Editorial

The need for active professional engagement in educational change has been a constant issue in the school improvement literature for many decades. The articles in this issue provide an enriched understanding of this question, through research developed in different parts of the world, different school systems, a variety of curriculum areas, and for different groups of students. It raises issues such as the conditions for successful distributed leadership, the balance between cognitive and emotional aspects of organisations and relationships, engagement in policy making, coherent environments for curriculum development, partnerships with academic researchers, and the role of other professionals such as social workers. Mette Liljenberg and Ulf Blossing’s paper based on research in Sweden considers the relationship between school strategy aimed at improving the quality of education and the need to satisfy teachers’ professional needs and interests. The research had a particular focus on working in teams. Particular difficulties highlighted in this report include the use of meetings simply to transfer information; too many short-term improvement projects being introduced in response to external policy initiatives; distribution of leadership roles with inadequate clarification of purpose; discontinuity of understandings of the whole school’s development over time. The authors point to the incoherence and lack of direction that occurs when school leadership has too liberal an attitude, allowing teachers to go their own way. The crucial issue is to involve teachers fully in development of the whole school’s development strategy, to minimise the tension between personal desires and whole school improvement. Teacher collaboration is also a key issue for school improvement in Australia. Joanne Casey, Susan Simon and Wayne Graham consider the cognitive and emotional challenges of interacting with multiple colleagues, students and parents in the complex environment of secondary schools. It is too easy to adopt a ‘silo’ mentality to make one’s situation manageable. Australian secondary schools, like many English speaking countries, are based on a departmental staffing structure which cuts across the social organisation of students, creating obstacles to the flow of information. The authors engage in an interesting discussion and share ideas with implications for developing collaboration. Iman Tohidian and Saeed Ghiasi Nodooshan focus on teachers of English in Iranian schools. They discuss some of the reasons why central initiatives may be unsuccessful. In line with international findings about school improvement in many different circumstances, the need for teacher engagement in curriculum reforms is clear. The article explains that, whereas communication skills in realistic settings are a central aim, the school system is oriented to testing. Though policy makers have recognised the demands of globalization on language teaching, they are disconnected from teachers’ work and fail to draw on the knowledge of teachers, in particular their sense of young people’s interests and the need to develop a sensitivity to cultural differences. The writers call for more democratic involvement of professionals in policy, as against centralised top-down reforms. The fourth paper, by Krystallila Kyritsi and John Davis, looks at the importance of creating a coherent professional culture which supports childhood creativity within the context of the 992882 IMP0010.1177/1365480221992882Improving SchoolsEditorial editorial2021