Nútímakenningar um skólastjórnun beina kastljósinu m.a. að sýn skólastjóra á hlutverk sitt, þeim gildum sem hafa áhrif á starfshætti þeirra (Begley, 2004; Branson, 2005)
og hvernig þeir forgangsraða verkefnum sínum. Á síðasta aldarfjórðungi hafa höfundar þessarar greinar rannsakað viðhorf skólastjóra í grunnskólum með spurningalistakönnunum, þ.e. 1991, 2001 og 2006 (Börkur Hansen, Ólafur H. Jóhannsson
og Steinunn Helga Lárusdóttir, 2008). Hér er greint frá rannsókn á störfum skólastjóra sem gerð var 2017. Sjónum er beint að þeim gildum sem þeir segjast leggja
mesta áherslu á og hvernig þeir forgangsraða helstu verkefnum sínum. Gögnum
var safnað með spurningalista sem sendur var til allra skólastjóra í grunnskólum
landsins vorið 2017. Dregin er upp mynd af aðstæðum í skólunum, þ.e. skólagerð,
skólastærð og kennslufyrirkomulagi, og afstaða skólastjóra til mikilvægra gilda sem
tengjast skólastarfi er könnuð. Einnig var athugað hvernig þeir forgangsraða verkefnum, svo sem vinnu við námskrárgerð, samskiptum við starfsfólk, nemendur o.fl.
sem tengist störfum þeirra. Niðurstöður benda til þess að nokkurs ósamræmis gæti
milli yfirlýstra gilda skólastjóra og raunverulegra. Greininni lýkur með samanburði
við fyrri rannsóknir höfunda á forgangsröðun viðfangsefna skólastjóra og umræðum
um gildi niðurstaðnanna.
Contemporary theories on school leadership focus on principals’ vision of their role, the
values which impact their leadership behavior (Begley, 2004; Branson, 2005) and the
way they prioritize their tasks. In the past quarter of a century the authors have studied
the attitudes of compulsory school principals, using questionnaires; that is 1991, 2001
and 2006 (see for instance Börkur Hansen et al., 2008). This paper is a report on a study
of compulsory school principals conducted in 2017. It focuses on principals’ values and
their actual and desirable prioritization of important tasks. Data was gathered with an
electronic questionnaire sent to all Icelandic compulsory school principals; that is, 162
individuals in the spring 2017. The number of respondents was 111, making the response
rate 69%. The questionnaire was designed and administered by means of the Qualtrics
software system and data analysis was conducted using the SPSS and EXCEL programs.
The principals were asked to assess the importance of a number of values affiliated
with education by assigning points from one to ten to each of them, depending on how
much emphasis they placed on them in their practice. Six of the values presented in the
findings were of an ethical nature and another six management-related. Moreover, the
principals were asked to rank important task areas according to the actual and desirable
time devoted to each of them. The findings show that the principals do not differentiate between ethical values on the basis of their impact on their practice. Almost all the
principals, or 94%, say that they strongly emphasize the ethical values Care, Equality,
Democracy, Autonomy, Tolerance and Justice (assign to them 8–10 points). This indicates
that the principals may not have a clear picture of their own value base. It is, therefore,
uncertain whether values guide them in their everyday practice as many scholars have
advocated.
The principals placed a more variable emphasis on management-related values. For
instance, while competition is a high priority for only 9% of the principals (gave it 8–10
points), 44% of the principals put efficiency in the same category. Accountability and
Achievement are, on the other hand, prioritized by more than 90% of the principals. The
findings also show that in 2017 School Management was at the top of the ranking list of
actual time allocated to a particular task area, or in the same seat as in earlier studies in 2006, 2001 and 1991. Program Development was, however, at the top of the list of desirable prioritization of tasks in 2017 as in all the earlier studies. The ranking of Personnel
has changed somewhat during the time period under study; in 1991 it was in rank five of
actual time devoted to this task area, in rank three in 2001 and in rank two in 2006 and
2017. The ranking of ideal time devoted to Personnel follows this pattern: in 1991 it was
in rank six, in rank five in 2001, in rank two in 2006 and in rank three in 2017. Thus, the
time devoted to the task area of Personnel has changed considerably during this period.
The paper sheds light on the principals’ working environment, such as grades offered,
number of students and teaching arrangements (regular classroom teaching, team teaching). These environmental factors were, however, not found to greatly impact principals’
working practice; that is, the ranking of actual and ideal time allotted to the explored task
areas. The paper finishes with a comparison with the authors’ earlier research on the role
of principals. It also reflects on the relevance of the findings for practice of principals as
well as providing suggestions as to how principals can develop themselves professionally.
The authors set out to explore principals’ values and their prioritizing of tasks. They
conclude that a moderate difference between the actual and desirable prioritization of
tasks is inevitable and may be an indicator of an ambitious future vision. Too much difference, however, indicates that some task areas may be preventing principals from prioritizing in accordance with their wishes. Nevertheless, the authors agree with those scholars who have recommended creating conditions which make it possible for principals to
narrow the gap between the actual and the desirable. Besides, it would be of value to
assist Icelandic principals in asking themselves critical questions about their vision and
values and the disparity between their expressed and actual values. If successfully carried
out, principals’ practice can be judged as value-based.
