A Balancing Act: Navigating Policy as Street-Level Bureaucrats. A Study of Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education in Norway

The sample and selection

The ECE centres are selected based on location, ownership, and the percentage of cultural diversity (5–10 per cent), representing a variety of organisational structures but similar in cultural diversity. The four ECE centres represent urban and rural settings, are owned privately and publicly, and are similar in cultural diversity in the group of children, with around 10–15 per cent having minority backgrounds, representing an average ECE in Norway. Three of the ECE centres were large, with five to six departments, while one was smaller, with two departments organised as an oppvekststun (Norwegian), a school and ECE combined. A department typically includes 14–18 children, 1–2 educators (one pedagogical leader and one early childhood teacher) and 1–2 assistants or unskilled workers, depending on the children’s ages. The pedagogical leaders differ in work experience, educational background and gender. All informants, except one, had a majority background. Table 1 displays the sample, informants, ECE and their pseudonyms.

Interviews

I conducted individual and group interviews with pedagogical leaders and individual interviews with the kindergarten managers to understand their experiences and perceptions in depth. The interviews supplied valuable insights into their self-presentations, values, wishes, goals and crucial decision-making factors. The group interview method captures the dynamics of conversations and discussions and gives insight into the social context in which meanings are shaped (Kvale, 2009). Additionally, group interviews fostered professional discussions and encouraged reflection on work as leaders and how they experienced their everyday work situations. The group interview approach also ensured a more balanced power dynamic between me as a researcher and the informants, which is essential for ensuring the quality and validity of the interviews (Kvale, 2009). All interviews were conducted in the ECE centres. Their weekly scheduled meetings were used. To ensure and heighten research reliability, I tried to distance myself from the collected data, to be as objective as possible, and to derive findings from actual circumstances rather than subjective interpretation or unexpected events in the research process (Wadel, 2014). Asking the pedagogical leaders the same questions in the interviews and using an observational guide helped me in this respect.

Participant observations and fieldwork

Fieldwork is based on relational frameworks, aiming to understand human actions through these perspectives. Within this framework, participatory observation and fieldwork are fruitful methods for collecting data on complex human behaviours and interactions (Wadel, 2014). Fieldwork in your own culture is more accessible in practical terms, as it involves speaking the same language and sharing mutual “common knowledge” (Giddens, 1976, s. 16). However, it is essential to recognise that shared understanding and “the insider knowledge” also produce blind spots and should be critically examined (Wadel, 2014). Therefore, reflexivity on biases and positioning in the field studied is a crucial aspect of participant observation (Fangen, 2010; Wadel, 2014). Initially, I needed to be open-minded to gain in-depth knowledge of the field, including what was taken for granted. A balance between closeness and distance is essential for reflexivity, allowing researchers to see the culture or social environment from the informants’ perspective (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009).

Further, having an “outsider” perspective on your culture is critical to identifying and questioning commonly accepted beliefs and implicit knowledge. Questioning “normal” behaviours and the structure of everyday life in ECE was a helpful approach for gaining an outsider’s perspective. As a social anthropologist and a former teacher, I have professional knowledge of schools as an educational institution. However, my understanding of ECE institutions was more limited, except for my experience of having three children in ECE and briefly teaching in early childhood teacher education. My academic background as a social anthropologist differs from that of researchers in the ECE field, who are mostly ECE teachers. My educational background and limited experience may, therefore, be both an advantage and a disadvantage in positioning as an “insider” or “outsider” (Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). Because of my professional background, I could take on the role of a novice. I observed, asked questions, tried things out, and made mistakes (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019). Such an approach to the field may have reduced the ECE staff’s feeling of being assessed by me, leading to a more natural and relaxed behaviour.

