Issues in Implementing: a School Improvement Project in Iceland¹

Börkur Hansen

Iceland University of Education, Iceland

Introduction

Changing schools is a difficult endeavour and failures in bringing about educational change are well documented by such scholars as Fullan (1991), Huberman and Miles (1984) and Stoll and Fink (1996). The twin fields of school improvement and school effectiveness, however, offer some understanding and help in undertaking this difficult task.
Effectiveness research indicates that ‘good’ schools have certain characteristics, creating an agenda for people interested in school improvement. As Stoll and Mortimore (1997, p.17) acknowledge, “… several reviewers have identified common processes and characteristics of more effective schools…” which indicate what an effective school looks like but do not explain “how the school became effective”.
And as they note, “[this] is the domain of school improvement”. The project Improving the Quality of Education for All (IQEA), developed at the University of Cambridge Institute of Education, is an example of a school improvement model that grew out of this context.
The primary concern underlying the IQEA school improvement model is to link together teacher and school development in order to create a proactive learning culture that benefits students. This model emphasises the use of school-based reviews and ‘bottom-up’ change strategies, unlike many previous approaches which relied on ‘top-down’ approaches to school improvement, and failed to regard as problematic the internal conditions of schools. The purpose of the IQEA model is to strengthen the internal conditions in schools in order to facilitate improved practices and enhance outcomes for all pupils. The model expects schools to identify priority projects for improvement in order to establish a focus for staff related activities. These activities are targeted on strengthening or creating specific managerial and classroom conditions.
In the handbook Creating Conditions for School Improvement the authors, Ainscow et al. (1994, p.5) state that “[the] overall aim of the project is to produce and evaluate a model of school development, and a programme of support that strengthen a school’s ability to provide quality education for all its pupils by building upon existing good practice”. In a recent article Ainscow and Southworth (1996, p.229) say that they and tutorial colleagues “have been working closely with some thirty schools” on the IQEA project. They also explain (p.231) that the Cambridge tutorial team has been visiting schools and collecting data in order to gain an understanding of what goes on in the schools. Most of this research is generated by the tutors themselves, so an evaluation of the IQEA model in a different culture by people who have no personal stake in the project was recognized by its authors as being of value. Personal contacts and funding having been secured, the IQEA model was piloted in four schools in Iceland during the schools years of 1995-1997.
What follows is an account of the experience regarding the application of the IQEA model in Iceland. First, the model is briefly described and an account given of the experimental application in Iceland. Next, is a description of the data collection methods and a listing of major findings. The paper concludes with a discussion of some implications when applying the model.

The IQEA Model and the Icelandic Scene

The essence of the IQEA philosophy can be seen as assisting schools in becoming ‘self-managing institutions’ that seek to improve student learning. An emphasis is put on developing a proactive learning culture by problematizing and linking into a meaningful whole, factors such as ‘school background and organisation’, ‘student’ and ‘teacher outcomes’, ‘project priorities’ and ‘management’ as well as ‘classroom conditions’. As Ainscow et al. (1994, p.5) puts it, “We are inviting the schools to identify and to work on their own projects and priorities, but to do so in a way which embodied a set of ‘core’ values about school improvement”. These values, accordingly, describe the main principles of the IQEA model:

• The vision of the school … should be one to which all members of the school community have an opportunity to contribute.
• The school will see in external pressures for change important opportunities to secure its internal priorities.
• The school will seek to create and maintain conditions in which all members of the school’s community can learn successfully.
• The school will seek to adopt and develop structures which encourage collaboration and lead to the empowerment of individuals and groups.
• The school will seek to promote the view that the monitoring and evaluation of quality is a responsibility in which all members of staff share.

