Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The Education System in Iceland: Some Features

The historical foundation of the educational system in Iceland is usually traced back to the enactment of the Law on Educating Children in 1907 (Lög um fræðslu barna, 59/1907). This law stipulated compulsory education of children and that schools should be operated in all education districts in the country. The current organization of the educational system dates back to 1974 when the Law on the Structure of the Educational System (Lög um skólakerfi, 55/1974) and the Basic School Law (Lög um grunnskóla, 63/1974) were enacted. The creation of basic schools was based on the reorganization of elementary and lower secondary schools into a unified whole. In Icelandic, the term basic school is grunnskóli, meaning foundational school. The basic school is compulsory for students the age of 6–16, organized in 10 respective grade levels. With the laws in 1974, the educational system was structured in three major levels: the compulsory level, the upper secondary level, and the university level. In 1994 a Preschool Law was enacted, stating that the preschool level was the first level in the educational system (Lög um leikskóla, 78/1994). Before 1994, the preschool level was not defined as a formal part of the educational system.

The governance of schools at these four levels varies somewhat; preschools and basic schools are operated by the municipalities and most upper secondary schools and universities by the state. Independent and private schools are primarily funded by the municipalities at the preschool and basic school level, while by the state at the upper secondary school level and the university level. At the present, some municipalities are requesting that upper secondary schools should be transferred from state to municipal control and operation.

The following table lists the number and type of schools at each level in 2011. These figures are obtained from Hagstofan (2012), the center for official statistics in Iceland (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Number of schools by level and type in 2011
Full size table

During 2011–2012, 19,159 students were enrolled in preschools, 42,539 in basic schools, and 29,389 in upper secondary schools (Hagstofan 2012). The number of staff (teachers and other staff) in 2011 in preschools was 5515, basic schools 7337 and upper secondary schools 2513 (Hagstofan 2012). For efficiency reasons, escalated by the economic crisis that began in 2008, there has been a pressure in many municipalities that their preschools and basic schools reorganized their practices to enhance efficiency and collaborated more closely with one another. In some instances schools have been merged, in some cases schools at the same level and sometimes between levels.

The upper secondary system in Iceland is organized as a collective whole with various program routes leading to different types of academic and vocational certificates. A full-time study in most routes is organized as a 4-year program. This arrangement means that students in Iceland entering higher education institutions are older than in most neighbor countries. Also, dropout at upper secondary schools is relatively high (OECD 2012). Accordingly, discussions among politicians and the general public to reorganize the upper secondary school curriculum into a 3-year program prevail quite often in the media. These discussions have been exhilarated by the current minister of education in a newly established government, with little support from teacher unions.

The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture stipulates curriculum guides for all school levels except the university level. Curriculum guides have the status of regulations outlining the official educational policy for the school levels. The purpose of the curriculum guides is to inform principals, teachers, students, parents, and other stakeholders about educational goals and operation of schools. The main curriculum guides are to be adapted by the schools, based on their priorities. In 2011, new curriculum guides were launched by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture for the preschool level, basic school level, and the upper secondary school level. These guides emphasize critical literacy, sustainability, democracy, equity, creativity, and welfare. The new main curriculum guides require schools to modify or restructure their practices to meet these policy ends.

The Educational Testing Institute of Iceland, Námsmatsstofnun, is an independent institute established by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. Its main task is to create and administer national tests in the basic schools in grades 4, 7, and 10 in selected subjects. The test scores for individual basic schools are listed by the institute on their home page. Another task of the institute is to engage in various research projects, national and international. Reports produced by the institute often generate public discussions about quality and accountability of basic schools, but it engages in very limited testing or research in schools at other school levels.

There are seven university institutions in Iceland. Two of them offer teacher education programs, i.e., the University of Iceland and the University of Akureyri. The School of Education at the University of Iceland is by far the largest with approximately 2300 undergraduate and graduate students in three faculties. The faculty of teacher education offers a number of different routes in order to become a preschool, primary, or upper secondary school teacher. Teacher education is now being reorganized into a 5-year M.Ed. program for teaching at all school levels except at the university level. Attendance to teacher education programs has been declining during the last few years that may create problems of renewal of academic staff within the educational system in the near future.

Policy Environment: The Role of Principals

A specific law is enacted for each school level to govern and outline the purpose of schools, how they are governed, duties of staff, rights of students, the role of principals, and so forth. Their role is outlined in a similar manner in the laws concerning preschools, basic schools, and upper secondary schools. Their role as directors of their schools is stressed as well as their role as educational leaders. The laws do not however articulate their role in any detail; they just stipulate this major emphasis. Nevertheless, several tasks that principals must conduct are listed in the various sections of the laws. The Basic School Law (Lög um grunnskóla, 91/2008) states, for example, that principals must administer staff meetings in their schools; propose to municipal authorities middle management arrangements based on needs within their schools; make operation plans for their schools; establish an administrative council for their schools by involving teachers, support staff, parent, and student representatives; establish parent associations for their schools; involve parent representatives in the management of their schools; establish student associations in their schools; administer student affairs concerning specific problems; implement induction programs for students who do not have Icelandic as their mother tongue; administer the development of school curriculum guides, school rules, and evaluation schemes; organize professional development schemes for teachers and other staff; and so forth. In addition to what is emphasized in the laws, some municipalities establish further guidelines for principals in job contracts or formal role descriptions.

