Conference Agenda

The concept of quality in education is an important framing for both policy and practice, spanning through international, national and local levels of policymaking and school leadership (Kauko et al., 2018). In a European context, there has been a move towards more output-control of schools in many countries (e.g. Sweden and Ireland), often combined with decentralised governing systems where school districts and schools are given extended autonomy, and in turn opening up for more diverse schooling. In these systems, quality control focus on the end “product” of schooling through for instance standardized testing or examinations rather than on processes, giving school leaders the possibility to take local context into account when making decisions on quality development (Wermke & Salokangas, 2021). However, quality imperatives defined externally might in some cases differ from professional standards, ethics or beliefs held by the diversity of professionals working within education. This means that school leaders face and are expected to make decisions based on at times contesting ideas of what constitutes quality and how to assess and work towards this, both in long term strategic work and in day-to-day decisions (Brauckmann et al., 2023).

The aim of this study is thus to gain more knowledge about which and how different elements might inform educational leaders’ decision-making processes on an institutional level by focusing on the opening and closing of decision-making related to quality assessment and quality development. While granted extended autonomy, school leaders’ scope of action is nevertheless regulated by many different elements like policy events, administrative systems, and negotiations between different groupings and levels both within and outside of schools. As an example, an explicit expectation from local policymakers to increase interdisciplinarity and collaboration across subjects with the aim to enhance the quality of schooling might collide with some teachers’ professional stance against the idea of interdisciplinarity and collaboration revealing different professional understandings of what constitutes quality in education. While research on autonomy in education has increased the last decades, there is still a need for more empirical research on leadership autonomy that considers the dynamic and multidimensional character of the phenomenon (e.g., Wermke et al., 2023). Taking a particular interest in the distribution of autonomy between local schools and county municipalities, the exploration in this paper is guided by the following research questions:

Which elements inform or regulate decision-making processes related to quality assessment and -development in local education leadership, and further How is leadership autonomy distributed and negotiated between schools and county municipalities?

The study is framed by a conceptual understanding of autonomy in schools as a multidimensional and context dependent phenomenon made up of several levels and domains (Gobby et al., 2022; Salokangas & Wermke, 2020). Understanding policy as enacted and organising normative discourse (Ball et al., 2012; Levinson et al., 2020) this paper zooms in on leadership autonomy on an institutional level (i.e. schools and county municipalities) (Cribb & Gewirtz, 2007) and focus on the domains of development and administration (Salokangas & Wermke, 2020). While exploring the phenomenon of leadership autonomy in a Norwegian context, the regulation of school leaders’ decision-making by many different elements is not unique to Norway. This indicates that findings from this study is important far beyond the Norwegian context, particularly to countries with decentralised governance systems where local autonomy plays a central role in achieving high quality education. The study also contributes to deepening our understanding of the development of school leadership as a profession in its own right.

Previous research has highlighted the fundamental contribution of leadership to educational improvement (Leithwood et al., 2020). Although there are different conceptual approaches to leadership, the evidence is conclusive in identifying the crucial role of principals in school success (Day et al., 2010). During the last decades, studies on the importance of school leaders have been accompanied by a growing global concern about a shortage of people willing to lead schools. There is a common agreement across most educational systems that school leadership has lost popularity, generating a scenario where fewer people are interested in applying, and more leaders are leaving the position (Hancock et al., 2019). As Towers points out, the challenges of recruitment and retention has generated "a leadership crisis" (2022, p. 206). This crisis is not new (Gajda & Militello, 2008) as evidence of this difficulty could be found as early as the 1980s (Simpson, 1987), with a spike at the turn of the century (Earley et al., 2009) and consolidation during the last decade (DeMatthews et al., 2022). Even though retention studies have increased in recent years, this area is still in "its infancy" (Hansen, 2018, p. 88).

Previous research has been categorical in explaining the negative consequences of rapid and disorganised principal change (Bartanen et al., 2019). While a certain level of rotation could be seeing as a positive element in schools with severe difficulties, ineffective leadership or communities seeking innovation (Davis & Anderson, 2020), the evidence is conclusive in identifying negative consequences when the change of directors occurs suddenly and repeatedly. As Mascall and Leithwood point out, "While principal turnover is inevitable in every school, too rapid turnover—or succession—is widely thought to present significant challenges to districts and schools" (2010, p. 368). Frequent leadership changes are associated with cycles of decline in school performance (Béteille et al., 2012), which can be explained by the loss of trust in the educational community, reconfiguration of collective memory, changes in school cultures, reallocation of resources, and restoration of visions (Pendola & Fuller, 2021).

In Chile, massive changes have been introduced during the last decade to enhance principals' performance, including a professional framework framing practices and responsibilities and an investment in professional development for current and future principals (Campos et al., 2019). In 2011, law 20.501 reshaped the selection process for principals, focusing the responsibilities of leaders on school improvement and instructional change through a 5-year performance agreement between principal and the local authority. Each selected principal must implement an improvement plan, setting goals and objectives around student’s learning (Montecinos et al., 2015). Yet, after a decade of implementation, little is known about the policy's success, particularly in selecting and retaining principals, and even less about the relationship between principals' retention and improvement. Building upon a decade of data, this paper aims to contribute to the global and local debate about principals' career path and school improvement. The main questions this paper seeks to answer are:

• What is the percentage of retention of school principals?
• What is the probability of retention of a female principal compared to a male principal with the same characteristics (age, region, and type of school)?
• Is there a significant difference in retention analysing principals by age, region, or type of school? If so, where is the difference?
• Is there a relationship between principal retention and school improvement? If so, how is the relationship?

Leading school development has emerged as one of the key areas within school leadership research (Kovačević & Hallinger, 2019), and in recent decades there has been a growing interest in school leadership, both from institutions, in research and in policy-making. In particular, the interest has been linked to identifying what successful school leadership is in the sense of being effective in improving students' learning outcomes. A recent review of research (Hallinger & Kovačević, 2019) identified leading school change and improvement (LSCI) as one of the key themes or Schools of Thought that have emerged in the evolution of educational administration (EA) as a field of study. Moreover, Kovačević and Hallinger (2019) quantitatively document and synthesize the knowledge base on leading school change and improvement (LSCI) from 1960 to 2017. They show that there has been a largely increasing interest in the research field, LSCI, in particular the last four decades. Their analysis revealed four distinct and partly overlapping directions, or research traditions. Although these four traditions have their own characteristics, they complement and overlap each other. One, Instructional leadership for school improvement (ILSI) is defined by its focus on instructional leadership, influenced by principals' leadership related to that of students learning outcomes. Two, Transformational leadership for school improvement (TLSI) draws inspiration from transformational leadership that has been developed within private sector. This direction focuses on how leaders, primarily principals, create organizational conditions that can promote school development. Three, Shared leadership for change (SLC) direction shares a similar focus on how management can develop and maintain the same organizational conditions that create change. In contrast to TLSI and ILSI as researchers with a focus on distinct leadership styles, SLC researchers tend to adopt a less "uniform" conceptualization of the "source" to management. Four, School improvement (SI) is mainly associated with British and Northern European researchers and has been heavily influenced by school effectiveness studies. Writers within the SI direction seem to focus somewhat less on management but focuses more on school improvement.

Research based on reviewes largely contributes to theorizing within the field. But like Kovačević & Hallinger (2019) point out, the theoretical ideas must be tried out and tested empirically. This implies a great need for more empirical research within the field of LSCI. Thus, the current study aims to produce expanded knowledge within the field through examining empirical research contributions that in the period 2010–2020 are published in a selection of the most influential international journals in the field, in addition to central Nordic journals. The following research question is examined in 45 included articles: What are the characteristics of leadership in the development of schools, and what implications do the findings have for school leadership? Based on the included articles, there seems to be a consensus that the hallmark of leading school development is that leadership can be characterized as a collaborative activity. The articles are categorized into five leadership categories that represent various characteristics of leadership, new leadership tasks and various leadership expectations: Distributed leadership, leadership for learning, leadership in learning organisations, democratic leadership and leadership of organizational development. The categories have grown out of the empirical material. This means that the articles use the terms in their research presentation, either to describe theoretical features of leadership or as analytical concepts.