Based on these principles a contract is established between a school and the tutors. The contract deals with issues of commitment; such as all staff being involved in making the decision to participate in the project; that a cadre of 3-4 members of staff (one being the head teacher) will act as project co-ordinators; whole staff will allocate substantial development time for activities related to the project; the minimum of 40% of teachers will take part in specified development activities; participants will be released from regular duties in order to take part in activities; and every school will evaluate how the project develops and share findings with other IQEA schools.
Accordingly, a major stress is put on establishing a steering committee within every school – a cadre – to manage the project and to act as agents of change. The tutors arrange a series of weekend courses for members of the cadre on issues associated with the mechanics of working on priority projects and the internal conditions of schools. An emphasis is put on identifying areas in need of improvement, establishing priorities, finding means for achieving set objectives and evaluating the results. A key emphasis is also placed on reinforcing the condition of enquiry and reflection in order to facilitate a critique of current practices and establish a base for planned change.
The other managerial conditions the tutors reinforce in their courses are a ‘commitment to collaborative planning,’ ‘involvement of staff in school policies and decisions’, ‘commitment to staff development’, ‘effective co-ordination strategies’, and ‘effective leadership’. The classroom conditions constitute issues such as establishing ‘authentic relationships between teachers and students’, ‘curriculum development activities’, ‘students learning styles’, ‘command of multiple teaching methods’, ‘effective classroom management’ and ‘professional attitudes’. Usually there are cadres in 3-5 IQEA schools that participate in these courses.
The role of the cadre within a given school is to administer and co-ordinate the work on the identified priorities as well as to act as a liaison between tutors and staff. It organises meetings, committee work, etc., for members of the school, and shares the theoretical and practical input from the courses. The tutors also visit the schools in order to assist the cadre in its role and to evaluate how the project is developing.
These procedures were to a large extent followed in the IQEA experiment in Iceland. A local education authority in the Northeast part of the country was interested in the IQEA improvement philosophy and identified four schools that were willing to participate in the programme. All these schools were basic schools with students from the age of 6-16. One of these schools was located in a small fishing village, another in a fishing town, and the other two in farming communities. The number of students in these schools ranged from 60 to 420. In two of the schools deputy heads instead of heads became members of the cadre. These schools can in general terms be seen as representative of basic schools in Iceland.
Advisers affiliated with the local education authority acted as hosts for the project; they were familiar with the IQEA model and the tutors. Members of the tutorial team from England visited Iceland eight times during the period of 1995-1997. During each visit they ran a 2-3 day course for the cadres with the assistance of the advisers. Between the tutors’ visits, the advisers took on their role and acted as consultants, particularly assisting the cadres. During the first year, there were two advisers who divided the four schools between them. But during the second year a third adviser joined the team, however, primarily consulting in one of the schools. Although dividing the labour, the advisers worked as a cohesive team, supporting one another in their tasks.
In all the schools the project commenced with a need-analysis and an identification of projects for improvement. The priority projects dealt with issues like student discipline, school and parent relations, student engagement, student motivation, student morale, teaching cross-age groups, and student learning habits. The advisers assisted the schools in formulating the objectives for their projects and in identifying means for achieving the desired ends. They also assisted the schools in developing means for evaluating the achievement of the priority projects. In addition the advisers gave presentations and conducted several workshops in co-operation with the cadres in the schools.