Research

The policy development in Iceland during the last few decades has emphasized decentralization and the empowerment of schools, participative decision-making, self-evaluation, and strong professional leadership. This emphasis was stipulated in the policy document Skýrsla nefndar um mótun menntastefnu (1994) (e. Report on Educational Policy Formation). This document can be seen as the foundation for the main changes in laws and regulations that followed, both at the basic school level (age 6–16) and the upper secondary school level (age 16–20). Educational leadership and school development are, for example, emphasized in this document. This policy emphasis has influenced research in relation to principals during the last 10 years. This research varies in scope and size, depending on the interest of the researchers and the political context of schooling at any given time.

The research described in the following section is empirical in nature and with only a few exceptions published in peer-reviewed journals or books. All relevant publications on school principals during the last decade are included in this review. First is a description of the role of principals and how it has changed. Then there is a description of studies concerning the views of principals, parents, and teachers concerning the transfer of basic schools in 1995 from state to municipal control. A study on the influence of middle managers in the management of basic schools is outlined, as well as studies on the implementation of self-evaluation activities in basic schools and upper secondary schools. Studies on gender, governance, multicultural issues, and relations between features of school cultures and student achievement are also outlined. Moreover, findings of four Ph.D. studies are presented at the end of this section, but they relate to principals and management of schools. It must be noted in this context that there is a limited number of people in Iceland with research obligations concerning school principals. The chapter concludes with reflections on the findings and discussions on some challenging issues in the Icelandic context in the near future.

Role of Principals

The policy environment of schools is constantly changing, affecting the role of school principals in one way or another (Fowler 2009). The transfer of basic schools from state to municipal control in 1995 changed the working environment of basic school principals considerably. The 1995 Basic School Law (Lög um grunnskóla, 66/1995) stipulates considerable powers to principals both as directors and as educational leaders of their schools. The role of principals was also discussed in the teacher contracts that followed the law, stressing their role as leaders and directors of their schools. In an extensive survey from 2001 among basic school principals, Hansen et al. (2002a, b) examined their views concerning the transfer to municipal control and how the working environment that followed affected their role. They were asked about issues in their “new” working environment as well as the task areas they spent time on. The majority of principals were very positive towards their new environment. As an example, 86 % of the principals said that municipal support had increased considerably during the last few years, 77 % said that funding allocations had increased, and 80 % said that they had more influence on the operation and management of schools than in the previous state-run system. When asked about empowerment, 73 % of the principals said that they had increased authority in making budgetary decisions, 68 % said that they had more influence in the management of special education, and 60 % said that they had more professional independence in the new system.

This study also revealed that the task areas they spent most of their time on had changed considerably since 1991, but at that time a study on their role was conducted by the same research team (Hansen et al. 1997). The conceptualization of the tasks in these studies was based on McCleary and Thompson (1979) who did an extensive study on management emphasis of principals in the United States in collaboration with the National Association of Secondary School. The task areas were:

  • Program development (curriculum, instructional leadership, etc.)

  • Personnel (evaluation, advising, conferencing, recruiting, etc.)

  • Student activities (meetings, supervision, planning, etc.)

  • Student behavior (discipline, attendance, meetings, etc.)

  • Community (PTA, advisory groups, parent conferences, etc.)

  • District office (meetings, task forces, reports, etc.)

  • Professional development (reading, conferences, etc.)

  • Planning (annual, long range, etc.)

The findings of the 1991 and 2001 studies show that the ideal ranking of these task areas are similar. The actual ranking, on the other hand, had changed considerably during this period. Also, the gap between the actual and the ideal ranking of these tasks widened. Hansen et al. (2002a, b) concluded that the principals were drifting away from their ideal rank emphasis on various tasks by engaging in more and more managerial tasks and duties at the expense of pedagogical tasks.

A third study was conducted in 2006 by the same research team (Hansen et al. 2008), examining the development of the role of basic school principals. The same framework was used concerning the tasks areas as in the previous studies in 1991 and 2001. The findings suggested that the principals role has stabilized somewhat, the gap between their actual and preferred rank ordering of tasks had narrowed again from the 2001 study, and they did not seem as overwhelmed by managerial duties as in 2001. However, the study showed an increase in the time the principals were spending on issues concerning their personnel. The study concluded with discussions of the linkage between educational leadership and teacher development.

