980s and at the beginning of the 1990s, a new generation of school development was distinguishable (Fullan, 2009; Hopkins et al., 2014). In many countries, including Sweden, the school system trended toward decentralization. Consequently, more bottom-up-initiated strategies for school improvement could be noticed. A shift to more actor-driven aspects became more prevalent in improvement research, giving way to action-oriented and individualized perspectives of teachers and school leaders as drivers of change and improvement. In line with such a decentralization movement, schools now became more responsible for their own evaluation and for managing local improvement processes and institutional renewal (Hopkins & Reynolds, 2001).

The first decade of the 2000s marked a period of higher demands as well as increased managerial instruction for educational change toward the improvement of student outcomes. That is, the decentralization and bottom-up trend successively melded into a reform phase characterized by standardization, marketization, and accountability (Sundberg & Wahlström, 2012). In many Anglo-Saxon countries, we can see a policy movement directed toward “what works?” in school settings, which resulted in government-financed projects where “innovation” was to be implemented at the local school level. In light of this, research concerning school effectiveness and effective school leadership became evident, but there was also more emphasis on aspects such as professional development, learning communities, and instructional leadership (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2011; Hattie, 2009; Leithwood et al., 2010; Townsend, 2007). This also implied a trend toward more central school improvement planning. Experience and robust evidence from improvement research began to play a more central role in interventions and reforms. In Sweden, and considering the then-declining results and increasing inequality between and within schools concerning results and teaching quality, efficient factors for education and teaching were seen as a possible foundation for upscaling improvement work. This, in turn, led to a number of national school improvement programs initiated by the Swedish National Agency for Education (SNAE) in schools (Adolfsson, 2018; Håkansson & Sundberg, 2016.

Toward systemic school improvement research and reforms

It is in light of this overall historical overview concerning the key features linked to national school reform that the development toward more systemic-oriented research and national reform initiatives, such as the Swedish CBSP, should be understood. Decades of school improvement experiences and insights from the research field of school improvement and experiences of school reform have provided an understanding of the conditions and important factors underlying educational changes. For example, when it comes to improving schools, working with one school or one organizational school level at a time appears to be ineffective and undesirable (Harris, 2011). Furthermore, attaining changes in school practices through top-down-oriented school improvement efforts will be met with difficulties when trying to gain legitimacy for those changes among school actors (Cuban, 2013; Hargreaves, 1994). Consequently, and as mentioned above, in many countries, we can notice a movement toward more systemic approaches to school improvement, where the whole school system is taken into account. Overall, this can be described as a gradually shifting focus from individual schools to local school systems and now to national systemic approaches to school improvement (Hopkins et al., 2014). This implies that reforms and management systems endeavor to activate and work with several organizational school levels within the scope of the same improvement effort, with the aim of attaining legitimacy and more effective improvement processes. Hopkins and Reynolds (2001) and Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) emphasize that this requires school systems that can balance and combine national top-down visions and support with local professional knowledge and engagement to promote students’ learning. Harris (2011) discusses this in a similar way, highlighting how a crucial element in any successful change process comprises building school actors’ capacity with a focus on improving students’ results: “The critical issue of implementation leads directly into the important consideration of capacity building” (p. 626). That is, however well-intentioned or well-funded a large-scale system reform may be, Harris (2011) emphasizes that it is unlikely to succeed if the reform focus is not directed toward proper implementation in combination with school actors’ individual and collective capacity building. Harris (2011) concludes that a system cannot move without the capacity to do so: “It needs the collective will, skill and persistence of all those working at all levels in the system” (p. 633). This statement also points to the need to explore the outcomes of systemic-oriented reforms. That is, how and to what degree does a reform actually reinforce the schools’ capacity to improve themselves?

Hopkins and colleagues (2014) point, in a similar way, to the need for “finer-grained knowledge” of how different large-scale school improvement efforts play out in different contexts and cultures, and also of how to manage system reforms over time to attain desirable outcomes. From the theoretical points of departure, where the school system is characterized as loosely coupled, and by examining how school actors at different organizational levels make sense of central aspects linked to large-scale school system improvement processes and their outcomes, this study will contribute to this research field not only in terms of knowledge about the conditions and difficulties linked to such reform processes but also in terms of their results and non-results.

The Swedish policy context and the initiation of the CBSP program

Since the beginning of the 1990s, the Swedish school system has been characterized as highly decentralized. This means that the responsibility for education is divided between the national state, local school organizers, and the principals. LEAs and schools in Sweden have far-reaching autonomy concerning teaching, leadership, and school improvement. At the same time, they are held accountable for ensuring educational quality and that education is aligned with national objectives as well as legal requirements. Most public schools are organized by the municipalities, each having a political school board and a superintendent to manage the LEA administration. The superintendent and the LEA officials have the operational responsibility for leading principals, distributing resources, and supporting schools’ quality assurance work. The size of a specific LEA administration depends, to a large degree, on the size of the current municipality. This means that some LEAs in Sweden are quite small, with only a few LEA officials, while others, often in the larger cities, are quite big, with hundreds of LEA officials.

However, declining student achievement and inequality between schools have brought extensive criticism to bear on the Swedish school system. This criticism has resulted in a recentralization trend in which the state has successively taken stronger control over schools’ outcomes (Adolfsson, 2018; Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020; Håkansson & Adolfsson, 2022). This increased state regulation trend was supported by many reports from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2015) that identified weaknesses in the existing Swedish decentralized school system. Consequently, in light of this policy movement, the Swedish government implemented several reforms and policy initiatives to strengthen state control over school quality and outcomes (Adolfsson, 2018; Sundberg & Wahlström, 2012).