Method

As previously stated, a major rationale for running the IQEA model in Iceland was to foster school improvement and to obtain information about its applicability in a culture outside Britain by people with no personal stake in the project. Accordingly, two professors from the Iceland University of Education, with an interest in school improvement, were invited to join the project as external evaluators. In order to collect data as efficiently as possible, they hired on a contractual basis three researchers who lived in the northern part of the country.
A case study design was developed to study the impact of the IQEA project in all the schools. Before the project started, a questionnaire was developed by the evaluation team; and students, teachers and parents in all the schools were surveyed. The same survey was conducted at the end of the first and the second years of the project. Despite various problems associated with survey research for these purposes, it was seen as a convenient way to detect indications of change amongst students and teachers. The researcher responsible for this part of the study processed the data and accumulated reports for the evaluation team. His reports were also fed to the schools.
A major emphasis, however, was put on interviewing ‘stakeholders’ in the schools. The cadres were formally interviewed between 6 and 8 times during the two year period, along with samples of teachers and students. Two of the researchers conducted the interviews, each in two schools. The interviews were ‘semi-structured’ and prepared questions focused on the impact of the IQEA model: (1) issues arising from its application; (2) achievement of the priority projects objectives; and (3) creation of managerial and classroom conditions. The interviews were mostly conducted with groups of 2-4 people, such as the cadre in a school, the advisers as a group, samples of teachers, etc. As Berg (1995, pp. 68-69) notes, focus group interviewing can be an efficient method for collecting data on a variety of social issues, since it encourages subjects to speak freely about their experiences. Each interview lasted for 30 to 80 minutes. The researchers transcribed extracts from the interviews, thematized the findings, and wrote reports for the evaluation team.
The evaluators accumulated this data along with reports from the advisers and the cadres in the schools. The data were analysed and thematized and a full report was produced in Icelandic during the fall of 1998. It contains a brief description of the IQEA model and a presentation of the main findings on its impact. The report concludes with a discussion of implications for the employment of the model (Hansen, 1998).

Application of the IQEA Model: Main Findings

According to the main findings of the IQEA experiment in Iceland, the model seems to foster a strengthening in many of the identified internal conditions for school improvement, although the level of success differed somewhat between the individual schools selected for this experiment. The priority projects also seem successful, being important steps in making incremental improvements. In other words, the model seems to enhance proactive values and a collaborative culture. The findings presented in this paper are thus delimited to issues arising from the application of the model.
These findings are mostly based on data from interviews with the cadres, samples of teachers and the advisers towards the end of experiment in Iceland. The sample of teachers interviewed in the spring of 1997 ranged from 2 to 8 in the schools, leading to a total of 23 individuals being interviewed. The comments of these groups seem to fall in six major categories: (1) The problem of establishing a momentum for getting started; (2) A demand for a stronger relationship between theory and practice; (3) An acceptance of the role and the work of the cadre; (4) Problems in empowering teachers; (5) The importance of the advisers; (6) Satisfaction with the IQEA model. Although many of these categories are interrelated, they are also meaningful separate areas in accord with the collected data.

Problems in Establishing a Momentum for Getting Started

At the outset, each school was encouraged to diagnose their internal conditions in order to identify priority improvement projects. The interviews revealed that how well the schools established a momentum for getting started varied considerably. In one of the schools this work started relatively early. The needs analysis did not take very long and the identification of priorities went smoothly. The interviews of teachers and the cadre in this school always indicated the strong ambition and motivation of all involved, and a positive attitude towards the challenge of teaching and the IQEA project. One of the teachers summarised this by saying: “In this school we know one another quite well, we are a cohesive group with an interest in this kind of work”.
In the other schools, the start was much slower. The teachers and the cadres did not seem very motivated and they identified several obstacles to justify their lack of enthusiasm. For example, in one of the schools the teachers claimed that the needs analysis in the beginning had been “too time-consuming” and “superficial”. They claimed that it would have been much better to “have an expert do the analysis” so “they could have used their time more efficiently” for establishing priorities. They concluded however by stating that “the slow start should not be held against them,” because “when we eventually got started, in the second year, things progressed quite well”.
Similar experience was reported by the third school. The teachers said that “despite a very difficult beginning, the project got going once we reached an agreement on the priorities”. These teachers also emphasised that it was important to delimit the scope of the priority projects and not to lose track by engaging in too many projects at the time”. In the fourth school, the teachers said that in the beginning “all the teachers blocked out because of all the theoretical jargon”. They also claimed that the project had not been “properly introduced” leading to “unnecessary problems”. However, their final conclusion was that the project “was much simpler than we thought, once we got going”.
The interviews with the advisers revealed that their experience was congruent with the views stated by the teachers. In the school which made the quick start they said in that particular school “the teachers had always been highly motivated and open to reflective discussions”. They added that “all the teachers in that school realised very soon that the IQEA way of doing things was not just something to add on top of regular activities”, they saw it as a “good way of running the school as a whole”. Conversely, the advisers said that it had been difficult to get the other schools started on the project priorities. They claimed that it had been very difficult to enter these schools and gain access to the teachers. “In some cases it was like running into a brick wall,” they said.
In the school with the slowest start, the advisers said that “the cadres were ‘closed’ and not able to link effectively to other members of the faculty”. This reinforced the feeling that the school was being run by “outside agents” which created a barrier that was difficult to overcome. Furthermore, the advisers claimed that the slow start in another school was primarily due to “one negative teacher that dragged all the others down”. Despite all these difficulties the advisers claimed that with time, the co-operation with the cadres and the teachers “gradually ran a smoother course” in all the schools.