Ethical considerations

The study has been prepared and approved according to the ethical guidelines of the Norwegian Agency for Shared servies in Education and Research – Sikt. This study is part of a larger research project examining how pedagogical leaders engage in culturally diverse ECE settings, the pedagogical leaders’ roles and the experiences of refugee parents encountering the Norwegian ECE. However, this study focuses on how policy and regulations are experienced and translated into professional practice by pedagogical leaders. The research has obtained written approval from all informants to ensure ethical compliance. All participants could withdraw their consent before publication. The secure storage of notes and audio recordings ensures confidentiality.

Balancing compliance and autonomy

During the group interviews, pedagogical leaders discussed the tension between compliance and autonomy. The theme involves following external regulations while maintaining professional independence, interpreting autonomy, and translating political goals into local practice. They emphasised the importance of meeting regulatory requirements while preserving academic freedom and addressing individual needs, and the issue of discretion and professional judgment to ensure compliance with the FPK and regulations, as stated by Maja, a pedagogical leader at Solbakken:

We must adhere to guidelines and standards while creating an environment responsive to each child’s interests and developmental needs. Sometimes, I struggle to make the best decision for the children. The best decision may be to disregard the parents’ perspectives, which is a difficult judgement. Moreover, the group of children sometimes takes priority, while at other times, individual children require attention.

According to Maja, pedagogical leaders have professional autonomy and must balance children’s needs and parents’ demands, creating difficulties in decision-making and defining high-quality pedagogical work. In Norway, in education and also as a cultural value, prioritising children’s development is seen as a core value, referred to as “in the best interest of the child” and stated in FPK as follows: “The best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration in all actions and decisions concerning the child” (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017, p. 8). Therefore, this core value will likely be the priority in pedagogical leaders’ decisions regarding children and influence professional values and reasoning. However, the child’s best interests involve discretionary assessment, which gives the pedagogical leaders the power to decide what this entails and legitimise their work.

Most pedagogical leaders emphasise the need to meet regulatory requirements and political intentions while ensuring pedagogical freedom and addressing the unique needs of children and families in their care. Their prioritisation of specific tasks and professional practices or their leadership enactment seems to reflect the characteristics of their organisational and professional culture, their leadership enactment, and how they reason and prioritise when faced with cross-pressure.

Although most informants expressed tensions between compliance and autonomy in translating and enacting political obligations formulated in the FPK, how they experience the degree of autonomy or compliance differs. Some pedagogical leaders view the FPK as a script to decide the best way to conduct their work: “The FPK [Norwegian: rammeplan] is our Bible. It tells us what to do” (Monica, pedagogical leader, Fjellgard). In contrast, some pedagogical leaders commented on the FPK as guidance that provides flexibility and autonomy:

In addition to ensuring the smooth operation of the unit, you must also ensure that the annual and weekly plans are implemented in line with the obligations formulated in the FPK. Additionally, you develop the “monthly newsletter” and pedagogical plans with the various didactic themes outlined in the FPK. The new framework plan seems more straightforward, telling us what to do but not how. However, it gives us freedom and autonomy. (Grete, pedagogical leader at Solbakken)

A few also claim that FPK legitimises their professional reasoning to challenge and facilitate the assistants’ knowledge development processes, exemplified by the kindergarten manager in Fjellgard, Sissel’s statement below:

The framework plan guides actions and decisions in early childhood education (ECE). It guides while allowing for freedom and autonomy. During team meetings, I reference the framework plan to ensure all employees understand the rationale behind my decisions and professional actions. The assistants should be more willing to use their “planning time” [Norwegian: plantid]. They fear I will assign them pedagogical tasks, like leading the daily gathering with children [Norwegian: samlingsstund]. Nevertheless, I try to push them a little so they can develop their professional knowledge.

The findings show that pedagogical leaders strive to balance between autonomy and compliance. Factors such as organisational culture, role enactment of kindergarten managers, and resource availability significantly influence pedagogical leaders’ decision-making processes and coping strategies when facing tensions and challenges. In Parken, team meetings and daily conversations mainly focused on practical matters like cleaning, diaper changing, and daily schedules. In Solbakken and Nordlys, the pedagogical leaders engaged in critical professional discussions of pedagogical issues, decision-making and professional practices. In Fjellgard, team meetings prioritise reaching joint solutions and consensus, with pedagogical leaders emphasising communication, cooperation, trust and safety over controlling and leadership authority.

