Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 153–172 | Cite as

Schools implementing Zero: The process of implementing an anti-bullying program in six Norwegian compulsory schools

  • Unni Vere Midthassel
  • Sigrun K. Ertesvåg
Article
First Online:

Abstract

In 2002 the Prime Minister of Norway initiated a central Manifesto against bullying and invited all schools to participate in anti-bullying programs. Two programs were supported by the central authorities. This paper draws on a Norwegian project where six compulsory schools participated in one of those programs. Our focus was on the implementation process in the schools. We wanted to see how the schools’ readiness for the program influenced the implementation. Group interviews with the project groups at the schools and telephone interviews with the headteachers were used to collect data. Results indicate that the headteacher’s role is important, during both initiation and implementation of the program. The schools that were familiar with anti-bullying work and had firm leadership seem to have implemented the program most successfully. One lesson from this study is the need to investigate differentiated implementation support for different schools depending on their readiness.

Keywords

School improvement Change activity Implementation  School development Implementation process 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barbour, R. S., & Kitzinger, J. (1999). Developing focus groups: Politics, theory and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Cuban, L. (1999). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453–477.Google Scholar
  3. Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading schools in times of change. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  5. Fullan, M. (1992). Visions that blind. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 19–22.Google Scholar
  6. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teacher College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fullan, M. (2002). The role of leadership in the promotion of knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 409–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Geijsel, F., Sleegers, P., Van den Berg, R., & Kelchtermans, G. (2001). Conditions fostering the implementation of large-scale innovation programs in schools: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 130–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  10. Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Zins, J. E. (2001). A conceptual model of implementation for school-based prevention interventions: Implications for research, practice and policy: Draft copy.Google Scholar
  11. Hargreaves D., & Hopkins D. (Eds.). (1994). Development planning for school improvement (pp. 1–23). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  12. Hargreaves, D. H. (2001). A capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement. British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 487–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henderson, N. R. (1995). A practical approach to analyzing and report focus groups studies: Lessons from qualitative market research. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 463–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hopkins, D. (1996). Towards a theory for school improvement. In J. Gray, D. Reynolds, C. Fitz-Gibbon, & D. Jesson (Eds.), Merging traditions: The future of research on school effectiveness and school improvement (pp. 30–50). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  15. Hopkins, D., & Reynolds, D. (2001). The past, present and future of school improvement: Towards the third age. British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kallestad, J. H. (2003). Predicting teachers’ and schools’ implementation of the Olweus bullying program: A multilevel study. Prevention & Treatment, http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html
  17. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Larsen, T. (2005). Evaluating principals’ and teachers’ implementation of second step. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  19. Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1994). Goal setting theory. In H. J. Neil & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research (pp. 13–30). Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand Agent Study: Revised: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16.Google Scholar
  21. McMahon, A. (1999). Promoting continuing professional development for teachers: An achievable target for school leaders? In T. Bush, D. Bell, R. Boham, & P. Ribbins (Eds.), Educational management, redefining theory, policy and practice (pp. 102–113). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  22. Midthassel, U., Bru, E., & Idsøe, T. (2000). The principal’s role in promoting school development activity in Norwegian compulsory schools. School Leadership and Management, 20(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Midthassel, U. V. (2002). Teacher involvement in school development activity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  24. Midthassel, U. V. (2004). Teacher involvement in school development activity and its relationships to attitudes and subjective norms among teachers: A study of Norwegian elementary and junior high school teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 435–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Midthassel, U. V., & Bru, E. (2001). Predictors and gains of teacher involvement in an improvement project on classroom management. Experiences from a Norwegian project in two compulsory schools. Educational Psychology, 21(3), 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Mullens, J. E., & Gaylor, K., Goldstein, D., Hildreth, J., & Rubenstein, M. (1999). Measuring classroom instructional processes: Using survey and case study field test results to improve item construction (Working Paper No. 1999-8): National Center or Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  29. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Reeves, J., McCall, J., & MacGilchrist, B. (2001). Change leadership: Planning, conceptualization and perception. In J. Macbeath & P. Mortimore (Eds.), Improving school effectiveness (pp. 122–137). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Retallick, J., & Fink, D. (2002). Framing leadership: Contributions and impediments to educational change. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5(2), 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reynolds, D., Teddlie, C., Hopkins, D, & Stringfield, S. (2000). Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. In C. Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 206–231). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  33. Roland, E., & Munthe, E. (1989). Bullying, an international perspective. London: David Fulton Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ workplace. NY: Teacher College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  35. Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediation effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Short, P. M., Greer, J. T., & Melvin, W. M. (1994). Creating empowered schools: Lesson in change. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(4), 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sim, J. (1998). Collecting and analysing qualitative data: Issues raised by the focus group. Methodological Issues in Nursing Research, 28(2), 345–352.Google Scholar
  38. Stoll, L. (1996). Linking school effectiveness and school improvement: Issues and possibilities. In J. Gray, D. Reynolds, C. Fitz-Gibbon, & D. Jesson (Eds.), Merging traditions: The future of research on school effectiveness and school improvement (pp. 51–73). London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  39. Stoll, L. (1998). Supporting school improvement. Paper presented at the First Follow-Up Conference on the OECD activity ‘Combating Failure at School’, Christchurch, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  40. Stoll, L. (1999). Realising our potential: Understanding and developing capacity for lasting improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(4), 503–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stoll, L., Macbeath, J., Smith, I., & Robertson, P. (2001). The change equation. In J. MacBeath & P. Mortimore (Eds.), Improving school effectiveness (pp. 169–190). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Tikkanen, T., & Junge, A. (2005). Realisering av an visjon om et mobbefritt oppvekstmiljø for barn og unge. (Evaluation of the manifesto against bullying 2002–2004). Stavanger: RF-Report 2004/223.Google Scholar
  43. Wan, E. (2005). Teacher empowerment: Concepts, strategies and implications for schools in Hong Kong. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 842–861.Google Scholar
  44. Wasserstein-Warnet, M., & Klein, Y. (2000). Principal’s cognitive strategies for changes of perspective in school innovation. School Leadership and Management, 20(4), 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. West, M., Jackson, D., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2000). Learning through leadership, leadership through learning. In K. Riley & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Leadership for change and school reform (pp. 30–49). London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Behavioural ResearchUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options