Demand for a Stronger Relationship Between Theory and Practice

The demand for a stronger relationship between theory and practice was another theme revealed by the interviews. This claim was however primarily made by the teachers in two of the schools.
In the one of these schools, some of the teachers did not think very highly of the IQEA project. One of these teacher said that “simple things had been put in a package with fancy wrappings”. Another said that “he had been startled when he saw loads of pages with descriptions of something that was supposed to be so great, but when examined turned out to be simple things familiar to most teachers, that could have been described in a simple manner”. Despite these complaints, most of the teachers in this school seemed positive towards the IQEA project and seemed to agree that it had influenced and raised the standard of professional discussions at their school. They said that it had been good to “get these presentations and workshops on school issues”, but the “flow of paper and inflated ideas had to be reduced”. They further stated that was “important that every school works at its preferred speed,” and noted that it “was not the right strategy to push a project like this, just because some theory said so”. “The key to success is a strong link with what is already going on in the school” they said.
In the other of the two schools the views of teachers were of similar nature. In addition to the concerns stated above, they said that a project like this required careful planning in order to lead to results. They said that the introduction and the initial phase in their school had been flawed and had created misunderstandings. They emphasised that in the beginning, as well as throughout the whole process, “it is necessary to include more activities of a practical nature, in order to provide relevance for all the theories that are presented”. “If the initial steps are not planned carefully enough and tied to our daily practice, it enhances negative attitudes and hostility toward the project”. All this work has to be “meaningful”, so teachers can look forward to working on the project.
The interviews with the advisers revealed that they were conscious of this demand for better grounding of theory in practice. They said that perhaps too much time in the project had been devoted to theory at the expense of more practical activities. In their view, however, the theoretical input was not to be reduced, rather it should be better tied in with practice. The advisers also wondered if this demand for practice did not result from the pressure in the IQEA model to work on twelve conditions with a number of activities associated with each of them. This load definitely created pressure, and did not allow much room for the digestion of ideas. They speculated if it would not be more meaningful to begin to work with the classroom conditions, and somehow try to reduce the number of activities.
Furthermore, the advisers wondered about the capacity of the cadre to work as a liaison between the tutors and teachers. They said that most of the teachers did not have extensive academic training and that to “present and articulate complex ideas required quite a strong academic background”. They wondered whether it would not be enough for the cadres to manage the priority projects and instead expand the role of the advisers. By this they meant that the advisers should have worked more closely with the schools, in order facilitate a better link between theory and practice.