This paper reports on a partnership research project between a large Catholic School System in Australia and the Leadership Research International (LRI) team at the University of Southern Queensland (UniSQ), Australia. The university researchers built on the premise that strengthening leadership contributes to successful and sustained school improvement and focused on a selection of successful or effective schools as deemed by the School System in partnership.

The research project was stimulated by the work of Hallinger and Heck (2010) who maintained that leadership is a catalyst for enhanced student learning outcomes: “studies of school improvement must assess change (i.e. improvement or decline) in the school’s academic processes and learning outcomes over a period of time. . .[and]. . .that school improvement leadership is directed towards growth in student learning” (p. 96). Additionally, this study also noted their qualification that “Effective leadership styles and strategies are highly contextualised. . .school’s culture, or capacity for educational improvement. . .[and]. . .collaborative [school] leadership, as opposed to leadership from the principal alone” (p. 107). Thus, the study explored, How does an understanding of the impact of context, culture, and collaboration contribute to the strengthening of leadership for school improvement?

The study drew on a definition of sustainable school success from previous school-based school improvement case study research (Andrews, Crowther, Morgan, & O’Neill, 2012; Andrews & USQ-LRI Research Team, 2009) where school success was constituted as:

. . .enhanced school achievements in agreed high priority goal areas, based on documented evidence of those achievements and teachers’ expressed confidence in their school’s capacity to extend and sustain those achievements into the future. (Andrews & USQ-LRI Research Team, 2009, p. 4)

And then reviewed the literature around the factors contributing to school success: context, culture, collaboration, system-school alignment or coherence, and effective leadership.

The work of Owens and Valesky (2015) addressed the importance of Complex Adaptive Systems as “dealing with participants in ways that bring about desirable changes in the structure . . . [and] in the character and quality of the social environment in which people work” (p. 98). It was realised that this view of individual schools being part of a school system needed to accommodate the notion of being an organisational system with subsystems where activities they carry out are related to each other. However, as many (Harris & Jones, 2018; Leithwood, 2010) have revealed, all schools are not the same and are required to be responsive to their unique communities as complex adaptive systems within systems.

This paper describes an international research study undertaking a comparative analysis of the diverse futures orientations of school leaders in the context of the short and longer-term impacts of the pandemic. Based on the first phase of work undertaken by research-practitioners from Iceland, Ireland and Alberta (Canada), and Australia, this session will invite participants to engage with the survey tool and facilitation processes developed and to explore some of the detailed and rich findings that have emerged from the project over the past two years.

Despite the work of organizations such as UNESCO and the Comparative & International Education Society, the teaching profession and its organizations remain largely preoccupied by the present and find themselves largely in a reactive mode (Jónasson, 2016; Education Futures Partnership, 2022). Rather than deferring to so-called self-proclaimed “thought-leaders” (OECD, n.d.) in organizations such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, school leaders need to recognize how their work is influenced by “the productive power of ‘best-guesses as to the impacts and implementation of any number of policies” that “conjure anticipated futures with real effects in the present” (Sellar, 2015, 135). As well, the session will outline how the study has sustained its initial commitment to contribute to UNESCO’s Education 2050 Learning to Become initiative by taking up John Urry‘s invitation to “democratize the future“ since ultimately in our everyday lives “power should be viewed as significantly a matter of uneven future-making (Urry, 2016, p. 189).

Over the past two years the research team has engaged school leaders as co-creators of a survey instrument for comparing the variations in their experiences across a number of international jurisdictions in terms of the impact on their futures orientations. As well, it is hoped that the instrurment will act as a catalyst for empowering school leaders to have a voice in how the future is imagined and framed by increasingly influential policy actors such as the OECD and ministries of education (Zhao & Gearin, 2018) who are increasingly driven by the impulses of anticipatory governance (Flyverbom & Garsten, 2021).

Trust is a key resource of social action, becoming necessary when moments of uncertainty must be bridged, and decisions must be made, but it remains uncertain whether expectations will be met on the individual or organisational level (Colquitt et al., 2011). Therefore, trust in others’ competence, reliability and integrity comes with a certain risk.

In education science, trust phenomena from leaders’ perspective play a minor role in general, particularly in the school context. Nevertheless, a large amount of school trust literature has revealed that trust is an antecedent to important education processes and outcomes, e.g., professional learning, instructional change and collaboration (Adams & Miskell, 2016).

In our study, we built on research that examines the relationship between trust and schools’ functioning, tying trust to schools’ innovation capacity (Louis & Murphy, 2017; Tschannen-Moran, 2009). More concretely, we focussed on school leaders and examined the effects of school leader trust in teachers on collective teacher innovativeness as a precursor of school improvement and change. In doing so, we examined individual and organisational ambidexterity’s potential role as a complementary set of activities and processes in mediating these effects, as the literature suggests that (organisational) ambidexterity – i.e., “the ability to simultaneously pursue both incremental and discontinuous innovation…from hosting multiple contradictory structures, processes and cultures within the same” (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996, p. 24) organisation – mediates the trust-innovativeness relationship (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).

Two central questions guided our research:

1. What is the relationship between school leader trust in teachers and collective teacher innovativeness?
2. How does individual and organisational ambidexterity mediate the relationship between school leader trust in teachers and collective teacher innovativeness?

Three concepts are key to our study: school leader trust in teachers; collective teacher innovativeness; and individual and organisational ambidexterity. Based on a literature review, we tested a mediation model which illustrates the relationships between the variables of interest in this study, namely school leader trust in teachers, school leader exploration and exploitation, school exploration and exploitation, and collective teacher innovativeness. In this conceptual framework, school leader trust in teachers is the key independent variable. Its direct effects on collective teacher innovativeness are proposed based on the very first empirical evidence concerning the relationship between both variables. School leader exploration and exploitation are viewed as micro-foundations of school exploration and exploitation, which are viewed as predictors of collective teacher innovativeness. Thus, exploration and exploitation among school leaders and schools are posited as mediators between school leader trust and collective teacher innovativeness.

With these variables in mind, the following hypotheses were tested:

H1: School leader trust in teachers affects collective teacher innovativeness directly.

H2a: School leader trust in teachers affects school leader exploration.

H2b: School leader trust in teachers does not affect school leader exploitation.

H3a and H3b: School leader exploration and exploitation are micro-foundations of school exploration and exploitation and, therefore, affect them.

H4a: School exploration affects collective teacher innovativeness.

H4b: School exploitation does not affect collective teacher innovativeness.

In Cyprus, students with special education needs (SEN), are provided only in theory with the right to receive quality education that satisfies their needs. Despite the existence of a legislative framework since 1999 (Law for the Education and Training of Children with Special Needs, 113(I) of 1999) and the signing of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006 by Cyprus in 2011), there has been little or no improvement in inclusive education. In fact, reasonable accommodations remain utopian, and students with SEN in Cyprus need to cope with a harsh education system where their needs are dangerously marginalized (Symeonidou & Mavrou, 2020). The reasons are mainly due to the rigid curriculum, the separation of students with SEN from the whole class in individualized lessons, the lack of teacher training, the non-existent involvement of parents in educational issues, the poor infrastructure, as well as the negative social perceptions about disability (Phtiaka, 2019; Gross, 2008; Symeonidou, 2007; Oliver, 2004).

Therefore, it is understood that all the weight of inclusive education within a system that contradicts its philosophy, is to be lifted by each school organization individually. Therefore, in this extremely difficult task, what we argue is that the school principal has a crucial role to play. In particular, the school principal needs to adopt particular leadership behaviors and apply the appropriate leadership practices that will allow students with SEN to improve both academically and emotionally. To the already existing difficulties in the context of Cyprus, specifically due to the socio-economic changes, the centralization of the educational system, and the challenges of the wider context that affect the leadership work (Pashiardis, 2015), we also acknowledge the inclusive education aspect. Clearly, the biggest challenge for any school principal is to improve learning outcomes for all students, and especially for students with SEN, through the provision of equal educational opportunities.