Accordingly, it is within this policy context that the initiation of the Swedish national large-scale school improvement program, the CBSP, should be understood and considered as an additional strategy for the state to govern schools and LEAs in a desirable manner. The CBSP program started in 2015 (Swedish Department of Education, 2015) and can be regarded as one of the most extensive national school improvement programs in Sweden over the last few decades. To illustrate this with some figures, at the end of 2021, 105 LEAs, 416 schools, and 124 preschools underwent the program (SNAE, 2021). Hence, the CBSP stands out as a relevant example of a systemic large-scale school improvement reform from both national and international perspectives. The aim of the CBSP program is to offer support and resources to improve LEAs, schools, and preschools that have received serious critiques from the Swedish School Inspectorate. The SNAE, with support from a selected university, is responsible for running the CBSP program. What makes the CBSP program unique is its systemic school improvement approach, where several organizational levels are involved in the same effort (national school agencies, LEA officials, school leaders, and teachers) over a 3-year period. This long-term approach was built into the CBSP program.

The working process of the program is divided into four phases. Going into detail, the first phase, the so-called analysis phase, lasts for about 9 months. In this phase, a large amount of different forms of school data are collected. Under the leadership of SNAE officials, the participating school organizers and the schools thoroughly analyze their results and capacity for improvement. The aim of this first phase is to gain a common and deeper understanding of the schools’ results and their strengths and shortcomings. Based on the analysis, the analytical phase turns into the second so-called formulation phase. In the formulation phase, the schools and school owners, together with officials from the SNAE, decide and formulate which improvement interventions and activities will be carried out. This improvement plan provides the basis for an agreement concerning the continuing improvement work that is formulated between the SNAE, the municipality, and a university. The aim of the third so-called improvement phase is to implement the improvement plan. That is, this is the phase when the improvement interventions and activities that have been decided on are undertaken over 2 years with support from a university. The fourth evaluation phase actually begins during the third improvement phase. In this phase, CBSP efforts are evaluated and analyzed in light of the initially formulated improvement plan. This evaluation is conducted through a number of recurring meetings with representatives from the schools, school organizers, and the university, where the SNAE evaluates the improvements that are distinguishable during the process. At the end of the CBSP program, each school, school organizer, and university writes a final report in which the improvement process and the most prominent results are summarized and discussed.

In the following section, the theoretical framework is detailed, followed by a discussion of the study method and data.

Theoretical framework

In this study, the research interest concerns how a large-scale school improvement program played out in two Swedish municipalities. With such empirical interest, two different but closely related questions were crucial to theoretically elaborate on. The first issue concerns how to theoretically understand the characterization of the local school system, its different levels and subsystems, and the relationship between them. The second question is linked to how to understand and study reform and implementation processes and the results within such local school systems. A theoretical framework inspired by organizational theory in combination with a sensemaking approach to school reform and improvement processes has been applied to analytically address these questions (Coburn, 2004; Orton & Weick, 1990; Spillane et al., 2011).

Large-scale school improvement in loosely coupled school systems

National school agencies, LEAs, school-leading practices, and teaching practices constitute different organizational levels of the school system. The relationships and links between these levels are central for understanding school reform and improvement efforts, particularly when it comes to systemic-oriented large-scale school improvement: “We can only learn about system change by studying systems, their components, and the interactions among their components” (Hopkins et al., 2014, p. 269).

Since the 1970s, researchers such as Weick (1976) and others have used the image of educational organizations as ‘‘loosely coupled’’ systems to explain the relatively weak connection that often exists between different organizational levels and subsystems, not least in relation to instructional practice. Several studies have also empirically shown that such weak couplings can imply that school reforms and school improvement initiatives are not implemented in the way in which they were intended, and that desirable changes in the schools thus do not occur (Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020; Håkansson & Adolfsson, 2022; Spillane & Burch, 2006). Couplings are crucial in that they contain aspects of both distance and proximity in an organization and of openness and closeness in their external relationships with other organizations.

The theoretical understanding of the school as a coupled system has provided the educational research field with powerful analytical concepts with which to understand and study the inconsistencies within the school system and why reforms fail to produce fundamental structural change (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Considering such a theoretical perspective, national school reforms or school improvement programs can be understood as a strategy by the state to strengthen the couplings between, for example, the national curriculum and teaching practice, with the aim of gaining firm control over school processes and outcomes. In other words, the aspiration is to make the local school system a little less loosely coupled.

However, over time, the theory of the school as loosely coupled has been revised. Coburn (2004), for instance, developed the theory, and instead of talking about the school as loosely coupled in terms of something predetermined, she empirically identified five different forms of coupling mechanisms in her study of teachers’ responses to new teaching instructions: rejection, symbolic decoupling, parallel structures, assimilation, and accommodation. Accordingly, this points to a more multifaceted coupling concept, which implies that the question of the nature of an organization’s different couplings is understood as an empirical question.

That is, the characterization of the links between different subsystems within a local school system will condition the implementation of school reforms and improvement programs. In turn, how the links are constituted depends, to a large extent, on contextual factors in combination with how school actors within these subsystems understand and interpret these reforms and programs. This leads the discussion toward the article’s sensemaking perspective.