Stakeholders’ demand and pedagogical justifications

Many of the pedagogical leaders in the study are concerned with conflicting pedagogical philosophies and upbringings, as this may create friction in developing a good partnership with parents, especially with minority parents. Balancing and nurturing a positive relationship with parents while following existing frameworks is perceived as challenging. A pedagogical leader in Nordlys, Per, shows how tensions can be avoided or minimised in practice.

I can share an incident I experienced, which I would describe as a “culture conflict”. It is related to sleep and sleeping routines in ECE. The child is new to early childhood education (ECE), and when asked about sleeping patterns, the mother replies that the child can sleep whenever she wants – at 10, 3, or half past 5. If she wants to sleep, her mother says she will be allowed to. Nonetheless, I now believe that a child who is 1.5 years old cannot make such a decision. It is challenging when a mother has this requirement, and we cannot force the baby to sleep. Then, our job is to set up a sleeping routine like the other children in the kindergarten. It is challenging to emphasise the importance of sleep to a 1.5-year-old child who refuses to sleep in a crib and usually decides where and when to sleep. It demands a lot from us.

As shown, the pedagogical leaders emphasise the increased pressure from stakeholders, particularly parents with minority backgrounds. As pedagogical leaders, unlike kindergarten managers, they have direct contact with parents. The pedagogical leaders’ perspectives on partnership with parents may be interpreted as a manifestation of more selective and involved parents and a more culturally diverse group of children and parents. The case above illustrates a challenge professionals face in meeting the needs of all children and parents. Their work situation may be affected by limited time and staff resources, as well as the need to respect the opinions and views of parents.

Hence, they must work with discretion and provide professional justifications. When pedagogical reasoning differs from parents’ beliefs, they may prioritise the latter due to limited resources and high demands. Some pedagogical leaders feel inadequate in their encounters with parents from diverse cultural backgrounds and may need more formal knowledge of migration pedagogy. Their attempt to teach minority parents the “right way” may be due to a lack of knowledge and resources. They may argue favouring procedures, routines, and regulations, lowering their work aspirations, or avoiding complex tasks due to demanding parents. The case above illustrates tensions between expectations and views on upbringing, resources, and workload. Pedagogical leaders must recognise all parents’ needs and perspectives to maintain a strong partnership as required by legislation (FPK) and to support respect and tolerance (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017). Pedagogical leaders may, however, lack resources and time to meet all parents’ needs, which may conflict with their professional values and what they believe is in a child’s best interest, leading to ethical dilemmas:

I find it difficult when parents express views or beliefs contradicting my pedagogical stance or views on upbringing. What should I do in these situations? In most cases, my decisions and actions will be guided by what I believe is in the children’s best interests. (June, a pedagogical leader at Fjellgard)

Several of the pedagogical leaders also noted that parents’ expectations have changed. Today, parents are more informed and assertive in their demands, and some pedagogical leaders also value higher expectations from parents as a positive development: “It motivates us to improve our knowledge and practices” (Otto, a pedagogical leader of Nordlys). Pedagogical leaders experience and manage tension differently, perceiving increased demands as positive and challenging, encouraging their professional expertise and using their discretionary power.