It is of importance to enhance understanding of the role of principals as instructional leaders. Hansen and Lárusdóttir (2013, forthcoming) conducted a study in 20 basic schools in Iceland on the role of principals as supervisors of instruction. Their findings indicate that in most of the schools the principals provide teachers with very limited supervision in the form of direct guidance. However, they generally provide considerable indirect supervision by creating conditions for professional development, group development, curriculum development, and evaluation activities. The role of the principals was described as ranging from being indifferent, monitoring, facilitating, and coaching. Also, considerable collaboration seems to take place among all staff concerning teaching and learning. Hansen and Lárusdóttir conclude there is a need for more proactive leadership on the behalf of principals concerning the development of instructional practices.

The development of a newly established school is a challenge and a complex process. A research project was conducted by Svanbjörnsdóttir et al. (2010) concerning the preparation, establishment, and selection of staff in a newly established school in Iceland. The study describes the policy emphasis on the behalf of the municipality, the building of the school, the selection of staff, and the development of structures and processes within the school. The findings indicate that the development of the school during its first year was to a large extent in line with the policy emphasis of the municipality and the vision of the principal. The study revealed some problems in the operation of the school due to delays in construction of the school building. The study also revealed some problems and challenges in building a culture within the school that harmonized with the vision of the municipality and the principal.

Teachers and Principals

In order to examine if teachers and parents were as pleased as principals with the transfer of basic schools from the state to the municipalities, a study was conducted in 2004 by Hansen, Jóhannsson, and Lárusdóttir. Principals, middle managers, parent representatives, and groups of teachers were interviewed in four basic schools. This study reinforced the positive views of principals found in the study from 2001 and suggested that parent representatives were also very pleased with this new environment. On the other hand, the study showed that teachers were not as pleased in their new working environment as the principals and the parents. They saw the principals becoming increasingly distant from the world of teaching, and felt as though the school boards were trying to increase their influence in the schools, and have more control over the work of the teacher. This interference was however limited to the schools that belonged to large municipalities with well-resourced central offices (Hansen et al. 2004).

On these premises, a study of the views of teachers was conducted in 2005 by Björnsdóttir et al. (2006, 2008), based on a larger random sample of all practicing basic school teachers in Iceland. The study focused on the views of teachers regarding their independence as teachers, the independence of their schools, their participation in decision-making in their schools, the level of cooperation within their schools, and external pressures and expectations concerning their duties. This study revealed that teachers wanted to be more involved in decision-making in key areas of schooling and perceived that their influence was very limited in a number of areas. The narrowest gap between interest in decision-making and the perceived influence of the teachers was in the area of teaching methods, while the gap was relatively wider in other key areas, such as the professional plans for teachers, self-evaluation practices, development projects, student groupings, and resource allocation.

When asked about cooperation, 49 % of the teachers said that they did not cooperate much with principals, 63 % said that they cooperated somewhat with middle managers in schools, and the same ratio, or 63 %, said that cooperation between teachers in general was considerable. Eighty-three percent stated that cooperation between those who teach the same year group was considerable. Eighty-six percent said that cooperation with the central office was very limited. This last point is strongly related to location, the teachers in the greater Reykjavík area cooperate considerably less with central offices than teachers beyond the greater Reykjavík area. On the other hand, 71 % of the teachers found cooperation between principals and the central office to be considerable.

When the teachers were asked about external pressure, about 50 % of them claimed that they had experienced a general increase in pressure regarding what was expected of them during the last 5 years. Sixty-nine percent claimed that they experienced increased pressure from parents, 64 % claimed increased pressure from the central offices, and 50 % claimed that principals were putting increased pressures on them. Pressure from the central offices is strongly based on location, but about 80 % of teachers in the greater capital area perceived considerable pressure from their central offices, while 46 % of teachers from other areas experienced considerable pressure from their central offices.

In sum, these findings suggest that teachers were not as pleased with their working environment as the principals. They saw the principals as managers of their schools who did not involve teachers in decision-making to the degree they would like. Teachers saw principals and central offices working closely together, at the expense of their influence on the management and operation of their own schools. Teachers in the greater capital area experienced greater control by their central offices than teachers in the rural areas.

Differentiation and inclusion have been emphasized in the Icelandic ever since enactment of the Basic School Law in 1974 (Lög um grunnskóla, 63/1974). An action research project was conducted by Svanbjörnsdóttir et al. (2013) in one basic school in order to build up a professional learning community where the leadership of principals, teachers, and parents supported the learning of “all” students. The project seemed to have an impact on the teachers by facilitating increased self-assurance regarding their work. They experimented with various means of working together in order to learn from one another. The project also revealed that there is a need for strategic support of leaders in order to enhance and sustain the process of adapting the practice of teaching to the different needs of students.