School actors’ sensemaking and reform implementation

A growing body of research emphasizes how school actors’ sensemaking processes play an important role in reform and implementation processes (Spillane et al., 2002). This means that the ways in which school actors at different organizational levels within the local school system enact reforms and national improvement programs (such as the CBSP) are shaped by the ways in which the specific policy or program is understood and ascribed different meanings by the actors. A sensemaking perspective on educational change and reform implementation implies placing school actors and their experiences, knowledge, beliefs, and context at the center of the analysis. Studies that utilized sensemaking theories have provided crucial insights into how organizational change occurs, as sensemaking provides a lens through which to understand human agency in relation to organizational conditions (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Weick, 1995).

Sensemaking begins with a “sensemaker” (Weick, 1995, p. 18), which means that actors’ perceived identities and experiences shape how events are made sense of and, in the next step, acted on. Accordingly, in this regard, sensemaking processes are retrospective, as actors draw from their prior experiences and insights when interpreting events in the present time (Weick, 1995). The origin of organizational sensemaking lies in “disruptive ambiguity” (Weick, 2005, p. 413). This means that sensemaking is triggered by events or situations in the organization for which the meaning is ambiguous and the outcomes uncertain. That is, actors are confronted with uncertain or confusing events within their organizational contexts, which in turn triggers a sensemaking process. Such occurrences, when noticed, interrupt actors’ daily work and disrupt their understanding of the organization, creating uncertainty about how to act (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Weick, 1995). Furthermore, in relation to the actors’ retrospective interpretations and reactions in relation to triggers, the “making” in sensemaking should be understood as “people generate what they interpret” (Weick, 1995, p. 34).

Triggers thus become a crucial concept within sensemaking theory. Events that trigger a sensemaking process can either be an unexpected and sudden situation, or, as in this case, a major planned event in the form of a large-scale school improvement program. Accordingly, such planned change processes may directly challenge organizational meanings and trigger sensemaking from which changes in structure and practices follow (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Concerning the study of the implementation of the CBSP, an important part of the analysis comprised of identifying what, concerning school actors’ sensemaking processes, seemed to be the most prominent triggers linked to the current improvement program.

Accordingly, in a study that is interested in the character of the subsystems’ different couplings, it becomes crucial to distinguish differences and similarities regarding how school actors at different organizational levels made sense of the CBSP program. However, Coburn (2006) emphasizes that research on sensemaking in schools has tended to ignore the ways in which the process of sensemaking about policy and reforms may be contested. That is, sensemaking researchers have emphasized shared meanings and collective understandings instead of dissension. This implies, according to Coburn (2006), that researchers have not provided an account of what happens when differences in actors’ sensemaking processes arise among those who are involved in, for example, a reform process. Furthermore, focusing on how a problem is diagnosticated by actors at different levels is, according to Coburn (2006), an effective way to distinguish differences in school actors’ sensemaking processes. That is, what school actors retrospectively identify as a problem, or how they identify a problem within an organization or a specific reform process, depends on the sensemakers’ individual and shared experiences, understandings, and interpretations of the specific context and events. Linked to this study, identifying contested sensemaking between school actors regarding problems concerning the current organization and obstacles with the national improvement program will say something about the couplings within the current organization. Such insights into the couplings will, in turn, enable a better understanding of the enactment processes and the program’s results.

In sum, the theoretical sensemaking approach offers several concepts that analytically describe and enable an exploration of how actors make sense of central processes and events within an organization. The concepts from the sensemaking tradition that are primarily in focus in this study are “events,” “triggers,” and “problem framing.” These concepts, together with the theory about the school as a coupled system, have analytically guided the formulation of the study’s research questions and, in the next step, the analysis of the empirical material. In the following section, the study’s methods and research materials are presented in detail. This also includes a further discussion of how this theoretical framework was operationalized in the analyses of the empirical material.

Research methods and materials

To study questions concerning the processes and outcomes of a systemic-oriented large-scale school improvement reform, the Swedish national school improvement program, the CBSP, was studied in two Swedish municipalities that served as two cases (Stake, 2005; Yin, 2018). These two municipalities have recently undergone 3 years of the CBSP program. Just like all school organizers and schools that have undertaken the CBSP program, the school organizers in these two municipalities had received substantial critiques from the Swedish Schools Inspectorate. Based on this, they were invited to participate in the program. Regarding this research project, the two municipalities were chosen due to their differences in size (number of inhabitants) and the size of the LEA organizations. The aim with this selection was primarily to obtain a variation, and through this, a good representation in relation to Swedish municipalities that have participated in the CBSP program.

The first municipality (M1) is a city in Sweden with approximately 350,000 inhabitants. The city is characterized by inhabitants with widely varying socio-economic levels and ethnic backgrounds. Consequently, its schools have extreme diversity in terms of student composition and achievement, among others. Thus, an important aspect of the work of LEAs in this municipality is comprised of dealing with this major equality problem. Six comprehensive schools were involved in the CBSP program together with the LEAs. These schools were located in vulnerable areas with a low socio-economic index. The CBSP program had a general focus on improving the quality assurance systems of the LEAs and schools, school leadership, student health, and teaching quality.

The second municipality (M2) is considerably smaller than M1, with approximately 34,000 inhabitants. It is located in the countryside, quite far from large cities. Its inhabitants are primarily owners of small enterprises, or they work in the welfare sector and are much more homogenous than those of M1. One major upper secondary school (the only one in the municipality), together with the LEA, was involved in the CBSP improvement program. In the general plan, the focus of the school improvement was, in many ways, the same as that in the larger municipality in terms of improving the quality assurance systems of schools and LEAs, strengthening school leadership, and developing teaching practices.

This study has a comparative approach. By addressing school actors’—at different organizational levels—sensemaking of central aspects of the CBSP, the aim is to elucidate the character of the couplings between organizational levels. Based on such a comparative objective, the study applies a qualitative multi-level analysis design (Andersen et al., 2018), where data from four organizational levels (the National Education Agency, LEA, school leader, and teacher levels) within the local school systems were collected and analyzed. In the first step, local policy documents linked to the quality assurance systems of the LEAs and schools were analyzed. The aim of this document analysis was to gain a deeper contextual understanding of the LEAs’ and schools’ formal quality systems, leadership organization, and infrastructure for monitoring and communicating results. In addition, documents linked to the CBSP analysis and formulation phases at all schools and LEAs were analyzed to provide a more accurate understanding of the CBSP effort in each municipality in terms of the identified areas of development needs and the chosen improvement strategies. This document analysis revealed important insights and knowledge that, in turn, created a basis for the upcoming interviews with school actors at the different organizational levels.

Subsequently, semi-structured interviews were conducted with LEA officials, principals at the current schools, and teachers. The interviewed LEA officials, principals, and teachers were all, in different ways, deeply involved in the work with the CBSP program at the schools and could share important insights about the program. Finally, two individual interviews were conducted with two SNAE officials who were responsible for the current CBSP program in each municipality. The table below summarizes the collected amount of data that has been used in this specific study.

Table 1 Data collection
Full size table

Each interview, which lasted approximately 60 min, was recorded and transcribed. All interviews were conducted using an interview guide that was thematically organized into three main areas derived from the RQs and the theoretical framework: (i) school actors’ experiences and perceptions of the CBSP process, (ii) challenges and obstacles with the CBSP, and (iii) results and non-results from the CBSP program.

The analysis

The analysis of the empirical data was performed in two steps. In the first step, the transcribed material was analyzed exploratively in light of the RQs and from the sensemaking perspective. The aim of this step was to identify and illuminate patterns and variations in how school actors at the different organizational levels made sense of the CBSP program by considering their (retrospective) experiences and insights concerning the three aspects of the program (the program’s ideas and premises, the activities and processes, and the results).

More concretely, when it comes to the first RQ, the characterization of the large CBSP school improvement program, the analysis consisted of illuminating the events that seemed to have triggered the school actors’ sensemaking processes in relation to the CBSP. This was accomplished by focusing on the school actors’ descriptions and comparisons of the CBSP in relation to the schools’ ordinary improvement work. That is, premises and activities within the national improvement program that challenged the schools’ and the LEAs’ regular organizational routines and processes linked to school improvement and quality assurance.

In the analysis of the second RQ, the focus was on how school actors at different organizational levels diagnosticated the problems linked to national large-scale school improvements in general and the CBSP program in particular. That is to say, how actors from the SNAE, the LEAs, school leader practice, and teaching practice framed the problems in different ways in terms of how they retrospectively made sense of the major challenges and obstacles concerning implementing the CBSP program in relation to the organizations’ contextual conditions.

With the first two RQs, aspects linked to the CBSP’s premises, ideas, activities, and processes were explored. The third RQ focused on the results and outcomes. From a sensemaking perspective, this implied an analysis of events in the form of retrospectively identified changes or even non-changes that had occurred or had not occurred in the organization, as, according to the school actors, a result of the CBSP program.

Based on the results of the exploration of the school actors’ sensemaking of the different aspects of the CBSP, the second step of the analysis was directed toward the couplings between the different organizational levels. Accordingly, in line with the comparative approach of the study, the focus here was to distinguish the contested perceptions, understandings, and actions between the organizational levels, as well as between the two municipalities, regarding the different aspects of the large-scale school improvement program. Through this analysis, it was possible to draw conclusions regarding the character of the couplings and the changes in them between the organizational levels in relation to the CBSP program and what implications this had for the implementation processes and the outcomes of the program.

Results

Prominent triggers linked to the ideas and premises of the CBSP

A way to distinguish the characteristics of the CBSP program was to put its underlying ideas and premises in relation to and compare them with schools’ regular school improvement work. All CBSP programs were organized and carried out on the basis of the same formalized working model developed by the SNAE. For instance, as described earlier, all schools and LEAs underwent the same improvement phases (analysis, formulation, improvement, and evaluation) in less than 3 years. In addition, a university was linked to the program to support schools and LEAs, especially in the improvement phase (SNAE, 2021).

School actors from all organizational levels (national, district, and school levels) emphasized that the formalization of the improvement work, extensive external support, and a long-term perspective (3 years) characterized the CBSP program and distinguished it from other regular school improvement programs, as explained by a principal:

We got so much support throughout the whole process, and I think this is the most important reason why we actually managed this. You know, you get pushed in one direction … and many of the changes would not have been made if no external support had been supporting us. Another thing is that you are forced to follow a specific process and a formal structure. (Principal 2, M2)

The teachers and principals in both municipalities also reported that the CBSP program was much more focused and explicit in formulating and deciding what improvement efforts should be initiated. These efforts were also much more intensive and deeper: “It was much more straightforward with the CBSP, more pinpointed compared to our and the LEA’s school development efforts. They used to be much more general” (Teacher 3, School 1, M1).

The presence of the SNAE and the university was described as important support for principals in their leadership. Accordingly, the SNAE and university comprised important authorities that gave legitimacy to principals’ decision-making in relation to teachers and the LEA.