The influence of the school principal on school performance has been demonstrated through a wide range of studies (Hoy & Miskel, 2001; Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Louis, 2012; Pashiardis & Johansson, 2016). Yet, limited research is presented on the current role of school principals in inclusive education. Therefore, it is deemed more important to present evidence of school principalship practices for supporting students with SEN.

Therefore, in this study, we present the school principals’ practices based on particular leadership styles derived from the Pashiardis -Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Style Framework. The leadership styles that are distinguished in the scope of action of educational leadership are the following: Instructional Style, Structuring Style, Participative Style, Entrepreneurial Style, and Personnel Development Style (see Bracukmann & Pashiardis 2011; Pashiardis, 2014; Pashiardis & Brauckmann, 2008).

Specifically, the following research question guided this particular study: "What kind of leadership practices are promoted by school principals that can support students with SEN through the presentation of leadership styles based on the Pashiardis -Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Style Framework (Bracukmann & Pashiardis 2011; Pashiardis, 2014; Pashiardis & Brauckmann, 2008)?" We have utilized this theoretical background to connect school principals’ leadership practices in supporting students with SEN and inform the current literature with these two particular thematic topics.

Migration and displacement because of poverty, war and conflict are the reality for many people, and many of these have found their way to Norway to seek asylum. The ongoing war in Ukraine will again provide professionals in educational institutions such as Early childhood education (ECE) and schools responsible for tasks and challenges dealing with refugees and minorities. As in Europe, Norway faces challenges in recognising children and parents with diverse cultural backgrounds, ensuring inclusive education for all. In 2021, the percentage of children with a minority language background in Norwegian ECE amounted to 19.3 per cent (Statistics of Norway, 2022).

A more culturally and socially diverse society acquires different and new modes of leadership to handle issues of inclusion and acknowledge different cultural and social backgrounds and identities. The framework plan for ECE in Norway states that cultural diversity should be recognised and used as a resource in pedagogical work (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017). Traditionally, schools and ECE are rooted in Eurocentric ideologies and philosophies embedded in school leadership and the educational inequalities within the school and ECE structure (Buras & Apple, 2008; Rizvi & Lingard, 2011). The cultural underpinning of schools and ECE in Norway is mainly congruent with middle-class, European values (Boykin, 1994; Nieto & Bode, 2011), causing many pedagogical leaders to ignore or downplay the strengths of culturally diverse children and their families. However, Norwegian society today is increasing demographic diversity within Eurocentrism’s political and social context. Hence, there is a need for culturally responsive leadership in culturally diverse settings, as in the coming years of ECE, evidence of even greater diversity than can be found today (Banks, 2013; Nieto & Bode, 2011). Further, leadership is underlined as essential to ensure the pedagogical tasks and contents of high-quality professional work of ECE.

The study explores the characteristics of culturally responsive leadership and inclusive education in Early childhood education in Norway. The research questions for this paper are as follows:

1. What leadership practices and cultural diversity understandings foster inclusion and acknowledgement?
2. What are the characteristics of culturally responsive leadership?
3. How can culturally responsive leadership contribute to inclusive education and belonging in ECE?

ECE is essential in acknowledging cultural diversity, recognising different cultural backgrounds, and developing tolerance in all children. In the face of other horizons of understanding, cultural and religious affiliations, working with a culturally sensitive attitude may be a possible input.

The concept of cultural sensitivity comprises the images of culture and sensitivity. It indicates a sensitivity or attention related to cultural preferences, both one’s own and others, through an increased focus on culture, a higher degree of awareness, knowledge and understanding of working with people, especially minorities with different cultural backgrounds (Qureshi, 2009; Rugkåsa et al., 2017). Increased focus on culture, awareness and understanding of other people’s points of view means acknowledging the perspectives of others and placing oneself as culturally relativistic rather than ethnocentric in encounters with others. Cultural sensitivity is about becoming aware of one’s attitudes, life history and norms and acquiring knowledge about the background of the person we meet, i.e., cultural competence (Marianne Rugkåsa, 2017; Qureshi, 2009; Rugkåsa et al., 2017).

National school systems have been significantly affected by several global trends since the end of the 20th century. One has been the powerful movement towards an inclusive school for all, represented by the Declaration of Salamanca in 1994.

Various stakeholders of education systems have to interpret policies, which led to many variations of inclusive education not just internationally, but also in a national frame (Badstieber, 2021). Findings have shown that especially school principals play a significant role in the implementation of reforms in general (Moos et al., 2016) but it is just assumed that they are important actors in the context of inclusive schooling (Badstieber, 2021). Therefore, gaining knowledge on the making of inclusive schooling on the part of school principals in primary schools as joint learning of students in need of special support and students without this need (Magnússon, 2015) is the main interest of this research. The study asks: How is leadership autonomy regarding the implementation of inclusion policies described in policy documents in Germany and Norway since 1994?

The aspects of autonomy, accountability and more complex task allocations for school principals get more and more attention in research (Brauckmann, 2012; Andersson, 2020; Wermke et al., 2022). Inclusion and its implementation through reforms is one of these complex tasks. Therefore, the fact of inclusion and its implementation is especially significant for this analysis. Inclusion shall improve the well-being of partially excluded people; this is associated with many potential errors and risks on the part of school principals, a topic crucial for the aspect of leadership autonomy.

Leadership autonomy is thereby understood as decision-making, control, and associated responsibilities (Wermke et al., 2022). Considering that, a certain amount of autonomy in education is needed to quickly react to different educational needs: “Professionals in public education need a certain scope of action to formulate their decisions in interactions on the reactions of students in their educational day-to-day life. [However], to reduce the complexity of possible interactional and educational outcomes, professionals in education have to rely on an organization that helps them reduce the possible complexities in education” (Wermke et al., 2022, p. 5). Therefore, to unpack autonomy and the aspect of control (possibly enacted through an organization), this study draws furthermore on the three dimensions of autonomy and control from Cribb and Gewirtz (2007): loci and modes of autonomy, domains of autonomy-control, and loci and modes of control.

The year 1994 is chosen as starting point for the analysis, because 92 countries agreed on a school for all during an UNESCO-conference in Salamanca. This led to extensive changes not just in schools in general but also in leadership autonomy.

Germany and Norway are interesting to compare due to many similarities in later education reforms with significant impact on educational leadership. However, these reforms are embedded in different educational traditions. Both countries differ in their education system, a bureaucratized tracked in Germany and a comprehensive approach in Norway but resemble each other in their method of system regulation (Wermke & Prøitz, 2021). The educational system in both countries put high emphasis on learning outcomes and personal growth of pupils, where educational leadership plays a vital role for (Grissom et al., 2018).

Comparing Germany and Norway with an almost contrary approach to inclusive education leads to a more nuanced picture about leadership autonomy from a comparative perspective. Since the analysis is not just conducted over time but also during an acute crisis like the COVID-19-pandemic, it will reveal challenges principals are facing in their leadership autonomy on long- and short-term issues.

Co-creation is increasingly applied across European welfare states as a strategy to involve citizens as participants in active collaboration with public service-organizations, to facilitate public innovation, and thereby to improve the effectiveness and quality of public services, (Ansell & Torfing, 2021; Osborne, 2006; Osborne et al., 2021). Co-creation strategies are also adopted to address the policy issues of inclusive education (Heimburg & Ness, 2020). Inclusive education is here viewed as a multidimensional concept (Qvortrup & Qvortrup, 2018). Child well-being is unequally distributed, and research demonstrate the failure of public services to address the needs of children experiencing compound social problems (Casas & Frønes, 2020). The adaption of co-creation strategies to realize inclusive education thus illustrate what Wermke (2020) with reference to Prøitz, calls the policy-practices-nexus in the translation of inclusion from policy to practices. Educational leaders are under pressure to improve the quality and co-ordination of seamless childhood service, and co-creation becomes a new governance strategy through which to organize child-welfare services. Thus educational leaders face new expectations to co-operate, across hierarchical lines and service organizations, to manage such processes of co-creation. There is thus a need to strengthen the research on how educational leaders at different levels experience and handle such new emerging local governance contexts (Prøitz, 2021).