Acceptance of the Role and the Work of the Cadres

Despite the demand for a stronger relationship between theory and practice, the interviews indicated a general satisfaction with the role and the work of the cadres.
The interviews with the teachers showed that most were aware of how difficult the role of the cadre was and in all the schools they acknowledged that the cadres had “done a good job”. In one of the schools the teachers praised extensively the work of the cadre, and in another school they said the cadre had been very “well organised” and “well prepared” when working with teachers. They also said that the cadre in their school had done very well in its role as a liaison between the tutors and teachers. In the third and the fourth school, similar views appeared. Although praising the cadres, they also mentioned that in a few instances the guidelines and the work of the cadres had not been clear. But the teachers said that the cadres “had always been accessible”, and “they did as well as they could”.
The interviews with the cadres indicated that they were very pleased with their role and the arrangement of having a steering committee, such as a cadre, to run improvement projects. In one of the schools, the cadre said that this was an excellent arrangement in order to delegate and foster improvement. In its view, larger groups were only good for making policy, but a small group like the cadre was better suited for effectively managing improvement projects and development work in schools. In another school, this view was further reinforced when the cadre stated “that this arrangement should be implemented in all schools”.
In the other two schools similar views were expressed. They added, however, that selecting strong candidates for the cadres was of central importance. According to their experience, it was a very demanding and stressful job. They also mentioned that it was important that the cadres had full support of the head teacher and the school board. Otherwise it would be without a proper power base, unable to function properly.
The advisers said that at the outset the roles of the cadres had not been well developed. With time, however, this changed and their roles clarified and became better defined. They also mentioned that it was of importance that both the head teacher and the deputy head teacher belonged to the cadre, in order to reinforce its credibility. Otherwise conflicts might easily occur between the cadre and the head teachers, resulting in disharmony or confusion. Similar things could also occur between the head teacher and deputy head, if they were not both on the cadre. Furthermore, they noted that it was important not to renew or change to fast the members of the cadre. That could also lead to confusion ad disarray.

Problems in Empowering Teachers

Despite this satisfaction, the interviews made clear that empowering teachers was the task that created the most difficulties for the cadres. In one of the schools, however, this was never a problem. The cadre said, “right from the beginning we managed to empower all the teachers”. They spoke metaphorically and said, “We never had to even out any rough parts in our school; we have a cohesive group of good teachers; the soil in our school is fertile”.
The cadre in another school said that sometimes they found it difficult to mediate to the teachers what they had learned at the courses with the tutors. “Our problem was to get the teachers involved and motivated” and “unfortunately they always saw the IQEA project as a side issue which created extra work for them”. In the third school, the cadre said that the major weakness of the IQEA model was that it did not offer good enough guidelines for motivating and empowering teachers. They said that it had been a mistake not to involve all the teachers in the first weekend course with the tutors, because “that would have created a collective awareness and commitment to the project”. They stated that this was a very significant step that could have made a big difference. “We spent far too much time motivating teachers and trying to keep the candle burning”.
In the fourth school, the cadre said that they would recommend the IQEA project to most schools, as long as the teachers were ready. “In our school this was not the case, resulting in difficulties of all sorts”. They said that “the success of a project like this is heavily dependent upon on the time and space given by the teachers”. “If they are in part-time positions or hold two jobs, it is very difficult to empower them; their interests lie elsewhere”. At the end of the day, “teachers working full-time are also not very interested in much extra work”.
The advisers acknowledged the cadres’ concerns regarding their difficulties in empowering teachers. The advisers speculated as to whether it would not have been better to involve all the teachers in the courses with the tutors. Such an approach would have established a common base for the project, making it easier for the cadres to motivate and empower the teachers. They commented that this approach would be in line with the IQEA philosophy of “bottom-up management” and the ”demand for all the advice demanded by the schools could have been reduced”.
In addition to these concerns, the advisers suggested that there were cultural differences between Iceland and England that made empowering especially difficult in Iceland. They also said that this had to be considered when revising the IQEA model. Teachers in England accepted authority and commands more willingly than their colleagues in Iceland, in particular from a middle management institution like the cadre. They wondered if this was due to tradition and mass culture. In Iceland, with a low population, sparsely distributed and lacking a demarcated social hierarchy, every person has considerable weight and is not “used to giving commands or accepting authority”. This is a reality that makes it difficult to work with schools, empower teachers and encourage leadership.