In addition, something that principals and teachers from both municipalities really emphasized that characterized the CBSP program was the analysis process that all schools and LEAs underwent during the first part of the program under the leadership of the SNAE officials. This process, which lasted for 6–8 months, was aimed at performing an in-depth analysis of the schools’ and LEAs’ results to identify central development needs. The policy document from the SNAE that describes the CBSP process clearly shows how this extensive focus on the analysis process was inspired by ideas from data-based decision-making theory. That is, collecting and analyzing different forms of data comprised a central way of making informed decisions, as explained by a principal as follows: “We spent a lot of time collecting data, and we got support in analyzing this … We had to know how it really was. ‘I believe’ or ‘I think’ were banned expressions” (Principal, School 1, M2).

The huge focus on and the extensive amount of time spent in the initial analysis phase were also emphasized in the interviews by the representatives from the LEAs and the SNAE. The LEA officials from both municipalities described how this analysis work helped them attain a common vision at all organizational levels regarding the schools’ development needs; that is, the common analysis paved the way and laid the groundwork for further improvement work: “The absolute biggest difference, compared to previous school improvement efforts, is that we now had a common focus” (LEA Official, M1). One SNAE official similarly described how what characterized the CBSP program was its systemic school improvement approach. That is, the program comprises all organizational levels within the local school system. This became clear in the initial analysis phase, where actors from several organizational levels were represented: “Usually, they don’t meet each other and work together in this way within the management chain. Now, they must do that; we force them to” (SNAE Official 2).

As mentioned earlier, the central factor that distinguished the large-scale CBSP program from the schools’ usual improvement work was the great number of external resources in terms of competencies and the money that came with the program. Especially in the smaller municipality, the principals and representatives from the LEA emphasized the competencies that the representatives of the SNAE contributed to the introduction of the analysis phase and the university’s support in the subsequent improvement phase. That is, this large-scale competence support was regarded as unique compared to previous efforts. However, besides external competence support, the teachers and principals in both municipalities also reported that the economic resources that came with the program enabled much more extensive and long-lasting improvement work, as expressed in the following statement:

We would not have the ability to initiate all these improvement strategies, for example, instructional coaching, because we did not have that money. I don’t think the principal at our school would have made that decision if the National Agency for Education had not defrayed those expenses. (Teacher, School 3, M1)

In sum, some central events that seemed to have triggered school actors’ sensemaking regarding the characterization of the CBSP were distinguished. These events can be described as (i) the extensive degree of formalization of the CBSP process, (ii) the extensive external support and resources, (iii) the long-term perspective, and (iv) the exhaustive analysis process that all schools and LEAs underwent during the first part of the program under the leadership of the SNAE officials.

These events were emphasized and described in a similar way among the school actors at the different organizational levels and in the two municipalities. That is, a high degree of shared meanings and common understandings can be distinguished between the organizational levels and between the municipalities, even if some aspects were emphasized more than others among the actors. For example, external competence support from the SNAE and the university tended to be valued more by the school actors in the smaller municipality than by those in the larger municipality. In addition, the SNAE seemed to, to some degree, value the importance of the initial analytical phase more than, for example, the principals did.

Framing the problems: challenges and obstacles linked to large-scale school improvement

As discussed earlier, the CBSP, with its systemic school improvement approach, comprises a complex and multifaced school improvement program concerning its organization, processes, and leadership. Consequently, such a reform generates large challenges that motivate an analysis of school actors’ problem framing linked to the CBSP processes.

An overall problem that the interviewed SNAE officials identified was the challenge of maintaining long-term and sustainable changes after the CBSP program had finished. That is, even if the CBSP program had proceeded for almost 3 years, the officials had seen several difficulties in maintaining changes in the organization over time after the improvement program had been completed. According to the SNAE officials, the changes risked not being institutionalized. An aggravating condition linked to this problem was, according to the SNAE officials, that many LEAs and schools that participated in CBSP programs had high employee turnover rates, which made it difficult to maintain continuity in the school improvement process.

The ability to work in the long run is not easy when you spend all the time recruiting new employees. You lose continuity, and then it is hard to make sustainable improvements. It is very rare that you come to a school that has had the same principal for the last 7 years. It is more usual that there have been seven different principals at the school for the last 7 years. (SNAE Official 2)

However, this problem of maintaining sustainable changes over a longer timeframe was only something that the SNAE officials emphasized and was not discussed by actors at the other organizational levels.

Another more general problem linked to large-scale national school improvements refers to the dynamics between national control and local autonomy. In particular, some principals problematized the fact that the national level, the SNAE, bypassed the LEA and even principals, and orchestrated far-reaching and thorough improvement efforts in schools, most often in terms of instructional practices. In light of the Swedish decentralized school system, where principals and LEAs have the responsibility for educational quality, quality assurance, and school improvement, some principals believed that this could be problematic. On the other hand, the same principals emphasized the positive aspects of all the resources, especially money and competencies, which were provided in connection with the CBSP program. One principal in a school in M1 discussed this dilemma as follows:

The head of the school is the LEA in the municipality. If there are problems at the schools, it therefore must be their responsibility … If the LEA cannot handle these problems, it is on that level that the CBSP should focus. When the national level, the state, instead focuses on a specific school, it will not solve the real problem. (Principal 3, M1)

However, when the same question was discussed with the LEA officials and the teachers in the two municipalities, they did not share the same position as the principals. In contrast, they felt that the state’s involvement in the schools was an important way of attaining a more equal school system.

From an equality perspective, I think this kind of national involvement is very positive. Municipalities have very different conditions and resources when it comes to supporting their schools. And many municipalities are so small that they do not have all the competencies that you sometimes need. (LEA Official, M2)

An SNAE official emphasized that most of the time, the LEAs and schools were positive and grateful for the support they received from the CBSP program.