Navigating limited resources and workload

Balancing the needs of colleagues with the demands of kindergarten managers and owners while managing work pressure with limited resources is a challenge for pedagogical leaders. Time and resource constraints may lead them to deprioritise knowledge development and discussions to manage these challenges:

As a pedagogical leader, I understand that my colleagues, managers, the owner, parents, and children have different and often conflicting needs that we must meet. The municipality [the owner] imposes strict guidelines and budget cuts, making it challenging to collaborate on critical issues. When we encounter such dilemmas, we make decisions and discuss the case together. I prefer making decisions jointly. However, we always prioritise the children’s best interests when managing these situations. The well-being of children should always be our top priority. (Endre, pedagogical leader of Nordlys)

Pedagogical leaders seem to prioritise children’s needs to manage these tensions. The child’s best interest in Norway is fundamental to early childhood education (ECE). It is also outlined in the FPK and The Kindergarten Act (2005), reflecting the country’s core beliefs about children and childhood. Many of the pedagogical leaders in the study emphasise the importance of creating a positive work environment. The pedagogical leaders argue that this is crucial for keeping high pedagogical quality and providing a good ECE experience for all children. As pedagogical leaders are responsible for maintaining pedagogical quality with limited resources, this issue is emphasised by many of the leaders in the study. Another theme in the data is the pedagogical leaders’ discussions of tensions between administrative and pedagogical work with children and their teams. More pressure on documentation in the sector makes them prioritise administrative tasks over care of children.

We must prioritise completing all the forms and keeping track of regulations. However, sometimes I feel that administrative tasks take too much of my time and distract me from pedagogical work with children and my team. (Jeanette, a pedagogical leader in Parken)

Limited resources and workload may lead to lower service quality. Increased stakeholder demands for report writing and form completion may create pressure and lead to deprioritising professional development. Karin, a pedagogical leader at Nordlys, comments on the current changes in her role towards more administrative work.

I must establish a positive work environment and teach my assistants to work independently, ensuring they maintain high pedagogical standards when I am out or away. However, I want to spend more time with children and have fewer meetings and administrative tasks.

Due to a more culturally diverse group of parents, some children need additional support and resources. However, due to a lack of time and administrative pressure, this is not the pedagogical leaders’ main priority. The ECE centre, Parken, is the largest in the sample, housing six departments. The kindergarten manager of Parken, Oline, reports that lately, they have experienced high sick leave and had to address challenges related to a large group of newly arrived refugee families with young children. Oline reports further that some pedagogical leaders in Parken complain about high work pressures and stress. She explains that the staff need more time for professional knowledge development, both jointly and individually, especially in migration pedagogy, to meet the challenges of collaborating with refugee parents. However, the high level of sickness absence minimises this, as more practical tasks must be prioritised:

A high share of the staff expresses they lack knowledge in their encounters with refugee parents and have asked for more education in migration pedagogy. Sadly, we experience constraints in terms of time and cost. Also, frequent substitutes make daily routines more challenging for pedagogical leaders, as they must teach new substitutes instead of focusing on pedagogical work. (Oline, kindergarten manager of Parken)

Lise, a pedagogical leader at Parken, commented on recurring challenges with what she labels as “those from other cultures”, saying, “There is so much fuss with those noodles they bring in their lunch boxes. Why do they not bring regular sandwiches?” An “exotic” and different lunchbox is considered bothersome, causing more work. Considering issues such as “exotic” lunch boxes, clothing, sleeping and language barriers, creating extra work, may reflect their high work pressure and insecurity due to a lack of knowledge and competence when working with this group of children and parents.

A pedagogical leader, Eva, in Parken, says this during a team meeting discussing the work with children and parents from minority backgrounds: “Moreover, it becomes a burden for the staff if things need to be done differently, and they must spend much time explaining to them how things are done here [in Norway].” According to FPK, pedagogical leaders must acknowledge all children’s cultural and social backgrounds with tolerance and respect. However, as this quote illustrates, the lack of resources makes it challenging to fulfil these political intentions.

Pedagogical leaders encounter challenges, develop strategies for their work, and discuss prioritisation. They develop strategies to manage stress, tension, resource constraints, dilemmas, and ambiguous goals and demands. The pedagogical leaders’ coping strategies may also impact the quality of the pedagogical work and how they encounter different challenges, such as encounters with minority parents, as outlined above.