Middle Management

An emphasis on middle management was emphasized within basic schools in various policy documents as well as the 1995 Basic School Law. Accordingly, a number of middle management positions were established in larger basic schools. In 2005, a study on middle managers was conducted by Guðjónsdóttir et al. (2007) using the survey method. The sample included 785 teachers in 22 basic schools. The sample of principals was based on all the 78 basic schools that came with middle managers, but there were 175 basic schools in operation at the time.

The results showed that both principals and teachers viewed the work of middle managers positively, especially the principals. Both the principals and the teachers believed that the role of middle managers was important and vital for enhancing the quality of schooling. They also believed that the creation of a middle management position within basic schools resulted in better management practices. The study also showed that the interaction between principals and middle managers was more frequent than between the teachers and the middle managers. Furthermore, the study showed that a relatively large proportion of the teachers were not fully aware of the nature of work done by the middle managers. The study concludes by highlighting the importance of strategic cooperation between middle managers and teachers as well as middle managers and principals.

Self-Evaluation

Self-evaluation practices were stipulated in the 1995 Basic School Law. The act also states that the Ministry of Education should oversee how the schools implement this policy. During the period of 2001–2003, the ministry conducted evaluations of self-evaluation practices in all basic schools in the country. The ministry’s 2004 report states that there was a great difference between schools but does not provide information on why there is such a difference or of what nature. A study was conducted by Hansen et al. (2005) to examine the views of principals and teachers in six basic schools towards the implementation of self-evaluation practices. Principals in all the schools were interviewed individually, but middle managers and regular teachers were interviewed in groups.

The findings showed a considerable difference among the schools regarding self-evaluation activities. The schools were classified into three groups. In the first group of schools, very little work had been done in self-evaluation. Considerable work had been done in three of the schools. Finally, extensive work had been undertaken in one of the schools. The findings indicate that the critical factors are the knowledge and skills of principals and teachers of self-evaluation methods, clear leadership within schools, and the attitudes of principals and teachers towards self-evaluation as a means for change and development.

Other studies on self-evaluation in Icelandic schools have been conducted by Davidsdottir and Lisi (2006, 2007, 2009) and Lisi and Davidsdottir (2008). Their concern was also the problem of implementation of self-evaluation practices. They organized a project in four schools during 2001–2002, two basic schools and two upper secondary schools. The project was aimed at enhancing empowerment processes within these schools concerning self-evaluation. The researchers coached school evaluation teams in their self-evaluation efforts in all the schools and assessed its effect. The researchers taught the staff to evaluate school work and take responsibility for development in order to empower the schools in their self-evaluation practices. This was supported with data from longitudinal data collection from the schools. The findings indicate that the four schools need to continue their work on building a collaborative learning community and engage more teachers and other staff in that process. The findings also indicate that the schools made progress in this direction based on the support they received. Results indicate that evaluation worked best when schools took a democratic stance. Program fidelity was an indication of improvement within the schools. In order to implement important changes in the school work, it seems advisable to allow some time for them to take root. In this study, the main changes did not happen until 4 years after its initiation. The project continues in the two upper secondary schools, and the scope has been broadened to include three more upper secondary schools.

Gender

Guðbjörnsdóttir (2007) outlines her research on why there are not more women that hold management position in schools in Iceland in her book Menntun, forysta og kynferði (e. Education, leadership and gender). The section in this book describing this research was previously published as an article in 1997. Guðbjörnsdóttir gathered her data in 1992 when effective school management was a big issue in educational discourse in Iceland. Her main concern was to develop an understanding of the view of female school managers concerning this development. She interviewed and surveyed all female principals at the basic school level, a large number of female managers at the upper secondary school level and the university level, and other female managers within the educational system. She also collected data from an equivalent number of male managers for comparative purposes. She found a significant difference between male and female school managers but not as many differences than in comparable studies from elsewhere. She concludes that the female managers show many characteristics of facilitative leadership styles which emphasize good working relations, distribution of power, collective decision-making, and active involvement of staff. The male managers show many similar characteristics.

Guðbjörnsdóttir (2007) continued this research with a study on how female school managers understood dominant discourse on power, performance management, and gender. She interviewed 11 female managers from all school levels in Iceland around the millennium. The findings were first published in an article in 2001. The findings show that discourse on the above issues is prevalent at all school levels. The discourse on performance and competition seemed more acceptable at higher levels within the system where they seemed to associate themselves more with such a discourse than, for example, managers in preschools. The study concludes with discussion on the necessity of continuing this research in an environment that increasingly favors competition and performance-based management.

Governance

Charter Schools

The public school has been criticized extensively during the last decades (see, e.g., Berliner and Biddle 1995). Various reforms have been proposed suggesting changes in governance and operation of public schools (see, e.g., Chubb and Moe 1990). Hansen (2002) critically discusses the establishment of a charter school in Iceland in Hafnarfjörður, a town of 25,000 people in the greater Reykjavík area. In order to assess the value of this experiment, Hansen reviewed the theoretical basis of charter schools and explored empirical research on their effects.

The charter school idea has many strong advocates who argue that their existence increases choice in education and facilitates competition between schools in teaching and learning. These advocates also claim that the charter school idea does not involve a total restructuring of the public educational system, rather it makes it possible to establish public schools that are much more independent and flexible than traditional schools. The effects of this will enhance improvement in teaching and learning and create better schools.

The comprehensive review of empirical research on charter schools, conducted by Gill and associates (2001) for the Rand Institute, is used by Hansen to assess the Icelandic experiment. Their review indicates that parents are pleased with the option of being able to send their children to charter schools. They also point out that charter schools have not facilitated improvement in academic achievement. On that basis, Hansen (2002) concludes that charter schools will not revolutionize schooling regarding academic success of students. Expansion and popularity of charter schools must rather be explained with reference to the ideology of choice and competition.

Site-Based Management

The philosophy of self-management is strongly emphasized in the report Skýrsla nefndar um mótun menntastefnu (1994), the ideological foundation of the 1995 Basic School Law. Hansen (2004) reviewed the literature on site-based management in order to analyze the school management emphasis of the report. He claims that site-based management is a prominent part of the decentralization emphasis put forth in the report as well as in the teachers’ contracts that followed the enactment of the act. He also outlines that the major emphasis in the Icelandic context was to empower principals in order to enhance the professional development of schools, but previously the management power within basic schools was to a large extent nested in teacher councils. The principals must, however, cooperate with teachers, parents, and local authorities. The paper concludes with a discussion about the importance of researching the practices of decentralization and site-based emphasis in basic schools.

School Boards

Ásmundsson et al. (2008) conducted a study on the ideas that school boards of basic schools have about their role, influence, and impact. In order to situate the governance structure of basic schools in Iceland, the composition and role of school boards in the United States, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Denmark was reviewed. The study was limited to interviewing four district superintendents and six principals in the same districts. The findings indicate that the formal power of school boards was mainly restricted to monitoring the adherence of schools to policy ends in the Basic School Law. In practice, however, school boards were extending their role by making policies concerning issues that the Basic School Law defines as the task of individual schools. The main conclusion of this study was that the law and regulations concerning the role and jurisdiction of principals and school boards were not explicit and clear enough, causing uncertainties for both parties.

Hansen et al. (2010) did a study on how municipal policies have affected the professional independence of basic schools, but many school boards have developed municipal education policy documents during the last few years. These municipal policy documents state various policy ends concerning the operation, management, and curriculum of basic schools. In a survey among all basic school principals in 2006, two main themes were addressed: their views on the operation and professional autonomy of schools and their views concerning the influence of school boards on their schools. The findings show that 60 % of Icelandic basic school principals said that the professional independence of basic schools was considerable, and 72 % claimed that their schools were professionally independent. Seventy-five percent also said that it was important to further increase the professional independence of basic schools. Forty-three percent of the principals claimed that municipal education policies increased their independence as principals. The findings also indicated that principals took an active part in educational policy development at the municipal level, i.e., 77 %. A majority, or 89 % of the principals, were supportive of municipal policy-making concerning school affairs and believed it would enhance school improvement and performance. However, 71 % of the principals claimed that school board involvement in school affairs should remain as it was, neither to be increased nor decreased. The study concludes with discussions about the functional governance structure of basic schools as collaborative in nature, in practice somewhat similar to the system in Norway, where a council of stakeholders governs their basic schools.

Superintendents and Regional Support

Iceland was divided into eight educational regions with the enactment of the 1974 Basic School Law. Each region was managed by a superintendent who was an employee of the Ministry of Education. In every region, a regional council was established by municipal authorities, to assist the superintendents in their functions. This structure was in operation until 1995, when the governance of basic schools was handed over from state to municipal control.

Hansen and Jóhannsson (2010) conducted a study on the role of superintendents during this period. They interviewed 11 of the superintendents who were in office during the time period 1974–1995 regarding their experiences. They were inquired about the establishment and operation of central offices in their regions, their main task areas, development projects they initiated, and their relations with ministers of education, local politicians, principals, teachers, and parents.

The interviews were analyzed according to their role as instructional leaders, administrators, politicians, communicators, and social scientists. Laws and regulations defined the general role of superintendents that included a variety of tasks. A major task was to administer and develop a fiscal system for the management of basic schools, to monitor their operation, and to provide them with professional support. Due to the geographical size of the country and differences between the regions, the superintendents defined their roles differently by locality. Issues, like the number and size of schools, distances between schools, availability of certified teachers, and access to specialized support staff, affected their role considerably.