I have never had that kind of reaction from any LEAs that they should see the CBSP as something problematic in relation to their autonomy. In contrast, they are very pleased with the support they get; they see this as an offer, not as something mandatory. (SNAE Official 1)

Besides these general obstacles, the interviewed school actors also described more specific problems linked to the CBSP process that seemed to have triggered their sensemaking of the program. One example of this was linked to the initial analysis phase. In this phase, it became clear that actors at different organizational levels made sense of and valued this process in different ways. The SNAE and LEAs in the two municipalities had a similar understanding of this phase. They understood that an extensive analysis was a crucial way of obtaining a much deeper understanding of a school’s results, teaching quality, and the conditions for undertaking school improvement, which in turn constituted an important ground for further improvement work.

The analysis phase enables … you can uncover the whole picture. Aspects like school culture and … usually, they often immediately go too fast and straight on to the improvement strategies. (SNAE Official 2)

However, even if variations existed among the interviewed principals, several of them, regardless of municipality, appeared to have a more problematized attitude toward the analysis process than the SNAE and LEA officials had. The principals thought that the analysis process could certainly meet an important objective, but the process was described as too long, and thus it used too many resources.

Based on the report from the Swedish School Inspectorate, we already knew what our development needs were, and we had done quite an extensive analysis together with the teachers, with help from the LEA. And then came the CBSP, and we had to redo all this again. So, from our point of view, we lost one year. (Principal, School 1, M1)

Even if some of the teachers had critical voices, most of them had a much more positive attitude toward the analysis phase. Several teachers described how, thanks to this part of the program, they had become much more involved in the current improvement processes than in previous school improvement efforts. According to the teachers, this involvement increased their participation and thus the legitimacy of the whole program.

However, despite this positive attitude among many of the teachers toward the analysis phase, some teachers, primarily in the smaller municipalities, expressed skepticism and resistance toward an external actor who would come to the school and undertake school improvement efforts. The teachers, most of whom had lengthy teaching experience, felt criticized and were pointed out as “bad” teachers. One LEA representative in the current municipality summarized this attitude of the teachers as follows: “Who do they think they are coming here and telling us how we should teach our students?” (LEA Official 1, M2). Instead, these teachers meant that the reason behind the declining student results primarily depended on external factors, such as a lack of resources or student-related factors, not the teaching quality per se, as one official clarified: “This was a delicate issue; the closer they come to the instructional practices, the more delicate it becomes for the teachers. This was something new for them” (LEA Official 1, M2).

However, in the larger municipality, a much more positive attitude was displayed toward external actors, such as the SNAE or university, who came and actively worked with the school’s internal improvement processes. Two teachers interviewed at a school in this municipality expressed this as follows:

Teacher 1: I think this is good, that someone external comes and supports us. In addition, the SNAE possesses a lot of resources.

Teacher 2: Yes, I just see this as an opportunity for us.

Summing up this second part of the results presentation, the analysis points to some general problems linked to conducting nationally initiated large-scale school improvement programs, but also to more specific challenges and obstacles linked to the CBSP process. Maintaining changes in school practice over time was a dilemma that the SNAE officials emphasized. The principals, in contrast to the SNAE, LEA, and the teachers, saw it as something problematic that the National School Agency bypassed the LEA and the principals and orchestrated far-reaching school improvement efforts at the local schools. More specific problems that could be distinguished were linked to the analysis phase, as, even here, clear differences emerged between the different organizational levels, especially between the principals and other school actors, but also between the two municipalities.

Prominent triggers concerning results and non-results linked to the CBSP program

In the final part of the results presentation, an analysis of triggers in the form of retrospectively identified changes or even non-changes that had occurred or had not occurred in the organization as a result of the program will be discussed. In the CBSP policy (SNAE, 2021) and according to the interviewed SNAE officials, the CBSP program primarily aims to strengthen the LEAs’ and schools’ own capacity to improve their educational quality in general and teaching quality in particular to improve students’ results. Regarding the school actors’ experiences and appreciation of what results and non-results could be derived from the CBSP program, some patterns are distinguishable.

As a result of the extensive analysis phase, when all LEAs and schools initially underwent the CBSP process under the SNAE, several of the interviewed school actors described how this work had led to a greater common understanding and consensus among the school actors concerning the schools’ results and development needs: “Damn, it became so clear, and it became clear for all staff at the school—this is what we need to work with” (Teacher 1, M2). These strengthened couplings between principals and teachers were also found between the schools and the LEAs. That is, because of the analysis process, the links between organizational levels in the local school system were strengthened.

Actually, I don’t think the analysis gave us very many new insights about our results. But we did these analyses together with principals and some teachers at the school. Everyone had been involved in the discussions, and we reached an agreement concerning the LEA’s and the school’s improvement areas. (LEA Official, M2)

In line with this, the teachers also described how they, as a result of their participation in the analysis phase and involvement in the whole CBSP process, now felt much more engaged in the schools’ improvement work, which meant that wider participation and a higher degree of legitimacy in the organization concerning school improvement efforts could be noted.

In close connection to this, several principals in both municipalities also stressed that distributed leadership, in terms of how it is organized and used in school improvement processes, had been developed at the schools. For example, the expert teachers’ tasks had been clarified, and they had more responsibility for and played an active role in running school improvement processes, including organizing and leading teachers’ professional development: “The expert teachers have been much more involved and engaged in the school’s improvement work. They are now responsible for a defined part, and they are also now responsible for a specific teacher group” (Principal 3, M1).