The Importance of the Advisers

The interviews with the cadres and teachers revealed great satisfaction with the role and work of the advisers. It also revealed that purposeful external advise was of central importance for the success of the IQEA.
The teachers in one of the schools said that the advice they received had been excellent and they could not have survived the project without it. They said that the advisers had been “motivating” and “skilled in their job”. In their view, assistance from such external experts as the advisers was “absolutely necessary” in a project like the IQEA. Otherwise, they would have been “locked within a closed system”. They stressed that this was not to blame the cadres; “they did extremely well in our school”. In this school, the cadre was also very pleased with the advisers, particularly during the initial phase. “Sometimes we did not have a clue of what we were doing; then the advisers jumped in and clarified the whole thing, and we were filled with energy to continue with our tasks”.
In another school, the teachers were also very positive towards the role and the work of the advisers and claimed that it had been impossible to participate in this project without having strong support from advisers. The cadre was also very pleased with the role of the advisers, but added that they had to be careful about “not taking on management roles”. “In a project like the IQEA, there is a fine line between managing and advising that has to be kept apart”. If the advisors are not careful, it reinforces the impression that the project is a “side issue”, which “fails to become a part of the school”.
In the third school, similar views appeared. For example, the teachers said that the input of the advisers had been great. They also stated that the advisers had been highly “professional” in their work – “their workshops were well conducted, their presentations were interesting and their advice was given in a personal way that was well received”. In the fourth school the teachers were also pleased with the role and the work of the advisers. They mentioned, however, that sometimes they had been too “judgmental” and “theoretical”. This gradually disappeared, they said, and in the second year, the advisers were like “good captains that corrected the course when we were about to get stranded”. The cadre in this school said that generally they were pleased with the role and the work of advisers, but there were times when they found it difficult to work with them. During the second year this changed, the cadre said, and their advice and support was great.
The interviews with the advisers indicated that they had put a lot of effort into keeping the IQEA project going in the schools. They said that they had worked hard on understanding the culture in every school, in order to create meaningful conditions for the project. They seemed generally pleased with their work, but said that according to their experience, the schools “needed more advice than they got”. “The cadres needed support in their task of mediating the theoretical input from tutors” and that they needed more opportunities to “work with schools as a whole”. They noted that next time around, this was something “they would take into account”.

Satisfaction with the IQEA Model

In addition to being satisfied with the cadres and the advisers, and despite the previously stated problems and criticism, the interviews indicated an overall satisfaction with the working of the IQEA project.
In one of the schools, the teachers said for example that “by looking at the whole picture, the project went rather well in our school, despite all the problems we ran into”. They said that the priority projects would “definitely lead to improvements”, and the experience of participating in the IQEA project was an “excellent preparation for future improvement projects”. The cadre in this school said that “despite a very difficult start, it eventually went well”. It added: “The progress of the IQEA project might be pictured in a graph where the line is quite steep at the end of the first year, much steeper during two-thirds of the second year, but in the end shows less incline, primarily because of exams and other projects”. Furthermore, the cadre said that it had learned a great deal from this experience, particularly “practical working methods that are useful when engaging in development projects”.
In another school, the teachers were very pleased with the IQEA project. They said that “of course we have had ups and downs”, but “somehow the IQEA model suited our school well”. They emphasised that participating in the project was very beneficial in order to “prepare for the future”, and “they would definitely not move back to their previous mode of doing things”. They stated that they had learned new working methods, and that participating in the project had been “educating”, and in most cases “great fun”. In this school the views of the cadre were similar, but they added that the project required a lot of time and preparation. They said that their experience of the project was similar to that of a child learning how to cycle: “In the beginning you don’t have the necessary skills for all of the activities, but once they develop, you can ride quite easily”.
In the third school, the teachers said that once they got started the project went reasonably well. They stated that one of the major benefits of the model was that it persuaded teachers to “examine their practices”. This alone was important, although the working methods were also useful. They mentioned as well that high teacher turnover had created unnecessary difficulties for them. The views of the cadre were similar, but they wondered if perhaps the IQEA model was better suited for small schools than large. “All the necessary group work requires a lot of time and meetings” and that creates difficulties in a large school.
The views of teachers in the fourth school were more critical than in the other schools. They claimed that “all their work would hopefully lead to something positive later in time”. They said that although the IQEA model was good, the timing of the project had been inconvenient for their school. “We were engaged in far too many changes when the project started, and these last two years have been very tiresome”. The cadre said that the project had not developed as far as they would have liked; “Nevertheless, the working methods are useful, and gradually the teachers are beginning to accept the project. We think most of the teachers are satisfied with the project, despite conflicts and a bad start”. “In general, we are satisfied with the experience of participating in the project”.
The interviews with the advisers indicated satisfaction with the IQEA model. Their stated that “the working methods of the model really seem to work in Iceland”. By that they meant that teachers seemed to like the arrangement of having a cadre to manage change and improvement; the process of establishing priorities was seen as being valuable; and the teachers seemed pleased with the external support programme. Nevertheless, the advisers claimed that many of the activities could be scheduled differently, such as the order of working on school and classroom conditions, in order to tailor to different needs in the schools. In addition, the advisers were somewhat sceptical and wondered about the capacity of the model to foster improvements for students. “At the moment, our observations do not indicate big changes in student attitudes or behaviour during this two year period”. “Our big question is accordingly whether it is enough that most teachers seem satisfied”.