The study concludes with discussions about the system that replaced the 1974–1995 structure. Instead of eight regions with regional superintendents, now each municipality has a school board that governs its schools. At the present there are 77 municipal authorities with school boards. Due to the size and financial capacity of these municipalities, their central office services vary considerably. The analysis of the superintendents’ roles and activities during 1974–1995 suggests that the existing system does not provide for the same equality for schools and students as in the previous system.

Multicultural Issues

Multicultural issues have become an important dimension in the operation and development of public schooling in Iceland (Hansen and Ragnarsdóttir 2010; Ragnarsdóttir 2007). Sigurjónsson and Hansen (2010) conducted a study in 2009 concerning the link between schools and parents with culturally diverse backgrounds in two schools in eastern Iceland. The schools belong to separate municipalities. The study focused on who initiated communication regarding the children in these schools and what the communications involved. School principals, teachers, and a sample of parents with culturally diverse backgrounds in these two schools were interviewed. The interview scheme was built on Epstein’s (2001) school, family, and community partnership model with six elements of communications between schools and parents.

The findings suggest that parents with culturally diverse backgrounds were very pleased with most factors about their communications with the schools. Furthermore, they showed that the parents seldom initiated communication. In general, their role was very passive regarding their relationship to their school. The interviews with the principals and the teachers showed that there is no big difference in the interaction between Icelandic parents and parents with culturally diverse backgrounds. Primarily, the interaction had to do with the homework of students. The study concludes with discussions about the importance of establishing strong home-school relations with the active involvement of parents, particularly parents of culturally diverse backgrounds.

Ólafsdóttir et al. (2012) conducted a study on successful multicultural teaching practices in three compulsory schools. The focus was on identifying significant values, teaching emphasis, and structures. Data was collected from two schools in the capital Reykjavik, Iceland, and one in London, England. The ratio of the immigrant students was 20 %, 40 %, and 80 % in the schools. The findings show that all the schools have developed a specific strategy for working with immigrant students. All the schools have developed clear visions and structures concerning teaching and learning, with the values of respect, equity, and democracy as the guiding elements. Teaching strategies were based on collaboration and pedagogical conversations in all the schools. The immigrant students in all the schools got preparation in a variety of subjects resulting in active participation with their school peers. In all the schools, key administrators showed great ambitions for multicultural education.

Achievement and School Culture

Achievement of basic school students is assessed in grades 4, 7, and 9 on a regular basis by Námsmatsstofnun. The literature suggests that student achievement is strongly related to two interrelated factors, school leadership and school culture (Deal and Peterson 1999; Hoy and Miskel 1996, 2008; Fullan 2001). The concept school culture refers to the values and norms that shape traditions and interactions. Accordingly, the teachers’ views towards student learning are a significant part of the culture of schools. Maehr and Midgley (1996) emphasize that the values and norms towards teaching and learning are of utmost importance for academic success in schools.

Björnsdóttir et al. (2011) conducted a study on aspects of school culture in eight basic schools (ages 6–16) in Iceland and explored its relations to student achievement. Data was gathered with a questionnaire from the 318 teachers in these eight schools. The response rate was 75 %. Scores on standardized tests in Icelandic and mathematics in grades 4, 7, and 10 were obtained from Námsmatsstofnun for the year 2008 when the data was collected, as well as for the two following years.

Factor analysis was carried out on the data collected from teachers. Two separate factor analyses were done, one for statements that describe in general terms the school culture and the other on statements describing the culture in relation to teaching. The relationship between the factors from the two different factor analyses was examined as well as the relationship between the factors and the scores on the standardized tests.

The factor analyses generated three major factors from the general questions and statements of the school culture: (a) power and influence, (b) innovation, and (c) strategic leadership. The factor analysis of questions and statements describing the teaching dimension produced the factors of (d) comparison and (e) task. This is equivalent to the dimensions of an ability-oriented teaching culture (emphasis on ability, comparison, and competition of students) and task-oriented teaching culture (emphasis on completion of task according to student’s capacity level) as observed by Maehr and Midgley (1996).

A positive relationship was found between the factors (d) comparison and (a) power and influence. A positive relationship was also found between (e) task and the factors (b) innovation and (c) strategic leadership. Furthermore, a positive relationship was found between achievement in grades 4 and 7 and the teaching emphasis on (e) task. There was a positive correlation between achievement in all the grades and emphasis on (c) strategic leadership.

This study reinforces the idea that school culture has an influence on student achievement, particularly a task-oriented teaching culture and strategic leadership.

Ph.D. Research

Research in relation to principals during 2000–2013 is limited to four Ph.D. research projects, by Lárusdóttir (2008), Einarsson (2008), Sigurðardóttir (2006), and Marinósson (2002).

Leadership Values and Gender

Lárusdóttir (2008) conducted a study on leadership, values, and gender among female and male principals in Iceland for her Ph.D. thesis – ten principals and nine assistant principals. She contextualizes the study in the policy environment for principals in Iceland and more widely in a context which is being more and more driven by market force values. The study’s methodology is located within the interpretive framework and informed by the perspectives of social constructivism and feminism. The study is situated in the theoretical context of values in leadership and gender. The purpose of her study is to shed a light on the interface between values, gender, and leadership behavior. This is conducted by “seeking answers to questions on the impact of head teachers’ values on their actions, in particular when facing value related dilemmas (p. iii).”

Lárusdóttir describes and discusses the unstable working environment of principals, the dilemmas they encounter, and the conflicting demands made upon them. The findings reveal that while male and female principals have similar values, the position of men and women leaders is unequal. The major factors that influence this inequality are “discriminatory behavior towards women, and new competencies, such as computer literacy where more men than women are proficient.” Lárusdóttir discusses her findings concerning the positioning of male and female principals with reference to new task areas. The study provides information about the impact of recent changes in the working environment of Icelandic schools, on the role of head teachers, and the gendered nature of these changes. Regarding the position of women leaders, she says (p. 233): “Women have faced gendered discriminatory behavior by school stakeholders, they have less administrative experience, they are entering headship at a time when stereotypical masculine values permeate educational policy and they are less likely than men to have been encouraged to lead.”

Time Management

Einarsson (2008) studied the use of a computerized diary for school principals in his doctoral work. The purpose of his study was to “assess the usefulness of the diary as a research instrument, and also to evaluate how well the computerized diary worked as an aid for a time management strategy and for prioritizing in a school setting” (p. 1). The purpose of his study was also to collect information through the diary on how four newly appointed basic school principals in Iceland used their time during a 4-week period and to capture the nature of their work, i.e., their major task areas. The principals registered the content of their activities in the diary. The registrations provided a basis for semi-structured interviews with the principals.

His main findings are that the computerized diary is “suitable as a research instrument in education and is an improvement on the traditional diary method, particularly concerning graphical feedback showing how time was spent and in terms of motivating the participants to record” (p. 1). He says that the computerized diary can be used as an aid for individuals as well as for the whole school in terms of more effective prioritizing and time management strategies, i.e., prioritizing tasks, setting clear goals, not using time on unnecessary tasks, having a structured program to follow, delegating work, spotting time wasters, and consolidating time. The study concludes with discussions about value of the design of this computerized diary as a management tool and a contribution to the diary method.

Professional Learning Communities

Sigurðardóttir (2006) conducted a study on professional learning communities within three schools in Iceland. The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship between learning communities and their effectiveness defined as value-added scores on national standardized tests. In one of the schools, an intervention was administered specifically aimed at strengthening its learning community features. The following variables were used in the study as learning community components: shared values and vision with a focus on student learning, teacher expectations concerning student learning, shared and democratic leadership, mutual support of all staff, collaborative learning of academic staff, organizational arrangement of the collaboration, working habits that support collaboration, social climate that supports collaboration, and satisfaction and the commitment of staff.

The findings show that professional learning affects student outcomes. The schools with more mature professional learning components scored higher on the standardized tests. Shared leadership and shared values and vision had the strongest relationship with the level of effectiveness, and the values were affected by the principal’s interest, and what issues he or she chooses to focus on. The study also showed that the learning community within schools can be changed in order to affect student outcomes. Furthermore, the findings showed little collaboration of teachers in their daily work, i.e., limited discussions, challenges, and sharing of ideas concerning teaching and learning. The study concludes with discussions about ways to strengthen learning communities within schools in order to enhance student outcomes.

Schools and Diversity

Marinósson (2002) did an intensive long-term case study in a mainstream basic school in Iceland. The purpose of the study was to examine how the school responded to the diverse learning needs of its students, and why it responded as it did. The research processes are defined as ethnographic where the data was collected during a 4-year period by observations, interviews, and collection of relevant documents. The themes that emerged from the data “include the school as an organization, the management of behavior, pedagogic practices, construction of special educational needs, parental influence and expert services” (p. 2).

One of the factors that influenced the schools’ response to pupils’ diversity was the management of the school. This is defined as being rational-technical with an emphasis on effectiveness as well as being evolutionary concerning unpredictable issues. As stated regarding the principal: “Thus, despite his ambition to make Mossy Mount a model school as quickly as possible, he chose a course of incremental changes, where the results of each step were studied and learnt from before the next actions were taken.” This is contrasted with viewing the school as a learning organization where teamwork, diversity, conflicting ideas, and mistakes were valued. The study also revealed that diversity was seen as a nuisance rather than strength. The study concludes with discussions about inclusive education in relation to the control and care functions of schools.