There is no common definition of co-creation, and the literature frequently refers to it as a buzz-word or ‘magic concept’, implying it represents a normatively loaded management strategy with near universal applicability to solve social problems (Voorberg et al., 2015). This leaves great leverage for local agents regarding how co-creation is implemented as a strategy in organizations. There is an emerging research field documenting divergent results from the adoption of co-creation models for local welfare service production (Brandsen et al., 2018; Bussu & Tullia Galanti, 2018). Organisational and institutional barriers to success are frequently interpreted to result from tensions between institutional logics or multiple stakeholder interests (Steen et al., 2018). Studies also demonstrate challenges to professional identities, autonomy, responsibility, and power relations within organizations (Aschhoff & Vogel, 2019; Mik-Meyer, 2017; Prøitz, 2021). There are though few studies investigating how educational leaders experience the adaption of co-creation strategies in the work for inclusive education.

The research question addressed it the paper are: How do municipal educational leaders interpret and manage their leadership roles under new local governance strategies of co-creation for inclusive education?

Theoretically the paper is informed by theories of institutional logics (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Ocasio et al., 2017), sensemaking in organizations (Weick, 1995) and institutionalized selves (Gubrium et al., 2001). The analyses explore the potential tensions and conflicts between different institutional logics as recognised and specified at the meso- and micro level of organisations. This theoretical frame is extended with interpretive theories of sensemaking (Weick, 1995), and the concept of institutionalized selves (Gubrium et al., 2001), developed from Goffman’s symbolic interactionism. Mik-Meyers (2017) shows the need to investigate how changes in the institutionalised expectations of public managers, as related to new governance regimes, may influence their perception of professional roles and identities. She argues that agency of professional welfare workers profoundly “reflect the ways in which the work is organized, their respective professional approaches, the legislation of the particular welfare area, and other structural aspects of work” (Mik-Meyer, 2017, p. 45). Institutional changes and new demands may further influence power relations, altering the hierarchies of professional groups in the organisation; and how professionals make sense of their leverage, autonomy, and responsibilities under the adaptation of a new governance regime.

Due to their location and the composition of the student body, schools in challenging circumstances face more difficult conditions. With a high proportion of students from non-privileged family situations (usually measured by the educational attainment and financial circumstances of the parents), these poorer socio-economic circumstances are often associated with special compensatory services provided by the school. In addition, schools in challenging circumstances have different organizational quality characteristics.

When quality characteristics differ, schools need external support. To be able to face these different problem and stress constellations of particularly stressed schools, it is therefore necessary to take a differentiated view of the stress characteristics as well as different school development and support approaches, which are based on the specific needs of the schools.

The necessary additional support from the system can take place, for example, within the framework of professionalization and advisory services.

This paper examines the quality and benefits of a support program for schools offering various interventions and their impact on school leadership, school development and school quality in schools in challenging circumstances.

It is based on data from the accompanying study of a program to support schools in challenging circumstances, which supports school leaders of schools in disadvantaged social environments in the further development of their school through interventions like coaching and school development counselling. It also records the quality and the change in the quality of school characteristics and examines the contribution of the interventions to these changes.

The paper is based on the following overarching questions:

1. How is the quality of the interventions assessed by the school stakeholders who have a connection to the measures?
2. What are the consequences of the interventions in terms of qualities and quality changes in the schools?

This research draws on several strands of literature. First, it builds on research on school effectiveness, which since the 1970s has focused on the impact of various school-related factors on students' academic performance. This has included increasing attention to schools with particular challenges in recent years, which includes a focus on school context in terms of low socio-economic status, high levels of migration, etc., which often occur in combination with dysfunctional features of school organization (e.g., Baumert, Stanat & Watermann, 2006). Second, the paper draws on research on school development and change with a particular focus on 'school turnaround', which can be seen as an educational policy initiative to change and improve the performance of these schools (Murphy & Meyers, 2008; Peck & Reitzug, 2014; Authors, 2012, 2019, 2020).

One of the key findings of the research is that improvement initiatives need to be differentiated and adapted to the needs and challenges of individual schools (e.g., Reynolds et al., 1996). With regard to the selection of strategies, different concerns have to be addressed, such as decisions on the number and size of prioritized areas, where to set the focus, the use of data, and assessments related to the capacity of the school to change as well as the degree of external support needed (Meyers & Smylie, 2017). Different models for “School Turnaround” have been tried out in the US and in England. While some models include radical approaches such as school closure and retention of staff, others concentrate on professional development (e.g., courses, peer-teaching, coaching) focusing on improving the quality of teaching and school management, establishing cooperation or even initiating school fusion between a “failing” school and a school characterized as “successful”, and improving the coordination between the school and the local authorities. The last type of model is more evident in the German speaking context (Author, 2018; Racherbäumer et al., 2013).

The purpose of this proposal is to update previous research on verifying a roadmap for school leaders to ensure teacher quality can be sustained overtime.

The research question was to explore the usefulness of the roadmap as a guide for principals to ensure teacher quality based on new data.

Background and Conceptual Framework

This paper argues that a major leadership challenge for school leaders is to attract, deploy, develop and retain quality teachers. To gain commitment and engagement of teachers over their career, we propose leaders take a strategic and long-term approach. Previously (ECER 2019/2021) we presented a roadmap as a conceptual framework. Between 2018-2022 we tested this roadmap with a range of leaders and teachers representing schools. We now present an updated version of the roadmap but with supporting evidence from over 300 case studies to demonstrate its veracity as a strategic framework. In early versions of the roadmap, we highlighted key touch points such as identifying aspirants, preparation programs, sourcing talent, induction and socialisation, professional learning, and performance management as stages in ensuring quality. Our past findings verified that leaders could ensure quality by focusing on each of these factors. Our accumulated research findings show that focusing on each touch point separately is valuable but does not explain the dynamic interaction of touch points. Our latest findings show that to be successful, leaders need to be aware that the touch points are best integrated as a process rather than distinct stages.

Current evidence-based research has shown that the ‘good’ (effective/inspiring) teacher is a significant factor in improving student outcomes (OECD, 2005; Stronge, 2007, Sammons 2017). Research shows that teachers are the most significant in-school factor influencing student learning. Estimates of the percentage contribution of teachers to student outcomes varies from 30% (Hattie 2003) to 59% (Alton-Lee 2003; Rowe 2003). Findings from the Sutton Trust (2011) demonstrated the significant difference between good teacher and bad teacher as being one full year of student growth. With the pressure to improve student outcomes and the significance of teacher quality, it is incumbent on school leaders to ensure that they attract, acquire, develop, and retain quality teachers.

In the context of increased devolution and accountability, school systems not only in Europe but in other countries now recognize the changing role of school leaders. The traditional school leader role of teacher deployment is being challenged because they are expected now to adopt a Talent Management strategy (McBeath 2007), which involves attracting, developing, and retaining quality teachers. The pandemic has seen a major change in the teaching workforce where there are teacher shortages not only in Europe but in most countries around the world. This has added pressure on recruiting and retaining teachers.

We believe the road map is also useful within the conference theme, The Value of Diversity in Education and Educational Research). Touch points on the road map recognise the social challenges and different values and beliefs. Leaders and teachers work within different expectations, prescriptions, reconciliations. Within this complex context the road map helps leaders identify and acquire the best candidates for the teaching profession, develop their capabilities and support them in their teaching profession. The roadmap outlines key stages of a teacher’s journey: the aspiration to teach, the preparation and recruitment into the system, and their early experiences with the teaching profession. School leaders can play an important part in at each stage: identifying, acquiring and developing teachers though what we have identified ‘touchpoints.