Another noticeable result from the CBSP program was linked to the LEAs’ and the schools’ development of their quality assurance systems. In addition, principals, as LEA officials, described how an extensive part of the work within the CBSP program was focused on improving the structures, organization, processes, and leadership related to their quality systems. This was described by the school actors from both municipalities and was extra-visible in the smaller municipality. Thus, when asking an LEA officer in the smaller municipality what she rated as the most important result from the CBSP program, she answered:

I definitely choose the quality assurance system, no doubt about it! Here, we can see clear improvements. I think we now have a functioning and well-working quality assurance system. We are not done yet, but we now know where we should go and how to get there. (LEA Official, M1)

Similarly, a principal at a school in the same municipality answered the same question regarding the most prominent results from the CBSP as follows: “The most important outcome of the CBSP program was the development of our school improvement organization. In addition, expert teachers have now become an important part of this organization. We would not have managed that without the CBSP” (Principal 3, M2).

Closely connected to the efforts to improve the LEAs’ and the schools’ quality assurance systems was how several informants, regardless of organizational level, described how they had enhanced their knowledge and competencies concerning evaluation, data collection, data analysis, and so on through the CBSP process. That is, the school actors’ data literacy was developed. A teacher expressed this as follows:

Before the CBSP, I think we thought that we were quite good at analyzing data, but we recognized that was not the case. We could really analyze the reasons behind things and problems; for example, why do so many students in that class find it difficult to concentrate and learn? (Teacher 7, M1)

In the interviews, the school actors were also asked to describe the results that had not been achieved, the so-called non-results, in light of the initially formulated improvement plans. In both municipalities, the school actors, as discussed earlier, described how the organization, structures, leadership, and processes linked to their school improvement work had improved. In the same way, the efforts directed toward improving instructional practice resulted in the development of teachers’ professional knowledge linked to different teaching areas, such as math didactics, formative assessment, language development teaching, assessment, and grading. However, regarding the degree to which these knowledge areas were converted into real and concrete changes in the teachers’ instructional practices, there were major differences between the teachers. That is, attaining general improvements in teaching quality appeared to be a challenge, as reflected in the following statement: “After almost 3 years of school improvement, with support from a university and the SNAE, you may have wished that you could have seen more improvements in the teaching quality” (SNAE Official 1).

That is, on the basis of the SNAE officials’ experiences in working with previous CBSP efforts, they described how they could often distinguish positive changes in schools’ and LEAs’ structures, processes, and organization linked to their quality assurance systems, but that it seemed much more difficult to maintain general effects on the schools’ teaching practices, as explained in the following statement:

We are still waiting for effects that reach all the way out to the students … better student achievement. However, we cannot really see that yet, in a wider sense. School improvement takes time, but we must focus much more on teaching. That is, if we want to see effects on instructional practice and student achievement, we must prioritize efforts that focus on that much more, so that we can see results much faster than we do now. (SNAE Official 2)

In sum, when asking school actors from the different organizational levels what the most prominent outcomes from the CBSP programs were, they quite unanimously pointed to improvements in the LEAs’ and schools’ structures, organization, and processes concerning their quality assurance systems and leadership practices. In addition, the CBSP seemed to have contributed to the teachers’ knowledge linked to teaching. While most of the principals and LEA officials in the two municipalities were quite satisfied with these kinds of outcomes, the SNAE officials pointed to the need to see longer-term effects related to teaching practices and student achievement. Another clear result was linked to the initial analytical phase. While the principals had a more critical opinion about this phase, the SNAE and LEA officials, together with the teachers, described several benefits arising from this work. Besides identifying school improvement needs, the analytical work also contributed to an increased common understanding and consensus between the organizational levels in combination with enhanced teacher participation in school improvement work.

Discussion

Undertaking large-scale school improvements within coupled school systems

By examining how the national school improvement CBSP program played out in two different Swedish municipalities, the aim of this study was to explore the conditions for and the results of a systemic-oriented large-scale school improvement program. The theoretical point of departure in which the school system is understood as coupled implies that the characterization of the coupling between different organizational school levels and subsystems will condition the implementation of a school reform or an improvement program regarding its processes and outcomes. Furthermore, a way to illuminate the character of these couplings is by studying how school actors at, in this case, different organizational levels made sense of the current reform or improvement program. That is, based on a comparison of how school actors at four different organizational levels made sense of crucial aspects of the CBSP (the program’s ideas and premises, activities and processes, and results), it is now possible to draw conclusions regarding the character of the couplings within the two local school organizations that have been studied linked to the implementation of the CBSP. These insights can give us a better understanding of the CBSP implementation process and its results. More importantly, some general conclusions and implications can be drawn concerning the conditions for educational change in general and large-scale school reform in particular.

Tight and loose couplings linked to the implementation of the CBSP program

An aspect linked to the implementation of the CBSP where the couplings within the studied organizations seemed to be tight was how the school actors’ made sense of the CBSP program’s underlying ideas, premises, and central processes and activities. That is, a high degree of unanimity between the organizational levels in terms of shared meanings and common understandings could be distinguished between the organizational levels, but also between the two municipalities concerning what characterized the CBSP program. Such a common understanding within the local school systems of the program’s aim and basic ideas can be seen as an important condition for the implementation process (Fullan, 2009; Hopkins et al., 2014).

