Abstract
Using educational advisors to facilitate the implementation of innovations in schools is a widespread, yet still relatively little studied and understood strategy in reform policies. This article reports on an exploratory, multiple case study on the support provided by external advisors to secondary schools in Flanders (Belgium) on the implementation of a new policy on inclusive education. We found that the form and content of support practices were constituted and determined by four thematic elements: congruency, legitimacy, loyalty, and urgency. Striving for congruency between the agendas of several parties appeared to be an important theme in the interpretations, negotiations, and appreciation of support practices. Furthermore, support practices were found to be constituted by the advisors’ loyalty towards the organisations they worked with. The acquisition of legitimacy as an advisor, necessary for receiving a clear mandate from the school teams, was a third factor. A final key factor in external support practices was the sense of urgency around the agenda of the external support, felt by members of the school team.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Kelchtermans (2009) originally referred to subjective educational theory. Because we endorse the content and scope of the concept, but also acknowledge that the professional know-how of advisors extends beyond pedagogical-didactic expertise, we omit the specifying label ‘educational’.
All names are pseudonyms (the name of the support arrangement, the advisors, the schools, and the respondents).
As Adam was no longer affiliated to SAS at the time of the data collection, only one interview took place (December 2016), in which the guidelines for both interviews were integrated.
Abbreviations
- M-decree:
-
Decree on measures for pupils with special educational needs
- SAS:
-
School Advisory Service
- TIE:
-
Trajectory on Inclusive Education
References
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104, 421–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00168.
Ball, S. J. (1987). The micro-politics of the school: Towards a theory of school organization. Methuen.
Ballet, K., & Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Struggling with workload: Primary teachers’ experience of intensification. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 25, 1150–1157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.012.
Baxter, L. A., Mazanec, M., Nicholson, J., Pittman, G., Smith, K., & West, L. (1997). Everyday loyalities and betrayals in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 655–678. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407597145005.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008003.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 343–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043003343.
Coburn, C. E. (2016). What’s policy got to do with it? How structure-agency debate can illuminate policy implementation. American Journal of Education, 122, 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1086/685847.
Coburn, C. E., Bae, S., & Turner, E. O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider–outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 364–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560802222350.
Coburn, C., & Woulfin, S. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.008.
Donaldson, M. L., & Woulfin, S. (2018). From tinkering to going “rogue”: How principals use agency when enacting new teacher evaluation systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(4), 531–556. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718784205.
Finnigan, K. S., Bitter, C., & O’Day, J. (2009). Improving low-performing schools through external assistance: Lessons from Chicago and California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17, 7.
Fullan, M. (2015). The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 495–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000709.
Harris, A. (2001). Building capacity for school improvement. School Leadership & Management, 21, 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430120074419.
Honig, M. I. (2009). “External” organizations and the politics of urban educational leadership: The case of new small autonomous schools initiatives. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 394–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560902973613.
Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008016.
Honig, M. I., & Ikemoto, G. S. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts: The case of the institute for learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 328–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560802222327.
Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real. Routledge Falmer.
Hoyle, E. (1982). Micro-politics of educational organizations. Educational Management and Administration, 10, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/174114328201000202.
Ippolito, J. (2010). Three ways that literacy coaches balance responsive and directive relationships with teachers. Elementary School Journal, 111, 164–190. https://doi.org/10.1086/653474.
Kelchtermans, G. (2005). Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(8), 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.009.
Kelchtermans, G. (2007). Macropolitics caught up in micropolitics. The case of the policy on quality Control in Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Education Policy, 22, 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930701390669.
Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Who I am in how I teach is the message. Self-understanding, vulnerability and reflection. Teachers and Teaching, 15, 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875332.
Kelchtermans, G. (2017). ‘Should I stay or should I go?’: unpacking teacher attrition/retention as an educational issue. Teachers and Teaching, 23, 961–977. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2017.1379793.
Kelchtermans, G. (2018). Professional self-understanding in practice: Narrating, navigating and negotiating. In P. Schutz, J. Y. Hong, & D. Cross Francis (Eds.), Research on teacher identity: Mapping challenges and innovations (pp. 229–240). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93836-3.