We argue that leaders need to understand the whole journey and intervene to help teachers reach their potential and help them to sustain it over their career.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Schleicher (2012) describes the fundamental role of school leaders as setting a vision and enhancing the capacities of the school community to achieve it. Similarly, other studies have identified core leadership practices exercised by principals including building vision and setting directions, understanding and developing people, redesigning the organisation and managing the teaching and learning program (Leithwood et al. 2006). It is clear schools do not become high performing in the absence of strong leadership. However, it is also apparent the single point accountability on principals to improve teaching and learning is a heavy burden to carry (Riley et al. 2021). As such, principals are increasingly encouraged to cultivate a support network to assist them through key improvement initiatives. While there are varied approaches principals can draw upon for support (see principal supervisor role, Community of Practice, executive coaching, etc) a recognised mechanism for principal support is the use of a critical friend.

A critical friend has been defined as ‘a trusted person who asks provocative questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critique of a person’s work as a friend’ (Costa & Kallick 1993, p. 50). This has been extended to include helping schools make decisions, challenge expectations, patiently playing a role that is interpretive and catalytic, helping shape outcomes but never determining them, alerting the school to issues only half perceived, and being sympathetic to the school’s purpose (Doherty, et al. 2001). While broad definitions that allude to aspects of the role have emerged, there is still considerable debate about how to best capture the concept of a critical friend.

Arising from the ambiguous conceptualisation of a critical friend is a lack of guidance on the exact tasks a critical friend is expected to fulfil, competencies they should have, or skills and behaviours that should guide their work (MacPhail et al. 2021). It is acknowledged differences arise due to the contextual needs of a given situation (Swaffield & MacBeath 2005) and there does not appear to be one universally accepted definition, perception of, or role for critical friends in supporting and enhancing professional learning and development. This has led to a disjointed and fragmented literature which is difficult to synthesise and advance, and, it is suspected, replete with individuals in critical friend roles without calling them as such (MacPhail et al. 2021).

This study seeks to provide insights into the varied and potentially boundary spanning role a critical friend may need to draw upon. This is achieved by analysing the work of four critical friends whose primary role is to support principals to lead improvement in teaching and learning in a longitudinal mathematics professional learning program. The data presented in this study is derived from the first year of a 2-year professional learning partnership between the Melbourne Graduate School of Education (MGSE), the Maths Association of Victoria (MAV) and 39 primary school leadership teams. Prior to commencing the critical friend role in the project, the experienced educational consultants were invited to be part of a focus group. The intention of the study is to examine the way experienced consultants conceptualise the type of roles a critical friend might play as part of the improvement initiative.

School leaders around the world face expectations from national and local policy level on leading the schools, as a result of recognition of leadership importance for student learning (Leithwood et al., 2020). This paper explores how an emerging teacher leader role is developing in an upper secondary school in Norway within a context of changes in society and frequent reform initiatives. A renewed version of the national curriculum (LK20) underlines that school leaders are responsible for developing processes of organizational learning and engage in local reform work at their schools. The principal cannot take the responsibility for this leadership expectations alone (Møller & Rönnberg, 2021), reflecting a growing need for middle leaders at different levels to contribute.

The term middle leadership is perceived differently in various national contexts (Day & Grice, 2019; De Nobile, 2018; Harris et al., 2019; Lipscombe et al., 2021). In this paper we focus on teacher leaders described as ‘subject leaders’, a redesigned role in which teachers are given responsibility for leading processes of professional learning amongst their peer teachers. They are teachers leading students inside the classroom, whilst at the same time leading peer teachers outside the classroom (Wenner & Campbell, 2017). Hierarchically placed below senior middle leaders their reach of authority is limited (De Nobile, 2018). They report to their department heads.

Integrated between senior leaders and peer teachers (Grootenboer et al., 2019; Wilkinson, 2017) research on middle leaders show that they are important for developing professional learning and development (Grootenboer et al., 2019). However, tensions between a whole-school focus and department focus may develop (Harris & Jones, 2017). Teachers as subject leaders are not comfortable about getting too much involved with their colleagues’ individual professional work (Helstad & Abrahamsen, 2020) or with controlling the teacher profession (Alvehus et al., 2020). Although previous research has shown that middle leaders are important for improvement (Harris & Jones, 2017) there is still need for investigating the many different middle teacher leader roles which are emerging in schools. The educational landscape is changing and professional roles are developing, something which makes it relevant to assume that relations between the different layers in the school, such as the teachers, subject leaders, department heads and the principal are influenced in particular ways. The present study which this paper rests on provides a contribution to the field on how teacher leaders work to find their role among their peer teachers while at the same time being part of the teacher profession they are expected to lead.

Our study’s research question is as follows:

How do teacher subject leaders in an upper secondary school experience and develop their position amongst their peer teachers?

The present study aims to identify how teachers as subject middle leaders may contribute to develop processes of professional learning amongst peer teachers in the local school in light of national expectations on local reform work.

Theoretical framework:
This study draws upon a relational understanding of leading, taking the perspective that practice organizes and constructs activity through social interaction (Spillane, 2006). Theory of practice architecture argues that individuals in a community of practice encounter one another in intersubjective spaces in language, space and time in the material world and social relationships (Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 4). This is about socially established cooperative human activities characterized by sayings (ideas and discourses), doings (actions and activities) and relatings (relationships) which ‘hang together’ Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 31). Theorized through a lens of practice architecture in processes of organizing professionalism (Noordegraaf, 2015) the teacher subject leaders are viewed as a differentiation of teacher positions in the school organization.

Teachers have a pivotal role in all educational systems. What’s more, teachers and school administrators are the actual implementers of governmental laws and public policies as street-level bureaucrats (Aypay & Özdemir, 2022). Change projects ignoring this personal influence may harm most of the intended goals (Goodson, 2001). Fullan (1993) emphasizes that teachers who will be the change agents should have the capacity to create a personal vision, question, expertise and cooperate whether for a curriculum change or any kind of reform implementation. Patterson & Rolheiser (2004) also indicate that learning change and creating a culture of change may contribute to student achievement. Therefore, ministries of education should not exclude teachers from reform initiatives but consider them active stakeholders to embrace change (Philpott & Oates 2017). Previous research implies that teachers are not technicians who implement policy changes, but rather they respond diversely in different circumstances (Lasky, 2005; Tao & Gao, 2017). Therefore, it should be focused on how teachers can act within the framework of existing resources and conditions. Admittedly, it is not only a matter of structures but also the culture that will encourage the development of a shared knowledge base. Louis (2010) noted that effective knowledge utilization depends on sustained interaction and collaborative cultures where teachers could learn about and make sense of changes together.

It has been concluded that the active participation of teachers in change is the strongest variable that encourages a desirable organizational climate for teachers, as well as enables them to be open to change and develop positive feelings (Poppleton & Williamson, 2004). It is because the teacher is the only person who can implement any innovation that is the result of the change in the school and classroom environment (Fullan, 1991). Teachers take an active part in curriculum development studies in countries such as Scotland and the Republic of Cyprus (Erdem, 2020). Moreover, in countries such as Canada, teacher candidates are supported to become actors of change through teacher training programs by trying to improve their inner world with strategies such as thoughtfulness, reflective practices, questioning, and self-study (Fu & Clarke, 2017). However, it does not seem possible to state that teacher education programs in Türkiye inspire teacher candidates for such an ideal (Erdem, 2020). In addition, research findings imply that adaptation efforts remain insufficient since teachers working in public schools are not included in the change processes in Türkiye (Balyer & Kural, 2018). Therefore, teachers resist change due to their lack of knowledge about the change process, their unwillingness to take on new tasks, roles, and responsibilities, the fear of being harmed by change, the lack of school capacity, and the inability of school administrators to manage change (Helvacı, Çankaya & Bostancı, 2013). It could be asserted that Menlo & Collet’s (2015) assertion of “somehow, schools do not appear to be viewed as legitimate rich settings for teacher professional learning and development in school leadership” seems to be true for Türkiye as well.

Our paper is related to a theoretical and empirical research about Educational Leadership. Being a part of an Erasmus plus Strategic Partnership during 2019 and 2021, we had the opportunities to achieve some goals about this important issue for Education Systems worldwide.

ENABLES (European Arts-Based Development of Distributed Leadership and Innovation in Schools) Project aims to strengthen collaborative leadership of innovation in schools by developing and disseminating innovative methods of arts-based and embodied collaborative leadership development. As part of the ENABLES project, a total of five European countries (UK, Finland, Latvia, Romania and Austria) have been working together since November 2019 to develop, test and reflect on the use of new approaches in the field of art-based and bodily methods to promote distributive leadership. All five institutional partners developed an Action Research Trial under the coordination of UK Leadership Institute of Hertfordshire University.

The objectives of the project were to strengthen distributed leadership in schools, including both teacher leadership and student leadership, and to promote democratic practice that enables teachers, senior leaders and other stakeholders in schools to lead innovation collaboratively.

Our project has done this by enhancing the practice and understanding of innovative forms of leadership development that apply arts-based approaches to such development which facilitate self-learning through critical exploration of the creative and affective dimensions of leadership and leadership development.

Like a common starting point, all the institutional partners contributed to a Literature review starting from the main ideas and key words about Leadership in Education field. For the empirical part, the project had a specific framework based on the following applicative ideas (same for all partners): to enhance understanding and application of the value of arts-based approaches in the development of distributed leadership, including teacher and student leadership, in schools; to help policy-makers, student teachers from universities and practitioners concerned with such leadership development to gain confidence in the use of arts-based approaches; to generate research-based examples of a range of effective arts-based approaches; to examine commonalities and differences in differing national and cultural contexts in Europe, and the potential for arts-based approaches to facilitate transnational leadership development; to create an online resource for arts-based development of distributed leadership and teacher leadership in schools; to engage with national and European policy and practitioner networks to disseminate the online resource.

Mainstream leadership development often focuses only on leaders themselves and existing models that purport to help these individuals become better at leading. However, this sort of leader development (as opposed to leadership development) is questionable with regard to efficiency and effectiveness. We argue here that this may be due to a lack of acknowledgement of leaders’ (and followers’) implicit leadership theories in the context of leader and leadership development.

We start our work in this project and our Trial design from the main Leadership models which are connected with the Educational practice, thinking that leadership has an essentialist orientation that characterizes the leader behavior, leader communication or follower dependency.

We intended to apply, test and evaluate narrative-based and embodied learning approaches to developing Distributed Leadership Capability.

The goal of our work is to present the design and some of the results of our Action Research Trial - Romanian Narrative Research Trial, which included three practical workshops conducted with teachers - a range of school-based leaders (including MA students) between November 2020 – March 2021.

Climate change has led to a world wide increase in severe weather events . (Lozano, et al 2017, Clarke & Evans, 2019). In Australia, school communities and their surrounding landscapes have been ravaged by fire and flood and these events are becoming more common and critical events that impact schools are only likely to increase. This is not a problem associated only with the Australian continent, rather it is an urgent global concern. In the aftermath of recent catastrophic fires and floods, is an opportune time to learn how leaders are deal effectively with a crisis that affects so many people in their school communities.

During crises school leaders are forced to very abruptly deal with catastrophic events which require very specific leadership skills tools, strategies and practices. Scholars suggest that an alternative approach to leadership is required during times of crisis (Drysdale & Gurr 2017; Mutch 2015; Smith & Riley 2012). The experiences of those who have faced these challenges in the past offer an insight into not just what works well, but also it indicates what resources need to be developed. Moreover, how leaders lead through crises and consideration of the unique strengths and initiatives developed by school communities is an area identified for further research (Okilwa & Barnett, 2021).

This presentation shares findings from a study which is premised on a theoretical framework drawn from draws both leadership and school crisis literature. The research question addresses the features of school leaders’ communication that are required in times of crisis. The objective of the study is to map the extant literature on how school leaders communicate during crises and explore the features of communication of school leaders who experienced catastrophic bushfires. When a major fire occurs in a school, the impact can be felt for years to come and how school communities rebuild depends on strong leadership (Nye, 2016).

The importance of school leaders’ communication during crisis events cannot be underestimated. Communication during crises has to be effective and is key in navigating through the event and its aftermath. Effective communication is important for protecting lives during the crisis, maintaining the reputation of the school, and mitigating any negative repercussions associated with the crisis (Coombs, 2019). Although traditional means of communication may be obstructed during a crisis, finding a means for rapid and accurate communications can mitigate losses and foster trust between school leaders school and those affected (Alanezi, 2021). School leaders filter messages from mainstream news outlets and social media to reassure teachers and parents (Hume et al., 2021) and, in turn, they are responsible for brokering information to the community and public. This requires expertise in working with the media. Moreover communication is an important element in the recouperation process as leaders deal with communities in trauma and shock.

General description and research questions

The decision making in a crisis situation is affected directly by the personality characteristics of the principal who will seize the opportunity appropriately in order to learn through it (Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Bolman & Deal, 2008; Saiti, Saitis & Gounaropoulos, 2008). The present study aims to showcase those personality traits of the principals, in Greek primary schools, which contribute during the process of decision making in a crisis situation at a school unit. The research questions are the following:

1) What personality traits do primary school principals in Greece believe they have for crisis management decision-making process?

2) How does principal’s gender affect personality traits in the crisis management decision-making process?

Theoretical framework

The principal’s personality is directly related to the decision making and, consequently, to the school management. Those individuals who are aware of the traits of their personality are in a position to optimize them effectively during the process of decision making (Oplatka, 2004).

According to Seeger (2006) and Bundy, Pfarrer, Short and Coombs (2017), a crisis generates new conditions which differ from the standard context of decision making, considering that they are characterized by high levels of uncertainty, limited response time, lack of information, stress, and pressure.

Regardless of the uncertainty, the tension and the intricacy that are induced by a crisis, the principal should take both immediate and accurate decisions (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Thus, both decisiveness, which is defined as the principal’s ability to think and act based on the available tools and practices (Cooper, 2007), and the experience, namely, the comparison of the current crisis situation to an older one, owning to acquiring knowledge of the past which is applicable to a current condition (Murawski, 2011), play a significant role in the process of decision making in a crisis situation. Equally important are the adaptability, the composure, the dedication to the goals that have been set, as well as the communication and cooperative skills (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Cooper, 2007).

In addition, research has shown (Sergent & Stajkovic, 2020; Hoobler, Masterson, NKomo & Michel, 2018; Ryan, Haslam, Morgenroth, Rink, Stoker & Peters, 2016) that the gender of the principal determines the characteristics of their personality, when they are called to deal with a crisis. At the same time, the total way of handling a crisis is affected.

In addition to physical health, mental health is an essential part of life. According to the World Health Organisation (2005), mental health is an essential dimension of a comprehensive understanding of health. Recent evidence suggests that mental stress and strain at work is a public health challenge that needs to be taken seriously. It is not only associated with high levels of suffering on the part of those affected, but also with a burden on the social system. As well as the obvious costs associated with absenteeism, there are also costs that are less obvious, such as presenteeism, lost productivity, problems associated with low levels of employee engagement and problems associated with a negative corporate culture (Iyarn, 2020).

This challenge is a national and global issue. For example, Bryan, Bryce & Roberts (2021) report from a longitudinal perspective that changing mental health has more than three times the effect on absenteeism as changing physical health in the UK. As well, comprehensive studies have been carried out for Germany. Based on an analysis of company absenteeism by the major statutory health insurers, the Federal Chamber of Psychotherapists (BPtK, 2018) concludes that the number of insured persons in Germany who were incapacitated by mental illness within one year increased from 3.3% to 5.5% between 2000 and 2017. Brandt (2021) supports these findings and reports that in Germany about 265 days of incapacity to work per 100 insured persons can be attributed to mental health problems. However, certain occupational groups appear to be at a higher risk of being reported to the employer as incapacitated due to mental illness.