Concluding Remarks

The practice of schooling is complicated, and leadership is an essential element in enhancing the quality of teaching and learning (Louis et al. 2010; Day et al. 2011). This means that the management of teaching and learning is an ongoing challenge, increasingly serious, in our attempt to create a stimulating learning environment and meet the needs of all children. Each context is different, creating different challenges. Insights from different contexts are accordingly valuable for a better understanding of the management and operation of schools. Most of the studies conducted in Iceland are however based on contextual needs with the intention of better understanding the operations of schools. In many cases frameworks are developed from the international literature to conceptualize the studies. The emphasis is accordingly not to test some relevant concepts or theories, rather to use available research to conceptualize and better understand the practice of school management.

As this review shows, the major emphasis of the research in Iceland has been on principals in basic schools and their policy environment. A relatively large section of the research has focused on the principals’ role and how it has changed over time. Another relatively large section of the research has focused on issues concerning the governance of basic schools. The transfer of basic schools from the state to municipal control influences the research in both these areas very clearly. The other studies reported in this review focus on important issues concerning the operation and management of schools, issues like the role of middle managers, time management, self-evaluation, gender, multiculture, diversity, values, achievement, teaching cultures, and learning communities. This research varies in scope and size. All these studies are focused on the practice and reality within education in Iceland with implications for that same context. Studies of this nature need to be continued, but an understanding of the role development of school principals and the governance and operation of schools has variable implications for practice. The emphasis these studies represent is similar to that of other northern European countries, but as observed by Johansson and Bredeson (2011) research on principals can be seen as an emerging field of studies in that part of the world.

Information from research in different cultural contexts can provide valuable information for theory development. It is generally acknowledged that the literature on educational leadership and management is dominated by studies situated in English-speaking settings. With the enhancement of research from other parts of the world, our understanding will be by no doubt being richer. Information from different cultural contexts can also provide for an understanding that is outside the mainstream of thought. Ideally, such information might create new paradigms in the way scholars think about their operation and management of schools. Research led by Moos (2013) on transnational values and practice in Nordic cultures rely more on flat hierarchies and the notion of equality, in comparison with the Anglo-American way of thinking.

The economic crisis that began in Iceland in 2008 has changed the landscape in preschools and basic schools in many municipalities. In some instances schools have been merged and in other instances persuaded to cooperate, either with nearby schools of the same type or between levels, i.e., preschools and basic schools. This change in environment has created unusual conditions that require investigation. Accordingly a team of researchers within the School of Education at the University of Iceland are conducting a study in three municipalities about the effects of the economic crisis on schools. Data has been collected in a sample of schools in two municipalities and is in process at the third municipality. Preliminary findings suggest that the effects differ based on municipality, i.e., how they prioritize and guard the operation and management of their schools, irrespective of their fiscal capacity (Davíðsdóttir et al. 2012).

The data collected by the institute Námsmatsstofnun can be seen as a very valuable resource for various types of research, but it administers national tests in basic schools in grades 4, 7, and 10 in selected subjects. The institute also engages in various national and international research projects including Pisa and Talis. The study by Björnsdóttir et al. (2011) on achievement and culture is an example, but many other interesting studies can be developed on the basis of data accumulated by that institute. The Pisa and Talis studies can also be seen as valuable departures for interesting comparative studies on leadership and effectiveness. Moreover, these studies and along with test data can also be used for scrutiny purposes, i.e., to assess transnational influence on schools in a comparative context (Hansen 2013; Moss 2013).

The implementation of new curriculum policies is a major challenge for schools in all countries. Moreover, reorganizing the upper secondary system in Iceland into a 3-year program can also be seen as a major administrative challenge. Very limited empirical research is available on the issue of curriculum reorganization and implementation in Iceland, i.e., about administrative process at all school levels. Curriculum policies can be seen as a major instrument of governments to manage and control their schools, making all types of research in the area critically important. The new curriculum that was launched in 2011 can be seen as very ambitious, highlighting the importance of rich research at all school levels.

The reorganization of teacher education into a 5-year M.Ed. program became effective in 2011 at higher education institutions in Iceland. This change in requirements has implications for practice in various ways that require research of all kinds. The overall question is how it enhances the quality of teachers and the conduct of schooling. The environment of schools is rapidly changing, putting a renewed emphasis on issues like students with special needs of various kinds, i.e., learning disorders, behavioral problems, multicultural backgrounds, high abilities, and so forth. Furthermore, it raises questions about changes in leadership practices where the challenge is to further empower teachers in areas of teaching and learning.

In addition to the above, there are many important issues that need to be researched at all school levels. There is a large research project in Iceland worth mentioning in this context called Teaching and learning in basic schools. This project is divided into six subprojects where one focuses on educational leadership. Data was collected in 20 schools by means of questionnaires, interviews, and classroom observations. The findings are being analyzed and will likely reveal issues of several kinds for further research. Preliminary findings suggest that principals need to be much more proactive in their schools as instructional leaders. It is of central interest in the Icelandic context, however, to further enhance the understanding of the leadership role of principals concerning teaching and learning – the central task of schools.