Kelchtermans, G., & Deketelaere, A. (2016). The emotional dimension in becoming a teacher. In J. Loughran, & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook on teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 429–461). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0369-1_13.
Kelchtermans, G., Piot, L. & Ballet, K. (2011). The lucid loneliness of the gatekeeper: Exploring the emotional dimension in principals’ work lives. Oxford Review of Education, 37(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2010.545192.
Kvale, S. (1996). Inter-views: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
März, V., Kelchtermans, G., & Dumay, X. (2016). Stability and change of mentoring practices in a capricious policy environment: Opening the “Black Box of Institutionalization”. American Journal of Education, 122, 303–336. https://doi.org/10.1086/685846.
März, V., Kelchtermans, G., & Vermeir, K. (2017). Artifacts as authoritative actors in educational reform. Routines, institutional pressures, and legitimacy in student data systems. Journal of Educational Change, 18, 439–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9309-9.
McLean, C. A., Mallozzi, R., Hu, R., & Dailey, L. B. (2010). Literacy coaching and reading first “Redelivery”: A discourse analysis. Teacher Development, 14, 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2010.494499.
Merchie, E., Tuytens, M., Devos, G., & Vanderlinde, R. (2016). Hoe kan je de impact van professionalisering voor leraren in kaart brengen? [Mapping the impact of teachers’ professionalisation]. Departement Onderwijs en Vorming, Ghent University.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
Noordegraaf, M., & De Wit, B. (2012). Responses to managerialism: How management pressures affect managerial relations and loyalties in education. Public Administration, 90, 957–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02068.x.
Oglensky, B. D. (2008). The ambivalent dynamics of loyalty in mentorship. Human Relations, 61, 419–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708089000.
Park, V., & Datnow, A. (2008). Collaborative assistance in a highly prescribed school reform model: The case of success for all. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 400–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560802222376.
Piot, L. (2015). Andere tijden, andere leiders? Een beschrijving en analyse van leiderschapspraktijken op het bovenschoolse niveau [Different times, different leaders?]. University Press Leuven.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Smeed, J., & Bourke, T. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the use of an external change agent in school curriculum change. Australian Educational Researcher, 39, 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-012-0059-7.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 158–183). Sage.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788.
Supovitz, J. (2008). Melding internal and external support for school improvement: How the district role changes when working closely with external instructional support providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560802222426.
Tajik, M. A. (2008). External change agents in developed and developing countries. Improving Schools, 11, 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480208098390.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121.
van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers meanings regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 72(4), 577–625. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072004577.
Vermeir, K. (2019). Implementatie van onderwijsinnovatie: Artefacten, ondersteuners, agenda’s en onderhandeling. [The implementation of educational innovation: Artifacts, support, agendas and negotiation]. PhD thesis, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Vermeir, K., & Kelchtermans, G. (2020). Innovative practice as interpretative negotiation: A case-study on the kamishibai in Kindergarten. Teachers and Teaching, 26, 248–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2020.1820978.
Vermeir, K., Kelchtermans, G., & März, V. (2017). Implementing artifacts: An interactive frame analysis of Innovative Educational Practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.006.
Vixie Sandy, M. (2013). Making a good match: How schools and external service providers negotiate needs and services in support of school improvement. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Vlaamse Codex. (2014). Decreet betreffende maatregelen voor leerlingen met specifieke onderwijsbehoeften [Decree on measures for pupils with special educational needs]. Retrieved November 27, 2020, from https://codex.vlaanderen.be/Portals/Codex/documenten/1024474.html.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133.
Woulfin, S. (2014). Charting the research on the policies and politics of coaching. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(50), 1–12 (special issue: Politics, Policies, and Practices of Coaching and Mentoring Programs). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n50.2014.
Woulfin, S. (2015). Catalysts of change. An examination of coaches’ leadership practices in framing a reading reform 2015. Journal of School Leadership, 25, 526–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461502500309.
Woulfin, S. (2016). Duet or duel? A portrait of two logics of reading instruction in an urban school district. American Journal of Education, 122, 337–365. https://doi.org/10.1086/685848.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vermeir, K., Kelchtermans, G. Unpacking the support practices of educational advisors: Congruency, loyalty, legitimacy, and urgency. J Educ Change 23, 473–495 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09428-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09428-0