Using data from the BIBB/IAB structural survey, Hasselhorn and Nübling (2004) were able to show that the risk of experiencing work-related psychological exhaustion is particularly high for teachers, comparing 67 occupational groups. Data from the BIBB/BAuA employment survey of 2006 and 2012 also point to a high level of mental exhaustion among teachers, although this level is just as high for members of other social professions (Cramer, Merk & Wesselborg, 2014). The results of a recent German study show that 45 per cent of the school principals and school board members surveyed find it difficult to relax at the end of the working day and a third of them often/always feel mentally exhausted (Dadaczynski, Okan & Messer, 2021).

In addition, studies by the Association of the Bavarian Economy [Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft e.V.] (2021) show that educational staff are a particular risk group for mental illness and are particularly affected by the risk of burnout syndrome. As mentioned above, the symptoms of mental illnesses, such as the burnout syndrome, are manifested at the individual level, at the interpersonal level and at the institutional level. They are not only affective and cognitive, but also manifest themselves on a physiological level and affect the motivation and behaviour of those affected. This is why school leaders have a special role to play in their leadership function. Maslach and Leiter (2017) support this assumption, highlighting that employees working in the education system are at increased risk of burnout in terms of lower self-efficacy, emotional exhaustion and lower identification with work.

Empirical research on the mental health of school leaders is still in its infancy, although there is now considerable evidence on the mental health of teachers. Based on evidence-based knowledge, assumptions can be derived to fill the research gap. The aim of the scientific presentation is to answer the question of the extent to which an imbalance between one's own work commitment and the lack of compensation influences possible burnout.

The professionalization of school leaders is frequently developed and debated all over the world. In recent decades, almost all OECD countries and EU member states have invested massively in school leader professional development and training, and this tendency can be seen worldwide (Huber, 2010). One important reason for these investments is the growing recognition of school leaders as important for the core practices of teaching and learning in schools (Bøje & Frederiksen 2019). School leaders are increasingly perceived as key agents for the quality of teaching and learning, teacher professional development but also for improvement and capacity building in schools (Rönnström, 2021).

Although the meaning of ‘professional’ and ‘professionalization’ vary between a plurality of contexts and school leadership connoisseurs, there are some converging trends in recent developments and debates. Some use the term ‘professional’ mainly as an indicator of being successful or good at one’s job. This way of using the term is reflected in research explicating the meaning of successful or effective school leadership (See Drysdale & Gurr, 2017; Hallinger, 2011; Leithwood, 2021; Leithwood et al, 2004; Robinson et al, 2009). Others use the term to indicate membership a of group of educational practitioners or a learning community, or as being a co-creator of communities of practitioners within or linked to schools (See Zachrisson and Johansson, 2010; Chirichello, 2010). There are also researchers who use the term in order to signify membership in qualified and socially closed communities drawn from conditions developed in the sociology of professions. The latter researchers commonly argue that school leaders run the risk of de-professionalization despite massive investments in professional development and training (Bøje & Frederiksen 2019).

The urgency of present time school leader professional development investments is not primarily linked to professionalization in the common or traditional senses; rather, it´s linked to the increasing globalization, economization, rationalization and re-organization of the public sector in general and the education sector in particular (Pashiardis and Brauckman, 2019; Ringarp and Rönnström, 2021; Hood, 1995). In our hyper modern world, changing landscapes of professionalization and professions are emerging and they are growing in importance, and they are important to questions of who educators are and who they are becoming. We can no longer fully grasp recent and ongoing professionalization movements by focusing on skills, capabilities, professional membership or criteria drawn from standard textbooks in the sociology of the professions. There is a need for new frameworks and alternative ways of conceptualizing the professionalization of school leaders in order to understand the scope, character and urgency of school leader professional development and training in present time.

In this paper, we will discuss and analyze the professionalization of school leaders as taking place within a changing landscape of professionalization due to recent globalization, economization, rationalization and organization in the education sector. We will illuminate an ongoing global movement and converging strategies among many European nations with regard to the professionalization of school leaders, and we will discuss their scope, character and urgency. We will in depth discuss recent school leader professional development and training in Sweden as an example of the changing landscape of professionalization. Finally, we will argue that the school leader profession is growing into an organizational profession in Sweden and elsewhere (Evetts, 2011; Ringarp and Rönnström, 2021). This is rarely recognized in recent debates and research on school leader professional development. Organizational professionalization differs from occupational professionalization (as the latter is explicated within the sociology of the professions), and this development has consequences for the knowledge-base, training and autonomy of school leaders and how they are expected to relate to other professionals in schools.

It is acknowledged that school leaders, in this case principals, deputy principals and head of departments have an influence on quality education. The challenge is to determine the development opportunities for school leaders for the complex and diverse contexts in which these leaders must function (Daniëls, Hondeghem and Dochy 2019). School leader’s professional development is an international phenomenon as indicated by Brauckmann, Pashiardis and Ärlestig (2023). Braukmann et al, supported Hallinger (2018) who emphasised that the context for leadership, which will provide the lens for the paper – must be considered for professional development for principals.

Leadership development as international phenomenon is situated in context of the diversity of schools; from urban inner-city schools to suburban school in diverse socio economic as well as mono and multi-cultural communities to rural schools. The cultural, language and socioeconomic diversity in South Africa is similar to what is experienced in Europe (Derring, Brundrett, Slavikova, Karabec, Murden and Nicolaidou 2005; Madalinska-Michalak, 2022) with challenges with regards to immigration and a movement towards a more (political?) preferred homogeneous (or less diverse) society which needs to be managed in society, which includes schools (Bush and Jackson 2002). The diversity context resonates strongly with social identity (in and out groups, us and them) which will also be part of the presentation (Heystek and Lumby 2011; Lumby and English 2009). The perspective from South Africa may contribute to the understanding of leadership development as indicated by Thody, Papanaoum, Johansson and Pashiardis (2007) and Karstanje and Webber (2008). Leadership development are therefore challenged to be at least aware of different forms of diversity and to take it into consideration.

Although there are no official requirements for any management or leadership development or qualification before promotion to any of the above-mentioned leadership positions in South African schools, there are different formats of professional development available for example university qualifications, development provided by unions, NGOs, departments of education as well in-school development opportunity (Bryan 2011; Kirori and Dickinson 2020). This paper based on a specific university-based qualification with the goal of the programme must be that the program must lead to improvement of quality of education at schools. The research question addressed in the paper is therefore: Are there any indications that students are able to improve their schools from what they learned in the two-year academic program in their divers’ contexts?

This is a key issue for any development programme since development cannot be a goal on its own; it must be contextual, and it can be expected that there must be some change and improvement from the development opportunity. School leaders, and specifically school principals, are expected to provide leadership for quality education and school performance (Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, and McKee 2014) which must be linked to professional development of school leaders (Brauckmann, Pashiardis and Ärlestig 2023).

Except for the format of the program (university qualification in this case) other contextual factors has been explored in the research which may have an influence on the expected positive outcome of development (change and improvement): the funding of the programme (self or outside - sponsor), the selection for participation in the programme which may have an influence on the determination and motivation of participants in a programme, as well the question “what is in it for me?”. These factors may have different implications in different divers’ societies on the potential to change and improve schools. In the South African context, it becomes crucial questions (Moorosi and Grant 2018; Naicker and Mestry 2016).

School leadership and management are key to teachers' professional learning, especially if the leader incorporates teachers' individual characteristics into organizational development activities, thus making teachers open and engaged in professional learning activities (Robinson, Lloyd & Rowe, 2008; Sagnak et al, 2015), while low engagement and motivation can be observed when individual characteristics are not taken into account (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Furthermore, leaders can support teachers' professional learning by providing an appropriate learning environment, both structurally (e.g. time) and through the shaping of the organisational culture (e.g. The complexity of the leadership role and the differentiation of its perception through leadership theory research has been explored in detail in the theoretical research of Krüger and Scheerens (2012). In our analysis, we have mainly drawn on two models, instructional leadership and transformational leadership approaches. The former captures the image of a distinctive professional leader who is knowledgeable in his or her field (Robinson, Lloyd and Rowe, 2008), while the latter sees the leader's task as initiating changes that move the organisational culture towards the values of collegiality, planning and development along common goals (Marzano et al., 2004; Krüger and Scheerens, 2012).