An explanation for these strong couplings can be found in the standardized and coherent program design of the CBSP. That is, all CBSP efforts, regardless of municipality, followed the same procedures and processes and underwent the same phases. In addition, a crucial activity within the CBSP program that seems to have contributed to these strong couplings was the long initial analysis phase directed by the SNAE officials. Even if it was not the main and original purpose, this process comprised an important coupling mechanism in terms of strengthening the consensus and understanding between the organizational levels concerning school improvement and leadership. This, in turn, seemed to have increased the school actors’ sense of participation and the legitimacy of the CBSP program, especially among the teachers.

The quite standardized and coherent framework and program design can also explain the tight couplings between the organizational levels regarding the most prominent outcomes from the CBSP programs. If the different improvement efforts that are carried out within the CBSP program are quite similar in focus and content, this plausibly also affects the outcomes. The differences that could be distinguished were about the results being considered sufficient or not sufficient enough. In the evaluation of the improvement efforts undertaken by the school organizers and the SNAE in the final phase of the CBSP program, it appeared that the schools often had difficulties in delivering and presenting clear results regarding improvements in the instructional practices and students’ results. While the principals did not describe this as problematic because “changes take time,” the SNAE asked for more immediate and evident effects on teaching quality and student achievement.

However, besides these tight couplings, there were elements linked to the CBSP process in which the couplings can be described as much looser, especially when it comes to the school actors’ problem framing. Clear skepticism among some of the principals could be identified regarding the state’s initiation of a national school improvement reform within a decentralized school system. Accordingly, they felt that the national level, through the CBSP program, took an obvious step into a domain that primarily belonged to principals. That is, owing to the decentralized school system, they questioned the idea of the state as a strong school improvement actor. Also, among the teachers, primarily in the smaller municipalities, there was some resistance toward an external actor, such as the SNAE, coming to the schools and orchestrating school improvement efforts. The strong focus on teaching quality implied that the same teachers in some way felt criticized and that they were pointed out as “bad” teachers. In contrast, much more positive attitudes toward this national aspiration and type of engagement were found among the SNAE and LEA officials, who saw the CBSP, with its great amount of resources, as an important way of ensuring a more equal school system.

Another example of a central element of the CBSP process where the couplings can be described as loose was the initial analysis phase. That is, just as with the skepticism concerning the top-down approach, the principals also tended to question and have a more critical view of the analysis phase compared to school actors at the other organizational levels. The reason for this may be that the principals seemed to have a narrower understanding of the purpose of the analysis phase than, for example, the LEA officials and SNAE officials did. The principals did not see that the analytical phase, in which school actors from all organizational levels were engaged, could work as an important strategy to achieve a common understanding and legitimation around the improvement work. Instead, many of the principals considered the analytical phase as too long and resource-intensive and as something that took time away from the “real” school improvement work. That is, despite the analysis phase seeming to create the conditions for school actors from different organizational levels to meet, interact, and analyze school results together, some of the principals did not see the underlying potential that these meetings had to strengthen the couplings between the levels.

Considering that the principal is a very important and central actor in school improvement work, it can be seen as problematic if the couplings between the principals and school actors at other organizational levels are too weak (Day, & Sammons, 2016); Leithwood et al., 2008). Accordingly, this may affect the ability to succeed in the long run with a large-scale school program, such as the CBSP.

Conclusions

Finally, based on the results and the discussion above, some general conclusions can be drawn regarding the conditions for and the results of large-scale school improvements.

In line with the results from this study, we know from previous research literature that school improvement efforts often have problems maintaining long-term and sustainable changes (Antoniou & Kyriakides, 2011; Cuban, 2013; Payne, 2008). With a systemic school improvement approach, one problem is that many school improvement programs are often directed toward working with one organizational level and with one school improvement effort at a time (Fullan, 2009; Hopkins et al., 2014). A systemic school improvement approach aims to handle these conditions by focusing on strengthening the links between subsystems and the school system’s different organizational levels, getting them to work in the same direction (Fullan, 2009; Hopkins et al., 2014). Accordingly, when it comes to organizing and running a large-scale school improvement program, it seems crucial not to have too narrow and explicit a focus on the improvement of teaching quality per se. Besides improving teachers’ teaching skills and instructional practices, the focus should also be directed toward developing the infrastructure around teaching practice in terms of organization, distributed leadership, support structures, professional learning communities, and evaluation systems, among others (Shirrell et al., 2018. That is, and in line with Harris (2011), the improvement reforms must be directed toward reinforcing the whole organization’s capacity building.

A large-scale systemic school improvement program, such as the CBSP, can create the conditions for such a wider approach to school improvement, as it embraces several organizational levels within the scope of the same program. However, achieving this requires a well-thought-out program design and organization, and effective long-term leadership that manages and runs the different school improvement efforts as a whole, with the clear aim of working with and strengthening the couplings to teaching practices. Just as the results from this study have shown, organizing and conducting the data-analysis phase at the start of large-scale school improvement programs, where representatives from different organizational levels are involved, seems to comprise an important coupling strategy, and thus creates good conditions for further improvement work.

At the same time, and in accordance with Hopkins and Reynolds (2001) and Hargreaves and Shirley (2009), when it comes to implementing a nationally initiated large-scale school improvement reform, this study has shown the importance of managing the balance between top-down efforts and visions and local professional knowledge and experience. That is, even if a national school improvement program has a well-developed design and comes with good intentions and many resources, it must be perceived as legitimate among the local school actors. This includes school actors at all organizational levels because if one organizational level feels bypassed or walked all over, such as the principals did in this study, this can be assumed to negatively affect the implementation process and the outcomes of large-scale school improvement programs.