Implications

As indicated above, the issues arising from the application of the model indicate that it had considerable impact in most of the schools. Most of the teachers and the cadres seemed pleased with the mechanics of the IQEA model and they seemed particularly pleased with the emphasis on working on priority projects in order to foster improvement. They also found the establishment of cadres a successful means to bring about change. The work of the advisers seemed successful, and their role being of central importance. However, the most difficult task was to establish a momentum for getting started, motivating and empowering teachers and making the theoretical input interesting and meaningful.
Argyris states (1993, p. 27) that the literature in business and education is full of examples of unsuccessful change efforts. He also (1990, 1993) reminds us that there are several defensive routines that exist in organizations: human factors that come into play when organisations change their practices. In order to achieve excellence these disruptive factors must be recognised and overcome.
Based on his research throughout the world, Argyris contends that in order to control events, most members in organisations use master programs he calls ‘Model I theories-in-use’. This is based on the notion that human beings seek to be in command of their actions and detest the feeling of being out of control. He (1993, p. 52) states that he has found four governing values characteristic of the ‘theories-in-use’:

1. “Achieve your intended purpose”,
2. “Maximize winning and minimise losing”,
3. “Suppress negative feelings”, and
4. “Behave according to what you consider rational”.
5. Furthermore, he states that the model tells “individuals to craft their positions, evaluations, and attributions in ways that inhibit inquiries into them and tests of them with others’ logic”. In organisational change efforts, these values can come into play and reinforce misunderstandings and defensive routines, leading to a culture of limited learnings.

Accordingly, all change efforts must take this into account and reduce the disruptive effects of the values underlying ‘theories-in-use’. Argyris (1993, pp. 54-55) suggests an action strategy which recognizes the counterproductive consequences of Model I theories. He says that the intervener must introduce ‘Model II theories-in-use’ that are at the outset espoused theories. “The challenge is to help individuals transform their espoused theories into theories-in-use by learning a ‘new’ set of skills and a ‘new’ set of governing values”. These values are “valid information, informed choice, and a vigilant monitoring of the implementation of the choice in order to detect and correct error”.
These insights on organisational defences may not be complete, but explain to some extent the difficulties in the Icelandic experiment in getting started, motivating and empowering teachers and making the proposed theory meaningful. The culture in some of the schools clearly resorted to defence mechanisms, when the teachers saw their schools being invaded by expert outsiders, invoking the feeling that they were out of control. When the teachers’ way of doing things was questioned, this feeling was further reinforced. Complaints about ‘fancy abstract theorizing’, ‘outside invaders’, ‘poor entry strategies’, ‘added workload’, etc., can all be seen as signs of defensive ‘theories-in-use’. Furthermore, this can also explain the feeling of the advisers that some of the schools needed much more consultancy than was provided.
Based on the assumption that the experiment was to a large extent successful and fostered such core values as collective leadership, inquiry and critical reflections as the basis for incremental improvements, the major implication of this study is to sensitise the implementation of the IQEA model to the minimizing of organizational defences. The logic of establishing a cadre in order to integrate management, teachers, school background and organisation, has to be coupled with activities and a support strategy that reduces defensive reactions. What follows, are suggestions of minor changes or contingencies that can be considered regarding the implementation process:

• Run a meaningful pre-planned priority project that the school engages in before an emphasis is put on the identification of needs. This approach would serve as an introduction to the process of working on priority projects and create a collective understanding on the part of all teachers. This would also lead to a more objective practical input at the outset and the effect of engaging in a meaningful pre-planned project would likely demonstrate the utility of the model for change and improvement.
• Improve the procedures for the identification of needs for improvement. This could perhaps be done by outlining a discussion process or by creating instruments that signify better than the exercises in the Handbook the difference between the actual and the desired state in the various areas. This could be of help when identifying priorities and could speed up the process of getting started.
• Include all teachers in some of the 2-3 day courses offered by the tutors. This could be done at the beginning and at some important stages of the project. This would likely foster empowerment and commitment of all staff in the project. This could also assist the cadres in their liaison role and reduce the need for consultancy between the short courses.
• Head teachers should be mandated to work with the cadre and no exceptions provided. The IQEA model states that head teachers are to be members of the cadre in order to manage the project and act as mediators with teachers and working groups. If this principle is waived, it reinforces a power struggle and potential conflicts of various nature. It can also produce a split organizational culture which is primarily engaged in rivalries and anti-learning practices.
• The scheduling of activities for establishing the desired internal conditions should be better tied in with the prevailing conditions in the participating schools. This would be a step towards preventing conflicts and defensive reactions.

Several other suggestions could be identified in addition to the ones mentioned above. Overload and institutionalisation are for example important areas of concern. The point has been made, however, that when implementing the IQEA model, a stronger focus should be put on reducing organizational defences, in order to further enhance a culture of a learning organization.

Conclusion

In conclusion one can say that the IQEA model relies on the strategy of combining into a meaningful whole teacher and school development. As Hargreaves (1994, pp. 435-436) observes, “… there is little significant school development without teacher development” and “…there is little significant teacher development without school development”. The experiment in Iceland indicates a general satisfaction with this ideology and an enhancement of core values for school improvement. The experiment, however, also pointed out some areas of concern regarding the implementation of the model.
Future experiments with the IQEA and other change models and future research will no doubt further enhance our understanding of change and improvement. The experiment in Iceland can be seen as a link in that effort, pointing out the importance of overcoming organizational defences. This task is not simple, as studies of school improvement projects indicate (see e.g. Fullan 1991; Huberman and Miles 1984; Stoll and Fink 1996). Nevertheless, the children in our schools have the right to get the best schooling available. The IQEA project can be seen as a valuable step in that direction.

References

Ainscow, M, D Hopkins, G Southworth and M West (1994), Creating Conditions for School Improvement. A Handbook for Staff Development Activities. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Ainscow, M and G Southworth (1996), “School Improvement: A Study of the Roles of Leaders and External Consultants”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7 (3): 229-251.
Argyris, C (1990), Overcoming Organizational Defences. Facilitating Organizational Learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Argyris, C (1993), Knowledge for Action. A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berg, B L (1995), Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Fullan, M G (1991), The New Meaning of Educational Change. London, Cassell.
Hansen, B (1998.), The IQEA School Development Project. A Report to the Icelandic Science Council. In Icelandic.
Hargreaves, A, E Lorna and J Ryan (1996), Schooling for Change: Reinventing Education for Early Adolescents. London: Falmer Press.
Hargreaves, D H (1994), “The New Professionalism – The Synthesis of Professional and Institutional Development,” Teaching and Teacher Education. 10 (4): 423-438.
Huberman, A M and M B Miles (1984), Innovation Up Close: How School Improvement Works. New York: Plenum Press.
Stoll, L and P Mortimore (1977), “School Effectiveness and School Improvement” J White and M Barber (eds.), Perspectives on School Effectiveness and School Improvement. London: Institute of Education University of London.
Stoll, L and D Fink (1996), Changing Our Schools: Linking School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.