Advertisement

The School Boards Between Power and Influence

  • Klaus Kasper KofodEmail author
  • Jan Merok Paulsen
  • Olof Johansson
  • Seppo Pulkkinen
  • Pekka Kanervio
Chapter
Part of the Educational Governance Research book series (EGTU, volume 1)

Abstract

The decentralized Scandinavian school structure with the municipal school committee as a central factor between the municipal council and other school interests gives the school board a central role in the implementation of the centrally decided school legislation from the parliament. Therefore, the central questions in modern Scandinavian schooling are: what are the ways of influence and what power mechanisms are in play throughout the schooling system.

The chapter will investigate what power and influence mean in a school board context. We will conduct comparisons across countries and look into which influence and power relations there are between the school committee as the central focal point and the schools’ most important interests. Therefore, we will look at the relations between the board and the national parliamentary level, the superintendent/the municipal administration, the chair of the board, the principals/schools and lastly the parents and the students. These relations between the board and its stakeholders will be analysed in the terms of power and influence in this chapter.

Keywords

Board Member School Leader School Board Municipal Level Institutional Power 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bauman, Z. (2001). Work, consumerism and the new poor. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Busch, T., Johnsen, E., Klausen, K. K., & Vanebo, J. O. (2001). Modernisering av offentlig sektor. New Public Management i praksis. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  3. Christensen, S., & Jensen, P.-E. D. (2008). Kontrol i det stille – om magt og ledelse [Control in the quiet – About power and management] (3rd ed.). Frederiksberg: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
  4. Christensen, S., & Kreiner, K. (2000/1991). Projektledelse i løst koblede systemer – ledelse og læring i en ufuldkommen verden [Project management in loosely coupled systems – Leadership and learning in an imperfect world]. København: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.Google Scholar
  5. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2001). Transforming governance in the new millennium. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), New public management: The transformation of ideas and practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Engeland, Ø., & Langfeldt, G. (2009). Forholdet mellom stat og kommune i styring av norsk utdanningspolitikk 1970–2008 [The relation between state and municipality in governing Norwegian educational policy 1970–2008]. Acta Didactica Norge, 3(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  7. Forligspartierne. (2013, Juni 7). Aftale mellem regeringen (Socialdemokraterne, Radikale Venstre og Socialistisk Folkeparti), Venstre og Dansk Folkeparti om et fagligt løft af folkeskolen.Google Scholar
  8. Foucault, M. (1976/1994). Viljen til viden. Seksualitetens historie 1 [The will to knowledge. The history of sexuality. Vol 1] (S. G. Olesen, Trans. Samlerens Bogklub ed.). København: Det Lille Forlag.Google Scholar
  9. Haslebo, G. (2006). Relationer i organisationer [Relations in organizations]. Virum: Dansk psykologisk forlag.Google Scholar
  10. Kanervio, P., Pulkkinen, S., & Risku, M. (2014). Suomalainen opetuslautakunta [Finnish school board]. Helsinki: Ministry of Education and Culture publications.Google Scholar
  11. Kanter, R. M. (1979, July–August). Når ledelsen ikke har magt til at lede [Power failure in management circuits. The position, not the person often determines whether a manager has power]. Månedsbørsen/Harvard Business Review, 10, 65–75.Google Scholar
  12. Larsen, H. O., & Offerdal, A. (2000). Political implications of the new Norwegian Local Government Act of 1992. In E. Amnå & S. Montin (Eds.), Towards a new concept of local self-government. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
  13. Lov om kommuners styrelse, Pub. L. No. LBK nr 971 af 25/07/2013. (2013).Google Scholar
  14. Lykkegaard, R. (2012). Alle har ret. Demokrati som princip og problem [All are right. Democracy as principle and problem]. København: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  15. Mäkelä, A. (2007). Mitä rehtorit todella tekevät. Etnografinen tapaustutkimus johtamisesta ja rehtorin tehtävistä peruskoulussa [What principals really do. An ethnographic case study on leadership and on principal’s tasks in comprehensive school.] Academic dissertation (Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research, 316). Jyväskylä University Printing House.Google Scholar
  16. Olsen, J. P. (1988). Statsstyre og institusjonsutforming [State governing and institution building]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  17. Paulsen, J. M., & Skedsmo, G. (2014). Mediating tensions between state control, local autonomy and professional trust. Norwegian School District Leadership in Practice. In A. Nir (Ed.), The educational superintendent: Between trust and regulation: An international perspective. New York: Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Pulkkinen, S. (2011). Valmentajataustan merkitys rehtorin työssä [Significance of coaching background in principal’s work]. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research, 407.Google Scholar
  19. Risku, M., & Pulkkinen, S. (2014). Finnish principal. In H. Ärlestig, C. Day, & O. Johansson (Eds.), Research on principals and their work – Cross cultural perspectives. Unpublish manuscript. Springer (in press).Google Scholar
  20. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). Netværksstyring – fra government til governance [Network government – From government to governance] (87-7867-298-8, Trans.). Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  21. Undervisningsministeriet. (2013). Folkeskolereformens indhold: 15. Styrket forældreindflydelse og øget elevinddragelse. Retrieved from http://uvm.dk/I-fokus/Aftale-om-et-fagligt-loeft-af-folkeskolen/Overblik-over-reformen/15-Styrket-foraeldreindflydelse-og-oeget-elevinddragelse website.
  22. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Weick, K. E. (2001). Sensemaking as an organizational dimension of global change. In Making sense of the organization. Oxford/Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Kasper Kofod
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jan Merok Paulsen
    • 2
  • Olof Johansson
    • 3
  • Seppo Pulkkinen
    • 4
  • Pekka Kanervio
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Education and PedagogyAarhus UniversityCopenhagen NVDenmark
  2. 2.Faculty of Teacher Education and International StudiesOslo and Akershus University College of Applied SciencesOsloNorway
  3. 3.Centre for Principal DevelopmentUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  4. 4.Institute of Educational LeadershipUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  5. 5.Institute of Educational LeadershipUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations