School Culture and Teachers’ Esprit de Corps

Gunnar Berg

School of Arts and Education, University of Dalarna, Sweden

School Culture – A Complex Concept

A school’s culture is not a system of formal, written rules, but is composed of invisible rules and customs which – consciously and/or unconsciously – steer, limit and regulate the working conditions of the school personnel and students in a narrow as well as a broad sense. The school culture is reflected in, for example, different existing rites, signals, symbols, manners of speech, etc. The culture also has a tradition and a history, in a general as well a local historical sense. The culture is influenced by the people within the organization, by the physical working environment, by the working organization, etc.
‘School culture’ is an abstract, elusive and thereby very composite concept. Accordingly, various researchers with various perspectives have different names for this phenomenon. Examples of this to express different informal social phenomena of this informal type are the term ‘ethos’ (Lortie, 1975), ‘behavioural regularities’ (Sarason, 1971) and the concept ‘school code’ (Arfwedson and Lundman, 1994). One field of research which has gained ground in the past few years, and which focuses on social phenomena of the type described here, is linked to the term ‘micropolitics’(Hoyle, 1986; Ball, 1987). On the surface these approaches focus on similar phenomena, but in actuality they concentrate on different phenomena, as the terms are grounded in different perspectives.
What seems to connect these different names, or concepts, however, is that they all touch upon ‘frozen ideologies’ (Gustavsson, 1991), that is, upon the value-bases established in the relevant institution. This implies that, if the concept of value-base is linked to the school’s institutional level (Berg et al, 1999), then in a similar sense the concept of culture can be linked to the school’s organizational level (Wallin and Berg, 1982). In turn, this means that the existing organizational culture/cultures in a school has its historical and social-structural base in the institutional value-bases.
Metaphorically, a school culture can be likened to a fruit with an inner core, pulp, and outer peel. Against this background, in the following I will discuss school culture on three interconnected levels1, where the first level (the ‘core’) can be expressed by the concept ‘the pedagogical legacies’. ‘Level 2 (the ‘pulp’) concerns those value-bases expressed by the various types of teacher professionalism and the existing organizational cultures within the schools. Level 3 (the ‘peel’) concerns the related actor-preparedness for school development (Berg, 1988).

Level 1: The Pedagogical Legacies: The hidden and the written curriculum

The concept ‘the pedagogical legacies’ implies, among other things, that the school of today must be seen in its historical context. In general this context can be understood in the perspective of the relations between the so-called ‘hidden’ and the ‘written curriculum’. Roughly speaking, the hidden curriculum implies that what students learn from and in school is not primarily mathematics, English, social studies, etc.: rather, they learn to be patient, to demonstrate perseverance and self-control, to subordinate themselves to an existing power apparatus, etc. (Isling, 1988). The demands legitimated by the hidden curriculum are rooted in, among other things, the educational theory of the philosopher and educator Herbart. In short, his theory claimed that education for the proletariat was a matter of discipline, submission and the struggle to suppress the ‘crude desires’, whereas education for the bourgeoisie was more a matter of considering the child’s individual abilities. With the introduction of industrialism, the foundations of the Herbartian education as a general social ideology began to erode, and thereby a process began in which an earlier, visible curriculum gradually became more hidden. Progressivism, with Dewey in the forefront, officially replaced the traditional basic education: “The pupil at the centre” became a key phrase that replaced the goals of discipline and submission. Another expression of the official transition from the Herbartian to the progressive educational ideology, is that the ‘question-answer’ type of educational method on the rhetorical level was gradually replaced by the Dewey-inspired progressivism and ‘learning by doing’ (Dewey, 1916, 1938). The reason for this gradual change mainly can be found in the social-structural change from a feudal, agrarian society to a democratic, industrial society. A Herbartian educational philosophy directed toward obedience and submission was scarcely in line with the democratic industrial society’s demands for, for example, flexibility, mobility, etc. As will be discussed below, Dewey’s progressivism was much more in line with demands of this type.
Within the sphere of the school, however, it is doubtful whether the Swedish national curriculum (which undoubtedly is inspired by progressive value-bases) has had any decisive effect on the school activity. Naturally some aspects of the school’s content have changed in a direction that can be called ‘progressive’ (e.g., the decline and fall of the subject of Christianity, and the rise of social studies). Yet, as illustrated below, the work-forms of the school still bear clear traces of the Herbartian legacy (Isling, 1988).
The hidden curriculum is thus a composite concept for the way in which a pedagogical legacy functions even today as a ‘frozen ideology’ in the school institution; that is, as a dominant value-base which in turn comprises an important means of steering the content of school activity. Empirically, this can be illustrated by the uniform results from many classroom studies. According to these studies the pattern that characterizes work in the classroom, as described in the above quotation, can be expressed by the words ‘question-answer’. Work-methods of this type are in line with the educational doctrines that can be traced back to Herbart, among others (Berg, 1992).

Level 2: Teacher Professionalism and Esprit de Corps

In our research, four established concepts of ‘profession’ are used in particular to describe the teaching profession. These concepts are:

• Sanction from the surrounding world
• Esprit de Corps/occupational ethos
• Knowledge base
• Autonomy

Of these concepts, the first-mentioned represents a horizontal and the other three a vertical dimension: The concept ‘sanction from the surrounding world’ expresses the value-based institutional foundations upon which the profession rests. The other concepts refer to the content of the profession on the basis of and in relation to these institutional foundations. This implies that if we succeed, for example, in charting the teachers’ esprit de corps, we simultaneously acquire information about the value-based foundation on which the teaching occupation rests.
The teachers’ surrounding-world-sanction is by no means self-evident, and consequently the content of the teachers’ professionalism is not self-evident either. To illustrate this, a distinction can be made between restricted and extended teacher professionalism (Hoyle, 1980). These professionalities expresses a relative range between different kinds of teacher performances with historical links to the different pedagogical legacies mentioned above.
As is apparent, teachers’ occupational ethos/esprit de corps makes up one aspect of teacher professionalism. This aspect is focused on in the following discussion, not least because the teachers’ esprit de corps comprises the basis of the method used for the analysis of culture which was developed in our research, and to which I will return below.
A school’s culture has points of connection with the school’s activity with regard to all of these aspects, and the concept of school culture is therefore difficult to define precisely. In turn, this creates methodological problems for those conducting studies of school culture. One possible way of dealing with these problems is to delimit the cultural study of a school so that it encompasses and includes analyses of the actual esprit de corps that exists, above all, among the teaching personnel within the school organization that is the intended object of study. This type of study will naturally not cover all parts of the existing culture. But since teachers are the dominant personnel group in the school, a study of the teachers’ esprit de corps will at least imply that important aspects of the whole school culture are charted. Thus we can assume that if we succeed in charting the occupational norms represented by teachers in a school, we have thereby also obtained a fairly good picture of the relevant school’s culture.
The following discussion summarizes some of the principles behind a method of cultural analysis that is based on the above. Below I will discuss how this method is constructed and utilized. The method is based on the following line of reasoning.

• After extensive empirical studies an American sociologist developed, in a now classic book, a discussion of the ethos of American teachers (Lortie, 1975). The concept of ethos can be equated with esprit de corps/occupational spirit, and it is the very occupational spirit of teachers/school personnel that composes one of the cornerstones of school culture. By drawing conclusions about the existing esprit de corps we can, in other words, also draw some – albeit careful – conclusions about at least some of the main components of a school’s culture. The teachers’ occupational spirit can be expressed by three principal concepts, namely, conservatism, presentism, and individualism. Conservatism is approximately the same as ‘rigidity’, that is, teachers are generally sceptical toward change-oriented work that lies outside the traditional activities of the teaching occupation. Presentism stands for a dimension of planning; when planning, the teachers often do so in a short-term perspective (the next day, the next week, etc.) rather than a long-term perspective (one year, two years...). By individualism is simply meant that teachers traditionally work alone. This concept of ethos focuses upon a value-system that to judge by Lortie’s evidence is (or at least was during the 1970s) a frequent occurrence in the North American teachers’ ethos. The traditional attitude toward school, instruction and teaching which this ethos expresses, can basically be understood in the perspective of the hidden curriculum.
• To acquire a basis on which to study if – and in that case to what extent – this traditional teachers’ ethos (
• esprit de corps
• ) also dominates within the school organization that is the object of our cultural studies, it is necessary to form some type of conceptual counterpart to the concept of ethos. Since this ethos can be related to the hidden curriculum, it is logical to seek this counterpart in the official written Swedish curricula. The state educational doctrines of the post-war period, which are influenced by Dewey and progressivism, compose the main school-ideological and pedagogical basis of these curricula. However, curricular documents of this type hardly reveal anything that directly corresponds to words such as ‘ethos’, ‘esprit de corps’ or ‘school culture’. For this reason, conclusions about an esprit de corps and a culture that are aligned with these state educational doctrines are founded on interpretations of text in these documents that gives indications of such. In a few earlier studies Berg
• et al
• , 1999) this type of interpretation was made for the 1980 and 1994 curriculum of primary school. The result of this interpretation gives rise to the three key-words long-term planning, co-operation and flexibility. In a nutshell, these key-words express the leading principles behind the view around which the post-war period’s Swedish state educational-political intentions are constructed. An examination of more relevant policy documents does not lead to the conclusion that these key-words need to be revised. This implies that they can serve as relevant counterparts to the above-described traditional ethos, even with regard to the present-day situation concerning the state steering of school.

The above can be fused into three qualitative ‘measures’ (individualism / co-operation; presentism / long-term planning; rigidity / flexibility), which form the basis of the analytical instrument used for our studies of school culture.

Level 3: Actor-Preparedness

The concepts of actor-preparedness (Berg, 1989) and school culture are closely related, without being synonymous. Culture primarily deals with the norms that exist within a school organization, that is, with what is right, wrong, good, bad, acceptable and unacceptable. In the context of change, actor-preparedness is more a question of relating the actual cultural norms of an organization which is undergoing change to the type and degree of this change. More precisely, this implies a focus on the possible ‘gap’ between the system of norms which the change itself implies, and the existing culture within the relevant organization. This discussion rests on the assumption that change presupposes the existence of some kind of relation between the content of the actual change and the corresponding content of the organizational culture which is the object of the change.

Summary

To sum up, Level 1 expresses the basic content of the value-bases in the school institution, which are influenced by the historical and social structure. Level 2 expresses the range of possible teaching professionalities, which are also grounded in the school’s institutionalized value-bases, and expresses a possible range with regard to how these value-bases make an impact in the form of occupational norms among the teachers in the school, which in turn compose approximations of the dominant school cultures. Level 3 denotes an evaluation of these cultures in the perspective of school development.

How to Implement a School Culture Analysis

School culture as reflected in the teachers’ esprit de corps

School culture plays an important role as an informal influence on school activity. Consequently, school culture is a critical factor in school development. In other words, school development implies that the school’s existing culture’s influence is reduced to a certain extent and is replaced – at least in part – by another culture. Therefore, one prerequisite for school development is that hidden phenomena such as esprit de corps and culture do not remain as hidden and often unmentioned influences on school activity. Rather, the culture has to be laid bare and thus become the object of a penetrating discussion and analysis. That a discussion of this type can be – and often is – a sensitive and in many respects upsetting process, is understood by all. Basically it is a matter of calling into question an established and often stable structure. This in turn implies that habitual and – for many – secure patterns become threatened, which can naturally give rise to a much frustration and resentment. As is well known, habits are hard to break.
It follows from the above that it is difficult to analyze the content of a school’s culture, for the very reason that the concept embraces a great many complex phenomena. Finding a method that aims to clarify all the aspects of a school culture is thus almost impossible. What is possible, on the other hand, is to try to develop a method or strategy which has at least a possibility of clarifying significant aspects of a school’s culture.
The method developed within the framework of our research is, for the purpose of delimitation, dependent on studying the teachers’ esprit de corps as a part of the school’s total culture. Esprit de corps has been chosen because teachers are the dominant personnel in the school, and it is thus reasonable to assume that the type and degree of occupational norms that characterize this group also compose an important – and probably the dominant – part of the school’s total culture.
As is apparent, the teachers’ esprit de corps is reflected in the form of a few qualitative measures. The measure ‘individualism / co-operation’ highlights a dimension of co-operation; the measure ‘presentism / long-term planning’ focuses on a dimension of planning; and the measure ‘conservatism / rigidity / flexibility’ centres around a dimension of change. The reason for using these particular three dimensions with their respective pairs of concepts has already been discussed.
In graphic form the above-mentioned three measures can be shown as in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Dimensions of Analysis of Esprit de Corps

Individualism	↔	Co-operation
Presentism	↔	Long-term planning
Rigidity	↔	Flexibility

For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that these three measures are obviously not quantitative in nature – the latter would imply that the data collected can be expressed numerically. Rather, they are qualitative measures, which implies that there can (and ought to) be different interpretations of the meaning of concepts such as co-operation, flexibility and long-term planning. The purpose of the measures is to function as a kind of ‘guiding star’ in our attempts to understand the content of a school’s culture(s) as viewed in the perspective of teachers’ esprit de corps, and ultimately in the perspective of the school as an institution.
The most natural (but not the only) method for collecting data in connection with cultural analysis, is probably that of the unstructured interview, where a number of relatively penetrating interviews are conducted with a sample of, in the first hand, teachers. These interviews generally have the character of ‘conversations’, in which the interviewer encourages the interviewed person (Ip) to give his/her own account of the work-place conditions in general and in detail. In the next step, when the interview material is analyzed, the interview statements can be sorted on the basis of the following types of questions and criteria.

Co-operation dimension

• Is there any form of co-operation between and within the various personnel groups with regard to work planning? If so:
  • why has this co-operation developed and in which forms does it occur?
  • which group or groups of actors is involved in this co-operation, and
  • why this group or groups in particular?
  • if not: why is there no co-operation?
• What are the general attitudes toward co-operation within and between groups of actors?
• Were there earlier jointly planned activities (theme, project, etc.)? Why did they stop?
• Need for co-operation in the future – in that case which problems would it solve?

Planning dimension

• In which time perspective do the various actors’ individual work planning occur?
• In which time perspective does any collective work planning occur?
• Who participates in the collective work planning that may exist, and in which forms does it occur?
• What preferences do the teachers and students express to school leaders with regard to their work duties (schedule, distribution of work, etc.) and how are these preferences dealt with?
• What are the motives behind any possible preferences?

Change dimension

• What are the motives behind the various actors’ desire for change (i.e., which problems do these actors want to solve with the desired change)?
• Which changes are allowed in the school – which are not allowed? Who has the power to sanction change?
• Which changes have earlier been carried out and by whom?
  • motives?
  • course/process?
  • outcome/result?
  • what happened then?

The three dimensions of school culture (co-operation/planning/change) make up three fixed (‘horizontal’) principal categories for cultural analysis. This categorization can well be broadened by adding more categories of analysis. These complementary (‘vertical’) categories are not pre-specified; rather, their content is determined by the specific character of the interview material. An example of how the horizontal dimensions can be complemented by a number of vertical categories, is presented below in Table 1.

Table 1 - Outline of Interview Categories¹

Raw Data	Interview data according to the protocol approved by the respondents
Categories	Horizontal categorization Co-operation dimension Planning dimension Change dimension Vertical categorization: Choice of categories is based here on the specific character of the interview material
Concepts and models	Levels 1-4 (outlined in Woods, 1988, chapter 2, further discussed in chapters 3-5).

The methodological structure and application of cultural analysis

The method of categorizing the interviews on which the cultural analysis is based, can be outlined in the following way:
In this case the raw material consists of 40 interviews conducted mainly with teachers who all work within the same school. The method used to collect the data was the unstructured interview. This means that a number of relatively penetrating interviews – or rather conversations – were held, without formulating a series of questions beforehand. In these conversations the interviewed person (Ip) was encouraged to describe his/her own experiences of conditions at the work place, in general and in detail. This was done for the most part by beginning the interview with the general question, “What is your impression of working conditions here at school?” Ip was then given the chance to speak ‘freely from the heart’ with regard to his/her views of daily work. The interviews were recorded on a tape recorder, and thereafter summaries were made of the recorded interviews and the protocols were returned to Ip for approval. The material discussed in this chapter rests entirely on such approved interview protocols.
Once the interview protocols were approved, work began to “bring order out of chaos”. This implied the systematization of basically unorganized interview material, to the degree that prerequisites were created for distinguishing those connections and structures which form the basis for drawing conclusions about the leading principles in the relevant organization culture(s). The first step was to categorize the statements in accordance with the three above-mentioned, basic dimensions of co-operation, planning and change.
The general criteria for deciding which types of statements fall under each of the dimensions were discussed above. As is clear from Table 1, assigning the statements to a co-operation dimension, a planning dimension, and a change dimension can be described as a horizontal categorization. At this point the assumption can in fact be made that a relatively crude and general categorization of this type is sufficient in relation to the aim of the cultural analysis. On the other hand, if we decide that further organization, visibility and systematics are needed in the interview material, then it may be worthwhile to complement the horizontal categorization with a so-called vertical categorization. In contrast to the horizontal dimensions, however, the vertical categories are not given beforehand; rather, they arise during a read-through of the interview material, when they appear as natural bases for categorization in relation to the interview material’s special character. In this case it was clear that the statements ranged over categories such as “one’s own work situation”, “the school’s activity in general” and “the headteacher’s and school leadership’s task/role”.
Against this background, the matrix presented below composes the categorization scheme which forms the basis for structuring the relevant interview material.

Table 2 - Matrix for horizontal and vertical categorization.

Dimensions	Co-operation	Planning	Change
One’s own work situation	1	2	3
The school's activity in general	4	5	6
The role of the headteacher and school leadership	7	8	9

It is clear that these categories, in an absolute sense, cannot be distinguished from one another, but rather overlap. Ultimately it is the researcher’s valuations – which are based on criteria of the type discussed above – that decide under which category the respective statements fall. One way to increase the reliability of such valuations is for several persons independently to conduct a categorization of this type, and thereafter check their results with one another.
Below, selected parts of the interview material are presented in relation to the nine categories. The chapter ends with commentaries and summaries of the three dimensions of co-operation, planning, and change. Thereafter a discussion is held which takes up the results of the cultural analysis.

The purpose and general structure of the cultural analysis

The interviews were held at one of the schools included in the research project, selected because it – at least on the surface – appeared to be the ‘most progressive’. By this is meant that the school has carried out numerous activities which, according to its former headteacher, were grounded in conscious interpretations of progressive curricular ideology. For this headmaster (referred to as “Headmaster 1” in the following interview statements), the sentence “the pupil in the centre” was not an expression of meaningless curricular rhetoric. Rather, it served as a guideline for the content and form of activity. Using this as a point of departure, the headmaster initiated a number of activities which (in order to preserve anonymity) will not deal with in depth. However, it can be noted that extensive experimental work focusing on curricular implementation, has been conducted at this school.
On the surface this school appears to be progressive in focus. The question is whether this is true in reality. A necessary (but not necessarily sufficient) prerequisite for this is that the dominant actor-preparedness among the teachers corresponds more to extended than to restricted professionalism. Against this background, an important aim of the cultural analysis is thus to clarify the type and degree of the professionalism which occurs among, in the first hand, the school’s teaching personnel. Here we find ourselves moving on levels 2 and 3. If we, in the next step, strive to understand the culture, the perspective must be expanded to encompass and include level 1 as well. In other words, this means that the perspective must be expanded from the school as an organization to the school as an institution.
For the sake of maintaining anonymity, no general information about the relevant school and its immediate environment will be given here, other than to say that it is an upper-secondary school. Neither will any information be revealed as to when the study was conducted. This implies, of course, a conscious omission of some important background data. However, the assumptions and conclusions that result from the cultural analysis are relatively independent of this type of data.
A total of around 60 adults work at this school. Of these, 40 have been interviewed. Of those interviewed, 23 teach so-called theoretical subjects; nine teach practical/aesthetic subjects; four are special-instruction teachers; three are among the non-teaching personnel; and one is the headmaster with no teaching responsibilities. Two of the teachers in the first-mentioned category also serve part-time as assistant headmasters. In this context the problems of sampling will not be discussed. It is felt these 40 interviews give a good, representative picture of the teaching staff in general at this school.
In annualizing the interview statements, the protocol from the interviews was categorized into a total of 214 statements divided among nine categories. A sample of them is given below. These were not selected with the express aim of airing the views of all 40 respondents, but rather, because the statements in were viewed as ‘pattern-building’: that is, they represent a very substantial content which is expressed in several of the interviews independently of one another. With regard to language, the presentation of the statements lies close to the original text from the protocol, without for that matter being word-for-word accounts of what the interviewed persons said.

How were the statements categorized?

First he interviews are carried out according to the generally formulated question. Thereafter the interviews are written out on the basis of the tape recording, the notes taken, and/or other documentation. Once written, the statements are returned to the interviewed persons for possible additions/eliminations/approval. Below, part of such an approved interview protocol is presented:

Interviewed person 25: Stina, language teacher

“I am relatively new at the school, and in my earlier jobs I participated in various kinds of experimental projects with successful results. The start of my employment at the school was bewildering and almost a shock. I thought I had entered an insane asylum, where a despot ruled at the top and pretended to be democratic. The personnel were divided into two gangs, who were constantly at odds with each other. Before I realized which of the camps my colleagues belonged to, I hardly dared express myself. The curricular experiment consisted in continuous, meaningless discussions and conferences – and this could go on 13 hours a week outside the ordinary working time. For long periods I would not go to the staff room during breaks and spare hours, and instead remained in the classroom. The language teachers at this school are not very fond of working together, which I think is a shame. The conflicts with the Headmaster have brought about this unfortunate situation. Headmaster 1’s principle was that we should always teach in a laborative way, but how can one pick up German words in the streets and squares? Headmaster 1 did not understand that languages are subjects of proficiency, which demand a specific methodology – those who pointed this out were viewed as ‘opponents of change’. The language teachers reacted to this by literally and figuratively ‘closing the classroom doors’. Various attempts to integrate special and general courses were initiated half-heartedly, but ceased very soon. My own co-operation with one of the special-instruction teachers functioned rather well, however, even though our respective, basic, pedagogical views differed considerably. The earlier polarized atmosphere seems to be easing now, however, although Headmaster 1’s spirit is still very much a part of the activity. Despite the above, there are a lot of positive things about this school. What I have come to appreciate more and more, is the trustful relationship that characterizes the contact between students and adults at the school.”

Table 3 - Matrix of Statements

Dimensions	Co-operation	Planning	Change
One’s own work situation	Language teachers at this school are very restrictive about co-operation - personally I think this is a shame.	Language instruction quite simply cannot be planned on the basis of the principle that one can run around in the streets and squares and snap up German words.
The school's activity in general	...there were two gangs at odds with each other, and before one realized on which side folk stood, one hardly dared say anything	During the curricular experiment there were constant, meaningless meetings. Thirteen hours of extra duty per week could be put in.
The role of the headteacher and school leadership	I came from another school within the curricular experiment, and thought that I had come to an insane asylum with a despot at the top, who tried to masquerade in democratic guise	Headmaster 1 did not understand that languages are subjects of proficiency, which demand a specific methodology.	Headmaster 1's principle was that we should always teach in a laborative way, but how can one pick up German words in the streets and squares?

The next step is to sort out a number of such statements from this interview protocol, which are judged to be ‘pattern-building’. These statements are placed into the matrix shown in Table 3. In this case the interview with Stina is ‘stripped’ in the following way:
As is clear, seven statements from the interview with Stina have been plucked out and placed into the matrix shown in Table 3. The interviews with the other 39 respondents were dealt with the same way. Below is a selection of the 214 statements which were categorized and sorted in this way.

Presentation of the interview statements

Category 1: Co-operation – one’s own work situation: Pattern-building statements:

1. A number of years ago we changed and became ‘total’ SO5 teachers. It was hard at first, but now I absolutely don’t want to go back to the old one-subject model... (Ip 36)
2. It was hard for me to adapt to working in the classes instead of in the clinic... (Ip 40)
3. The co-operation between the NO6 and the math teachers is generally very good on an informal level. We discuss pedagogical/methodological problems often and intensively... (Ip 30)
4. The relationship between teachers and students is good at this school. A ‘pals relationship’ has its limits, however. Rules have to be followed, though it doesn’t mean that one has to act as a police. (Ip 29)
5. The co-operation between the SO-teachers could be better. Now it takes place mainly at subject-conferences. I lack information about what others are doing. (Ip 28)
6. I came directly from teacher-training school to this school, and I really like it here. (Ip 12)
7. The language teachers at this school are very restrictive about development work – personally I think this is a shame. (Ip 25)
8. We language teachers are a strange family – we don’t co-operate with one another and are fairly isolated from the school’s other activities. On the whole we are also rather satisfied with this. (Ip 24)
9. I feel a need to work together with other teachers, but I don’t want to impose on anyone. Colleagues are helpful when one asks them questions about more trivial things... (Ip 12)
10. We HK-teachers co-operate well with one another. On the other hand, we have limited co-operation with others, which is too bad. (Ip 10)
    Category 4: Co-operation – the activity in general: Pattern-building statements:
11. When I began here there were great conflicts – a lot of whispering in the staff room. The union representatives ‘looked for flaws’. Last autumn this changed to total passivity. I think that the old conflicts still exist and that people are simply ‘lying low’ just now. (Ip 38)
12. I think it is scandalous for us to demand that the children co-operate, when we ourselves can’t manage to do so... (Ip 32)
13. When I came to this school many years ago, the staff were homogeneous. In connection with the curricular experiment, the schisms among the personnel culminated. I believe this school is an extreme case when it comes to these schisms... (Ip 31)
14. There is a polarization between two groups at the school. One of the groups willingly carries out diverse activities regardless whether they fall within or outside of working hours, while the other group is opposed to this. The polarization was more pronounced during the time of Headmaster 1, however. (Ip 30)
15. There is a lot of talk about co-operation between subjects, but in practice it occurs to a limited extent or not at all. (Ip 28)
16. In principle the staff are divided into two groups, but within these groups there is a number of subgroups. Generally speaking the positions of the different groups are rather locked. (Ip 28)
17. The staff are divided into two groups, which I consider myself to be outside of. In contrast to my earlier place of work, we can not discuss ‘simple’ things like the students’ use of cigarettes, snuff, chewing gum, etc., but rather, our discussions always have to centre on broader issues. (Ip 26)
18. I think that teachers in general are pronounced individualists, which makes it harder to carry out constructive development work. (Ip 26)
19. I find it a very difficult to unite the personnel around certain basic values. (Ip 22)
20. The union’s conditions are not just a matter of money. If reasonable conditions are not offered only a small number of idealists will engage themselves in development work, and this is unacceptable in every respect. (Ip 19)
21. Within this school we have come a long way with regard to the relationship between teachers and students. On the other hand, the distance between different groups with regard to attitude, is very great. (Ip 19)
22. The contact with students is very positive. The relationship between teachers and students is probably the school’s greatest strength. (Ip 37)
23. The atmosphere between teachers and students is very good at this school. (Ip 25)
24. I think the close relationship to students is something positive. Others don’t agree, and they stay within their traditional teacher roles. I myself like a bit of disorderliness. (Ip 5)
25. What makes it hard to carry out union activities at this school, is that certain people – even our members – offer themselves without this being regulated by the union. (Ip 26)
26. The cliques that formed around Headmaster 1 took expression in ‘meaningful looks’ between his supporters. Because of this, we lay low during discussions when these people were present. (Ip 17)
27. Two groups in the school are clearly distinguishable. They sit in their respective corners of the staff room and argue with each other sometimes... (Ip 12)
28. I feel at home at the school. I think that the home-room system works well and that the atmosphere has improved a lot since Headmaster 1 left. One can even talk to those people who at one time were among his supporters... (Ip 27)
29. There are two groups among the staff. The conflicts seem manageable, but in that case the meaning and implications of them must be brought into the open. The conservative faction has become more pronounced since Headmaster 1 left. (Ip 5)
30. Very distinct groups within the staff. Headmaster 1 had his group of friends. Others outside this group were interested in change but were afraid of Headmaster 1 and his supporters. Still others – myself included – were more conservative. Most of the language teachers belonged to the latter group. (Ip 6)
31. We are now trying to resurrect the progressive group which earlier gathered around Headmaster 1. (Ip 8)
    Category 7: Co-operation – the role of the headmaster and school leadership: Pattern-building statements:
32. We special-instruction teachers naturally gathered around Headmaster 1, because his ideology was that no one should fall by the wayside. (Ip 40)
33. Many felt pressure just from talking to Headmaster 1, and literally went out of their way to avoid encountering him... (Ip 40)
34. Headmaster 1 was friendly with a group that I was a part of. In the last year he had only a small circle of supporters, since many of us in the old gang distanced ourselves from him. He then isolated himself and ‘fled the field’, while the problems at the school were piling up. (Ip 37)
35. Headmaster 2 tries to water down the disputes at the school by keeping back those of us who are progressive. Today there is a deep conflict within the new school leadership group. (Ip 37)
36. The atmosphere is definitely better now that Headmaster 1 is gone, and the different distinct groups are dissolving. (Ip 35)
37. Headmaster 1 can be compared to a despot. One had to take a stand for or against him. His gang of supporters shifted to a certain extent. I myself was on the periphery of this group. (Ip 34)
38. I miss Headmaster 1 – he was a great source of inspiration. The present school leadership is divided and lacks strength. The school’s reputation as progressive is a myth. (Ip 34)
39. The formation of groups and conflicts has been the norm at this school. Headmaster 1 emphasized that we should use ‘straightforward language’. When this was applied to Headmaster 1 himself, he had an aggressive outburst. (Ip 33)
40. I don’t think that clear groups can be distinguished now or earlier. Headmaster 1 always underlined that no one should feel pressurized. The atmosphere was stimulating and positive, and it strengthened the solidarity among the staff. (Ip 21)
41. Headmaster 1’s uncontrolled zeal for change created a polarization within the staff. (Ip 17)
42. In connection with curricular experiment, the wide support shown by the groups’ work seemed to express a willingness for development. Instead it was a matter of passive acceptance of the leader’s strong personality. (Ip 11)
43. Now that Headmaster 1 is gone, there is a counter-reaction and a latent aggression is blooming. The demand from this direction is for ‘law and order’ and a sweeping away of progressive ideas, e.g., the work-unit system. (Ip 11)
44. It is nice to have a period of rest after Headmaster 1. During his time the staff were divided into two groups. Initially 10-15 were on his side, but gradually this group decreased. He put up a democratic facade, but under the surface he was very authoritarian. (Ip 19)
45. Since Headmaster 1 left, the conflicts are less noticeable. One doesn’t have to watch one’s tongue in the staff room. Headmaster 1 was a skilful debater – he completely crushed people... (Ip 2)
    Category 2: Planning – one’s own work situation. Pattern-building statements:
46. This year nothing is happening. Earlier co-operative activities do not work. Previously we worked with joint material, traded lessons, etc. We were all beginners in our capacity as ‘total’ SO-teachers, and this brought about a natural co-operation. This didn’t work out at all this year... (Ip 36)
47. The students have a nonchalant attitude, arrive late, forget their pens, etc. (Ip 32)
48. We never discussed concrete problems such as, “what shall we do about that student”, but rather, we talked about general aims, which I re-named ‘general air’. (Ip 25)
49. Language instruction can quite simply not be planned on the basis of the principle that one can run about in the streets and squares and snap up German words. (Ip 25)
50. I try to teach ‘without books’. In religion we work, for example, with certain basic knowledge of different religions. After that the students have to seek knowledge themselves, by forming their own contacts, looking in newspapers, literature and other sources. Good help is given by the special-instruction teachers... (Ip 12)
51. In class we are now working at leafing through books, having discussions, looking at teacher guidelines, etc. For some students this works well, for others it doesn’t... (Ip 1)
52. I am against the strategy of decreasing the number of teachers/classes by letting us ‘dabble in other subjects’ to a greater extent than earlier. (Ip 2)
53. Last autumn we made an attempt to integrate the general and the specialized course in English into a work-unit. Three language teachers and one special-instruction teacher worked together. The experiment was discontinued after one term, for we found that it worked well socially but not educationally... (Ip 6)
    Category 2: Planning – the activity in general. Pattern-building statements:
54. Of the groups involved in the curricular experiment, the one devoted to the distribution of work made the most progress. The result was that many teachers agreed also to teach subjects which they had no formal training in. This was, and is, a step toward a real work-unit organization.
55. During the curricular experiment we lacked recreational leaders for the organization of the comprehensive school day. Students wandered around as they pleased and caused mischief. I spoke with Headmaster 1 about this, and his comment was that the students should be given responsibility and shown trust... In my view the students cannot shoulder responsibility if they are not given some kind of training in it. (Ip 31)
56. The group around Headmaster 1 was entirely unwilling to compromise. When we couldn’t agree on the most trivial matters, such as rules of order, etc., it was of course impossible to agree on more general things. I myself put forward the question of stricter control of attendance, but this was viewed as insignificant and peripheral. On the whole I think this is despicable. (Ip 29)
57. During the curricular experiment there were constant, meaningless meetings. Thirteen hours of extra work a week could be put in. (Ip 25)
58. I wish there was an integration of SYON with other subjects. Many teachers think that, since we have a SYO counsellor, we don’t need to involve ourselves in this matter. (Ip 21)
59. This year we have had a work-distribution committee who planned the allocation of resources. Nowadays the union representatives are a part of this group, which also composes the election committee for new members. The election committee’s proposal is presented at a staff conference... (Ip 20)
60. Just now we are discussing how we can decrease the number of teachers/work units – that is, introduce an intermediate-school-like situation at upper-secondary school. The system of rules is a hindrance. How are the relations managed between P/E-teachers and other teachers, for example?
61. What we lack is a theoretical basis for the things we do, and therefore our activities are at a risk of becoming a series of meaningless gimmicks. When, for example, do we ask ourselves the question of why we are working on projects? (Ip 11)
62. What I miss most from the curricular experiment is the joint planning that took place within the framework of the work units. (Ip 5)
63. The students feel that the teachers have different ways of teaching, on account of differences in the latter’s basic, pedagogical view. But I don’t think that the students suffer because of this; rather, it simply shows that adults – like the students themselves – are different from one another. The danger is if students feel that different subjects are of different importance on account of the variations in the teaching methods. (Ip 6)
64. This year we are trying to emphasize the separate class rather than the work unit. (Ip 9)
    Category 8: Planning – The role of the headteacher and school leadership. Pattern-building statements:
65. Headmaster 1 was a marvel at initiating activities. On the other hand, he was worse at following them up... (39)
66. Many of Headmaster 1’s ideas were good, and initially I supported them. But in the end there was such a lot of ideas that it was impossible to keep up. (Ip 29)
67. The division of the assistant headmaster’s role into three parts works quite well, because good people occupy these positions. A relatively firm organization is needed from year to year – we can’t improvise all of the time. (Ip 29)
68. Headmaster 1 got rid of old routines and created a lot of anxiety. (Ip 17)
69. The group around Headmaster 1 had private meetings, where they sat and prepared their moves... (Ip 17)
70. The collective role of the assistant headmaster is, in my view, an emergency solution that functions poorly. Co-operation problems within the school leadership are now palpable... (Ip 1)
71. Headmaster 1’s many ideas created anxiety. A lot of activities were initiated, which for the most part petered out. (Ip 6)
72. The present irresolution is a result of the completely divided school leadership, which opens up for a number of unorganized ideas. Headmaster 1 drove a hard line and in that way established the criteria – now there are no criteria at all. (Ip 38)
73. The pedagogical co-operation was poor between the studies co-ordinators during the curricular experiment. We participated in everything, but without actually getting anything done. (Ip 9)
    Category 3: Change – one’s own work situation. Pattern-building statements:
74. My teaching has changed. Earlier I taught strictly ‘from the desk’. Nowadays I discuss the teaching material with my students and together we make priorities. (Ip 6)
75. In a sense our job as special-instruction teachers has become more difficult now that the clinic and special classes are gone. For us it was pretty convenient to gather in a special locality and create our own little world. Now that we move among the classes it is worse from our own narrow perspective, but clearly better for the students. (Ip 39)
76. I have a positive attitude toward ‘dabbling’ in other subjects, but don’t quite feel that I am ready for it... (Ip 35)
77. I have a little experiment on my own that involves my teaching all the SO-subjects, math and chemistry in the same class for which I am also the class leader. Certain weeks I have this class for 11 hours a week, and I serve then as a ‘part-time class leader’. Both I and my students think this is something very positive. (Ip 30)
78. Earlier we NO-teachers worked together and thought up ideas, but now that has entirely stopped. (Ip 33)
79. I have toyed with the idea of forming work units in nearby localities, where teachers with more or less the same basic view could work. Through practical work we could introduce innovations into the school as a whole. (Ip 34)
80. I think the new pedagogical ideas are hard to apply in modern language. I find myself ‘resisting’... (Ip 6)
81. For my part the teaching situation itself hasn’t changed to any great extent. I have made attempts to increase the amount of student influence, but the students were not mature enough to take responsibility, and the attempts came close to ruining my instruction. (Ip 3)
82. Project-instruction is occupational therapy – the acquisition of knowledge is neglected. (Ip 2)
    Category 6: Change – the activity in general. Pattern-building statements:
83. For me it started to feel strange when teachers with non-progressive values began to speak of teaching progressively. That is form without content. (Ip 6)
84. There probably has to be some tension at a school in order for activity to develop. Perhaps it is best to try to develop the school’s subject-groups instead... (Ip 38)
85. During autumn a large part of the development work has been discontinued – we have needed breathing space. But now we are starting up again – among other things, with an attempt to integrate the NO subjects. (Ip 33)
86. In connection with the development work, the demand was made that we voluntarily work in our spare time. For family reasons, I can’t do this. Headmaster 2 – in contrast to Headmaster 1 – has expressed understanding for this. (Ip 31)
87. I came from another school within the curricular experiment, and thought I had come to an insane asylum with a despot at the top, who tried to masquerade in democratic guise. Below there were two gangs who were at odds with each other, and before one realized on which side folk stood, one hardly dared express oneself. (Ip 25)
88. I have a very pessimistic view of development opportunities at this school. The positions are locked, and Headmaster 1’s spirit is still at large. (Ip 25)
89. The signals for law and order can be seen as a disappointment that the activity did not turn out to be what the optimists had promised. The reaction has been a return to earlier conditions... (Ip 20)
90. This year things have been calmer. The ‘progressive’ group is lying low – probably because they miss their leader... (Ip 14)
91. I don’t think this school differs from other schools except on the surface, since the development work was so greatly tied to one person. (Ip 11)
92. The development at the school has stagnated. This is because Headmaster 1 has left, resulting in a reaction to the earlier stormier years... (Ip 9)
93. I am relatively new at the school, and when I came I felt a great difference between this school and other upper-secondary schools. Above all there was no bell at the school, and the students also had free access to the staff room. Further, the relationship between teachers and students was, and is, very close and friendly... (Ip 5)
94. A curricular reform must be introduced step by step, with the support of the union. (Ip 1)
95. The curricular experiment was a conscious attempt to create a better atmosphere for the students. The actual activity plodded along as usual, however... (Ip 1)
96. Some of the special-instruction teachers who belonged to Headmaster 1’s gang don’t give a hoot about the instruction. In the middle of an arithmetic test they can sit down on the desk and sing a sea shanty. (Ip 2)
    Category 9: Change – the role of the headmaster and school leadership. Pattern-building statements:
97. Headmaster 1 tried to steer in certain directions. We adapted to this without completely accepting his ideas. (Ip 17)
98. The group around Headmaster 1 was strengthened by the curricular experiment. The staff as a whole had earlier a fairly positive attitude toward Headmaster 1, but when the curricular experiment began things got successively worse. (Ip 2)
99. Headmaster 1’s many ideas were terribly stressful for us. He was very ambitious and wanted our small community to be the first to introduce new pedagogical ideas. (Ip 2)
100. Course literature made Headmaster 1 see red. (Ip 2)
101. Headmaster 2 is much more cautious than Headmaster 1, but in general this hasn’t affected the development climate at the school. (Ip 5)
102. When Headmaster 1 introduced new ideas, there was always resistance to them. Certain ideas – e.g., the ‘emergency’ system – have worked out well in the sense that vandalism has decreased. (Ip 21)
103. Headmaster 1 was an extremely hard worker. When his ideas spread among the staff, the best parts of them were carried out. (Ip 21)
104. Headmaster 1 thought that we language teachers were reactionary, and he put a lot of pressure on us. Headmaster 1 is now gone and Headmaster 2 has slowed the pace, which is why we no longer feel provoked and psychologically threatened. (Ip 24)
105. Headmaster 1 used every possible means to carry out his ideas. He drove right over people – some had to quit. This mentality was strengthened and supported by his close favourites during the years he worked here. This group increased from year to year, but finally even some of his own favourites distanced themselves from him. (Ip 29)

Conclusions Related to Level 2 and 3

The following is a summary of the dominant features of this school’s organizational culture as it is expressed in the interview material. The results are presented under the three headings, “Co-operation”, “Planning”, and “Change”. The numberings (1-105) in the text refer to the interview statements above.

The co-operation dimension

The general picture which takes shape is that the school in the later years has undergone different phases, shifting between a collective adherence to certain traditional values, and conflict-laden attempts to change these values (13). Approximately five years before this interview study was carried out, a newly-employed headmaster initiated with great zeal a number of change-related activities (41). At first there was a certain actor-preparedness for the headmaster’s attempts at change, at least among some of the teaching staff (30). Above all, the school’s special-instruction teachers whole-heartedly support the headmaster, as his integrated student policy lay completely in line with their own principles (32). The opposition was composed primarily of the language teachers, who were emphatically against almost all of the headmaster’s ideas and initiatives (7, 8). Between these two groups, the other teachers and personnel at the school took a more ambivalent position, which over time became fairly fluid (30, 37). For several years the headmaster gradually strengthened his ideological hold over the school (26), and this culminated in the school’s participation in the curricular experiment. When the latter was being planned, a majority of teachers voluntarily join the planning groups, which were set up to suggest methods for realizing the aims of the curriculum (42). During this year the hitherto growing support for the headmaster changes, however. This is partly due to the flaws in the planning work. More and more of the personnel distance themselves from the headmaster, and finally he has only a few supporters left. The headmaster literally flees from the school (34), which ultimately leads to his formal resignation.
After Headmaster 1’s resignation, the school leadership’s role was reorganized, in the sense that the new headteacher was aided by three assistant headteachers. The latter carried out the school leadership work alongside their regular teaching duties. Within this group were supporters as well as opponents of the recently departed headmaster. A schism formed within the school leadership group (35, 38), which was one reason why the school’s activity was disorganized for some time. This in turn gave the group which earlier opposed Headmaster 1 the opportunity to advance their positions (43). Representatives of this group on the whole now feel that the atmosphere at the school today is less polarized than during Headmaster 1’s time (45, 44, 36, 29, 14), while the others – including not only the ‘progressive group’s’ members – think that basically nothing has changed (16, 43, 11).
Here it can be noted that, within the circle which earlier stood closest to Headmaster 1, a discussion has been going on with the aim of resurrecting this group (31) and forming a resistance to what is correctly felt as the opposition group’s advancement. Some of the earlier opponents to Headmaster 1 do, however, give him a certain amount of credit for his work (28). Further, it should be noted that despite this, there are examples of statements which question whether there actually was a division into groups at the school (40).
There is wide agreement among Headmaster 1’s supporters as well as opponents that he drove his policy of change with an almost rabid zeal (37, 41), and that there was a marked discrepancy between his pronounced democratic basic views and his extremely authoritarian leadership (39). In short, he was either hated (33) or loved (38).
The question is whether this policy of change had any deeper effects on the school’s co-operation norms. Here it can be said that, to the extent that co-operation norms existed in the real sense of the word, they seem to have done so within a single subject or group of subjects (3, 10), and not between subjects/groups of subjects (15). The picture which takes shape shows that it was the traditional, individualistic teacher role that can be regarded as being the normal situation (5, 8, 12, 18). On the other hand, it happens that teachers co-operated with themselves (1), and/or that co-operation was sought with colleagues but failed to arise other than in trivial matters (9). This lack of a co-operation-oriented culture was also a clear hindrance to constructive union activity (20, 25). As far as can be judged, it is only within the group of special-instruction teachers that development work had clear effects with regard to co-operation (2).
What is expressed, however, in a number of statements is that the relationship to students was consistently close and friendly (4, 21, 22, 23, 24). However, whether this was linked to the development activity that was undertaken is not clear.

The planning dimension

All the statements under this heading touch upon the relationship between the activities’ content and the administrative forms. According to a leading representative of the group that likes to describe itself as ‘progressive’, the main problem was that the discussions as well as the actions dealt with form that was not anchored in content (61). The implication of this is that the discussions with regard to creating a “real work-unit organization” (54) must be seen in the context of content, that is, in the perspective of the earlier-mentioned “integrated student policy”, and not as an issue of work distribution. As mentioned earlier, during the school year when the study was undertaken, the group that had opposed Headmaster 1 advanced their positions. One indication of this is that issues connected with the integrated student policy (and to the work-unit organization linked to it) took a back seat to those issues which to a great extent are connected with a traditional, individualistic teacher culture and work organization (46, 52, 64). The point of departure here was apparently the relationship between the individual teacher and his/her students, rather than the relationship between the students and the school (47, 48, 52, 53, 56, 57, 63). That the ‘progressive group’ has lost ground in this respect is confirmed by the leading representatives of the group (46, 58).
Today the work efforts based on the integrated student policy seem to occur at the initiative of individual teachers within the framework of those subjects in which the teachers give instruction (50, 51). This creates a schism with regard to those work methods and work forms to which the students are subject, but according to one statement, this is not a disadvantage (63). What is clear, however, is that there are still planning activities underway that are linked to a work-unit organization, at least on the level of discussion (59, 60).
Something new for this school year is the collective school leadership role. This consists of a headteacher and three assistant headteachers, the latter of which devote themselves to both school leadership work and teaching. This new system is apparently viewed in a negative light (70, 72), although positive attitudes do occur (67). According to representatives of the ‘progressive group’, a divided leadership role of this type is fertile ground for chaos. Further, a leading representative of this group thinks that Headmaster 1’s time was characterized by a clear line of activity, which is preferable to a complete lack of activity direction (72). Against this view, the argument is presented that, during Headmaster 1’s time, there was at least one important aspect of the leadership role that did not function well, namely, the studies co-ordination role (73). In addition, characteristic of Headmaster 1’s leadership is – and on this point the interviewed persons are apparently in wide agreement – that the activities initiated by him were not followed up or simply petered out (71, 65, 66).
Thus, the overall picture of the planning dimension is that the gap between content and form had increased upon and since the departure of Headmaster 1. On the one hand, planning activities were under way for the creation of a work-unit organization, at least on an administrative and clearly superficial level. On the other hand, the group that opposed the school ideology initiated by Headmaster 1 had advanced its positions. This means that today, to a greater extent than earlier, the individual teacher feels that it is his/her (‘restricted’) professional duty to independently plan and carry out instruction. The implication of this is that the planning activities directed toward changing the school’s work organization can hardly be anything but form without content.

The change dimension

The school-cultural pattern, which crystallizes when the statements in the dimensions of co-operation and planning are compiled, is confirmed and to some extent developed by the statements that are assigned to the dimension of change. Headmaster 1’s authoritarian style of leadership is mentioned again (99, 105), and the very tense relations between Headmaster 1 and the language teachers are also confirmed (104), as are his close relations with the special-instruction teachers (96). There are, however, statements from persons who are regarded as belonging to his opponents, which have a slight tinge of ‘retroactive regret’ (97, 102, 103).
Further, it is emphasized that the group opposed to Headmaster 1 has during the current year seized the actual power at the school (81, 82, 86, 89, 90). The reactions to this among the group that had earlier supported Headmaster 1, vary. Some react with disillusioned resignation (78, 88, 89, 91, 92). Others react by retreating into their shells (74, 77, 85), that is, they try to develop activity within their own subject or subject area. One person has thoughts of “launching out independently”, that is, attempting to start independent work-units which have locales separate from the school’s other locales (79). There are also indications of a split developing within the ‘progressive’ group (83).
The impression is also that many within the group that opposed Headmaster 1 are now more willing to openly express their thoughts on the past years’ policy of change (87, 82, 96). The only exception I have found to the above-described pattern, is the group of special-instruction teachers, who by all accounts continue to plan and carry out their activity on the basis of their declared ‘integrated student policy’.

Conclusions About the Culture at This School

The general picture revealed by the interview data presented here is that this school is in every respect a fairly traditional upper-secondary school, but that this traditionalism during a few years was challenged by an ambitious headmaster and a group of supporters linked to him. Expressed in the organizational concepts discussed above, one can say that the school’s culture to a great degree was characterized by individualism, present-day orientation, and rigidity. In principle Headmaster 1’s policy of change aimed at increasing co-operation, long-term planning, and flexibility within the school. As was clear, Headmaster 1 pursued his policy in an extremely authoritarian way. His strategy was to act as ‘policy-maker’ and in principle leave the actual fulfilment of his ideas to his group of supporters. One was either for or against him. Those who were for him were rewarded and regarded as the ‘A-team’, while his opponents were subjected to what they themselves regarded as revengeful measures. If we view Headmaster 1’s leadership style in the perspective of legality, the direction of activity he advocates lies in line with the cornerstones of the state steering of schools. If his direction of activity is considered in the perspective of legitimacy, we can say that the headmaster’s principal endeavour was not to win his colleagues’ support; instead, using his supporters as ‘battering rams’, he directly confronted his opponents.
This strategy obviously created more problems than it solved, since the confrontation strategy caused polarization between the staff; the so-called ‘progressive group’ came to occupy one of the extreme positions, while the opposition group occupied the other. The tension gradually increased and the respective groups accused each other of politicizing the activity. Further, it appeared that this spurred the progressive group to become “progressive to the point of absurdity”, while in a similar way the opposition group emphatically upheld the school’s traditional values. The confrontation strategy seems both dangerous and vulnerable, not least because it was so greatly tied to the headmaster as a person. Further, inherent in this strategy was the risk that the situation gradually develop into a clear power struggle. Thus when Headmaster 1 finally left, the group that represented the traditional values emerged as the ‘winners’ of the power struggle (the real losers are most likely the students).
The impression gained is that, in the dimension of co-operation, the culture today is perhaps characterized to a greater degree than earlier by traditional individualism. The attempts at co-operation that occur are largely a matter of certain teachers co-operating and pursuing project activities “with themselves”, while other teachers carry out their instruction strictly according to the book. For the students the school day is therefore split and disorganized. The exception here is the group of special-instruction teachers, which was perhaps most deeply affected by Headmaster 1’s policy of change. Within this group the traditional, clinic-directed, special-instructor role was entirely abandoned, and the members are now working – as far as the individualistic culture allows – in regular classes as support-persons for students with different kinds of problems.
In the dimension of planning, the culture at this school shows a more divided pattern. The teachers who pursue project activities within the framework of their own subjects show a certain degree of long-term planning; while others who teach strictly by the book show a high degree of present-day orientation. The dimension of change is characterized by a high degree of rigidity, and today it can be expressed with the words “more of the same”. Although the prerequisites for a continued development of the work-unit organization are being discussed, the gap between this activity and the school’s other activities is such that it can hardly be anything but a flimsy project.

Conclusions related to Level 1

The conflicts between different groups which, according to the cultural analysis, exist at this school, are grounded in different ideals on education as a system and institution in society. On the surface, the conflict is one between a small group that advocates a co-operation-promoting approach to instruction, and a larger group that advocates a traditional, individualistic classroom instruction. In other words, the conflict is between two ideals; a goal-rational/equality-focused ideal and a value-rational/elitist ideal.
In the history of education, attempts at co-operation have a clear place in the ideological daily agenda of teachers in folkskola (elementary school), while this has hardly been the case among the upper-level school teachers. In the post-war period, the conflicts regarding the uniform school/primary school have in many ways been a struggle for and against a progressive, co-operation-promoting school ideology. These conflicts were ‘solved’ – in the spirit of the Swedish model – with a compromise, which implied that the lower and intermediate levels of school came to resemble the organization of the folkskola, while the upper-secondary level acquired a form rather similar to the organization developed within the upper-level schools over centuries. This work organization falls back on the classroom-teacher system which is common among lower and intermediate school teachers, as well as among the subject-teacher system which comprises the base for upper-secondary school teachers.
If we briefly examine primary school’s three first curricula (a fourth is being implemented at the time this is written), we find that the earliest (Lgr 62) is the most elitist oriented (a relatively great differentiation on the upper-secondary level), while the later curriculum (Lgr 80) is the least elitist oriented (a slightly differentiated upper-secondary level – “a school for everyone”). Simply put one can say that, on an official rhetorical level, the folkskola teachers’ more equality-enhancing and integrating educational deal seems gradually to have gained ground at the cost of the upper-level teachers’ more elitist-oriented and specialized educational ideal. What the 1994 curriculum (Lpo 94) and the state regulations linked to this curriculum stand for in this context, seems much less clear. As mentioned earlier, ‘equivalence’ remains the official guiding star, whereas the demand for uniformity has been abandoned. The decentralizing orientation probably paves the way for a more diversified municipal school activity, in which equality-promoting school activities can occur side by side with more elitist-influenced activities.
These historically conditioned conflicts can be glimpsed in the school of the study. The structurally conditioned conflicts accumulate here on the operational level and become conflicts between different professional teacher roles.
When Headmaster 1 began work at the school, the dominant culture lay mainly with the restricted teacher professionalism. In this dominant culture, the group of language teachers served as the leading code-bearers. There was, however, also a subculture – above all within the group of special-instruction teachers – with a direction of activity that can be understood in the perspective of the extended professionalism. Headmaster 1 initially succeeded in ‘cashing in’ on this subculture, and during the first years he also managed to promote it to the degree that, at the time of the curricular experiment, this subculture apparently was on the way to becoming the leading culture in the school. Symptomatic of this process was that the headmaster initiated a great number of activities that aimed at changing the work organization so that it would correspond to – and pave the way for – the ‘new’ culture which emphasized co-operation and long-term planning.
On the surface, the factor that upset this process was the authoritarian means used by the headmaster. His band of supporters gradually decreased, and finally there were only a few members left of the group that originally supported him. For this reason, the representatives of the culture that was linked to the restricted professionalism, were gradually able to take back the ground they had lost and even advance their positions beyond what they had originally been. At the time of the cultural analysis, the situation was such that the change-oriented activities that were carried out or planned, occurred only within the framework of the separate subjects and/or subject areas. In other words, there was no comprehensive activity that embraced all the subjects. As was clear, many of the attempts at change were a matter of the individual teacher “co-operating with himself/herself” within the framework of his or her subjects. Taken as a whole, the school’s activities therefore seemed disorganized and without a firm base. Change-oriented activities of this type, however, can hardly be considered as development work7 but rather, as work that reinforces the traditional kind of structure that can be understood in the perspective of the restricted teacher professionalism. As a result, the development work initiated and pursued by Headmaster 1 came in the long run to have almost a counter-productive function. By this is meant that an activity, which at a given point of time appears to be development work that can be understood in the perspective of extended professionalism, will over time result at the most in a change-oriented work that strengthens a traditional school culture in accordance with the restricted professionalism’s criteria.

Final Remarks

School culture can be viewed in the perspective of school development. This implies that interest is directed toward clarifying the non-utilized scope of action, in order to draw conclusions about the possible free space for development work (Berg and Wallin, 1983). Conclusions of this type presuppose that some form of cultural analysis has been done; and the suggested method for cultural analysis identified here is a matter of determining just where an actual school culture lies in the range of and within a set of qualitative measures. The implication of this reasoning is that the more a particular school culture lies in line with the concepts of co-operation -flexibility – long-term planning, the more the available scope of action is utilized. In the free-space model, these measures express the relation between the presumed conditions of one extreme case and the other (according to the official documents). In this perspective the primary interest comes when an analysis of a school culture is directed toward clarifying

• just where within the frame of these measures the actual culture exists today,
• where the culture has existed, and
• in which direction the culture appears to be heading.

The analysis thereby gives indications of school culture in a static as well in a dynamic sense. The results of this analysis thus provide support for conclusions about the actual actor preparedness, and thus we also get information about the type of local level of ambition with regard to school development, which seems plausible within the individual school.

References

Arfwedson, G and L Lundman (1984), Skolpersonal och skolkoder. Om arbetsplatser i förändring. Stockholm: Liber.
Ball, S J (1987), The Micro-Politics of Schools. London: Routledge.
Berg, G (1983), “Developing the Teaching Profession: Autonomy, Professional Code, Knowledge Base”, Australian Journal of Education, 2: 41-63.
Berg, G (1989), “Educational Reform and Teacher Professionalism,” Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(1): 53-60.
Berg, G (1992a), “Changes in the steering of Swedish schools: a step towards ‘societification of the state’“, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(4): 327-344.
Berg, G (1992b), “Statlig styrning och kommunal skoladministration. En rapport frän SLAV-projektet”, Pedagogisk Forskning i Uppsala, 104 (Pedagogiska Institutionen, Uppsala University).
Berg, G (1995), “Steering of the school, the school as an institution and the school culture” in K Hämäläinen, D Oldroyd and E Haapanen (eds.) Making School Improvement Happen. Department of Teacher Education. Vantaa Institute for Continuing Education, University of Helsinki (Studia Paedagogica, 7).
Berg, G et al. (1999), Skolan i ett institutionsperspektiv. Slutrapport frän projektet ‘Styrning, ledning och skolans arbete/verksamhet’ (SLAV 2). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Berg, G and E Wallin (1983), “Research into the School as an Organization. III: Organizational Development in Schools or Developing the School as an Organization?” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 27: 35-47.
Dewey, J (1916), Democracy and Education. New York: MacMillan.
Dewey, J (1938), Experience and Education. New York: MacMillan.
Gustavsson. B (1991), Bildningens väg. Tre bildningsideal i svensk arbetarrörelse 1880-1930. Stockholm: Wahlström and Widstrand.
Hoyle, E (1980), “Professionalization and Deprofessionalization in Education” in E Hoyle and J Megarry (eds.) World Yearbook of Education 1980: Professional Development of Teachers. London: Kogan Page. New York: Nichols Publishing Company.
Hoyle, E (1986), The Politics of School Management. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Isling, G (1988), Det pedagogiska arvet. Stockholm: Sober.
Jackson, P W (1986), Life in Classrooms. New York: Reinhardt and Winston.
Lortie, D (1975), School Teacher. A Sociological Study. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Rutter, M (1975), Fifteen Thousand Hours. London: Open Books.
Sarason, S B (1971), The Culture of School and the Problem of Change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Snyder, B R (1971), The Hidden Curriculum. London: The MIT Press.
Wallin, E and G Berg (1982), “The School as an Organization,” Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14(3): 277-285.
Woods, P (1986), Inside Schools: Ethnography in Educational Research. London: Routledge.