By creating formal learning situations, building trust within the organisation and creating opportunities for peer learning school leaders can have a strong influence on what and how teachers learn in schools (Leithwood et al, 2010, Haiyan et al. 2016). Middle managers can play a key role in supporting teachers' continuous professional development. The creation and generation of knowledge are based on the interaction of organisational members, which requires a high level of commitment. The key to this can be a middle-up-down approach (Nonaka & Toyama, 2005), where middle leadership translate the organisational vision into concrete concepts and create the conditions for knowledge creation. Middle leadership may be able to serve as experts and help teachers to link new theoretical knowledge with local practices. Furthermore, they can lead teachers' research-oriented professional learning (Soekijad et al. 2011, Stoll et al. 2015), and they can cross knowledge boundaries horizontally and vertically (e.g. between managerial and professional knowledge, partnerships with networks outside the institution) and provide innovative learning environments for their colleagues (Hargreaves and Fullan 2012).

It is evident that the middle leadership has a unique position in the school organization. Our research focuses on exploring this unique perspective in terms of individual professional development and organizational learning aspects. To realize the goals of the research we have conducted an online survey on a representative stratified random sample of Hungarian teachers. The details of our research methodology and preliminary results will be detailed in the next parts of the abstract.

Project no. 128738 has been implemented with the support provided from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund of Hungary, financed under the OTKA-K_18 funding scheme.

Controversial issues (CI) are a part of everyday life in schools’, inside and outside the classroom. How principals understand and manage these issues are therefore an interesting topic of inquiry. In this paper we set out to examine, from the theoretical standpoint of agency, principals understanding of what a CI is and how they can and cannot be managed. CIs has been a recurring topic in the educational literature for the last four decades (Hand & Levinson 2012; Anders & Shudak 2016) and in a globalised world characterized by polarisation and mediatisation the need for schools to handle CI has potentially become increasingly salient (Larsson & Lindström 2020). However, what is perceived as a controversial issue differs between contexts and can change rapidly.

The primary focus in the literature concerning CIs is teachers and teaching situations. This paper takes another point of departure focusing on principals and how they understand and manage CIs. Even though CIs are present outside formal teaching situations at the school, research on principals’ understandings and management of CIs are scarce and seldomly explicitly addressed. In addition, international educational policy discussions have underscored the importance that principals (not just teachers) manage and develop strategies in relation to CIs (Council of Europe, 2017). The aim of this paper is to explore how principals understand and manage CIs, more specifically the following research questions are applied:

1. What do school leaders understand as controversial issues in the Swedish education system?
2. How and why do school leaders manage controversial issues in the Swedish education system?

To categorize and analyse what principals understand as CIs (RQ1) the literature on what constitutes a CI is invoked. There is an ongoing debate on what criteria should be applied to deem something a CI (cf. Anders and Shudak, 2012). This debate differentiates between behavioural, political, epistemic, social, and theoretical criteria for defining an issue as controversial. However, this debate is primarily grounded in the question what teachers should (and should not) teach as a controversial issue which means that several of the criteria are unapplicable in principals professional practice. Based on the literature and the specific professional practice of principals’ we apply the following definition: a controversial issue is any issue that creates opposition or disputes at an organisational or societal level in schools and pre-schools.

In order to analyse how principals manage CIs (RQ2) we build on Emirbayer and Miche’s (1998) conceptualisation of agency as well as Eteläpelto et al (2013) conceptualisation of professional agency. Emirbayer and Miche’s (1998, p. 953) argue that agency should be seen as ‘temporally embedded process of social engagement’ informed by and directed towards the past, future, and present. This is complemented by Eteläpelto et al’s (2013) understanding of professional agency, which is dependent on professional knowledge and competencies as well as specific conditions of the workplace. Taken together, we understand professional agency as a dynamic concept rooted in temporal dimensions that emerges in relation to socio-cultural conditions of the workplace and professional identity, knowledge, and experience.

Relevance and research question

La Verneda-Sant Martí school is an adult school located in a deprived area in Barcelona, and the first experience of adult education in Spain published in the Harvard Educational Review (Sánchez Aroca, 1999). Renowned scholars such as Catherine Compton-Lilly (University of Wisconsin), John Comings (Center for International Education, University of Massachusetts at Amherst), or Courtney Cazen (Harvard University) have expressed the impact of visiting the school, highlighting how it contributes to transforming people´s lives through education (Escola d’Adults de la Verneda, 2023). Since its foundation in 1978, the school has increased the participation of the educational community, multiplying the learning processes of vulnerable groups in challenging situations.

Although the analysis of the actions contributing to school improvement in La Verneda-Sant Martí has been widely developed, the investigations about what facilitates the creation of community leaders in the school are limited. In this vein, the following research question underlines this contribution:

- To what extent the forms of leadership development in the school are aligned with the dialogic leadership?

Thus, this paper aims to study how this school members create and develop leadership practices resonating with the conceptualization of dialogic leadership. To this aim, one of the pillars at the core of the study is to analyse how the participation of the whole community is generating leadership beyond the school walls. Concerning the ECER2023 theme “The Value of Diversity in Education and Educational Research”, this paper includes the diversity of agents exercising leadership in La Verneda-Sant Martí school, to provide evidence regarding the full potential of diverse students and members of the community to transform education through educational leadership.

Conceptual/Theoretical framework

The role of dialogue is at the core of theoretical and empirical works on educational leadership (Shields, 2019) and different leadership conceptualizations highlight the dialogical dimension of learning to build and consolidate effective leadership practices (Bennet, Wise, Woods & Harvey, 2003; Pont et al, 2008; Hallinger, 2009). These contributions resonate with dialogic dynamics of change in societies (Flecha, Gómez & Puigvert, 2003) that serve to understand the school systems as a vivid agent, with openness towards families and educational agents, including what occurs within the school community in a broad sense (students, families, teachers, volunteers…). In line with this approach, dialogic leadership is conceptualized as the process by which leadership practices of all the members of the educational community are created, developed, and consolidated (Padrós & Flecha, 2014). Under this conceptualization of dialogic leadership, the community can exercise their leadership capacity by sharing knowledge and building capacity together. This facilitates the creation of an environment in which the skills and expertise of grassroots actors can also capitalize in advancing towards ‘accepting responsibility for enabling others to achieve shared purpose under conditions of uncertainty’ (Ganz, 2009). Research on dialogic leadership has demonstrated that leaders in different positions can contribute to improving democracy in organizations and at diverse educational levels (Campos, Aubert, Guo & Joanpere, 2020; Redondo-Sama, 2020). Furthermore, there is evidence of the relevance of empowering the diversity of communities existing in schools to create, develop and sustain leadership practices within and beyond the school. The literature shows that it is necessary to advance knowledge about the synergies between all educational agents to identify dialogic leadership practices that improve education.

In relation to the conference theme, the research featured in the paper is situated within the religiously diverse and educationally divided schooling system in Northern Ireland. As such, it speaks directly to the conference theme and the need to understand the diversity, complexity and impact of context as it relates to small rural primary school leadership.

According to Eurostat (2020), in total, just over a quarter (28%) of the population across 28

European countries live in what can be designated a rural area. These areas, however, vary markedly in socio-economic, geographical and educational terms. For example, while rural areas close to urban centres are likely to be economically dynamic, remote and sparsely populated areas present weaker economic growth and experience population decline and reduction in services, including education. It is precisely these areas that are served by small rural primary schools, largely defined by the number of pupils enrolled, ranging from under 70 to under 140 for primary schools (Fargas-Malet and Bagley, 2022). Throughout Europe, the principals of these small rural schools appear to face similar challenges (Fargas-Malet and Bagley, 2022), most seriously living under constant threat of closure or amalgamation, due to a combination of factors. These include the rationalization of services; a decrease in student numbers; difficulties in attracting and retaining staff and lack of funding (Bagley and Hillyard, 2019; Beach and Vigo Arrazola, 2020). In contrast to this pan-European policy trajectory and its cultural, socio-economic educational impact, previous research findings have championed the cause of small rural schools and their leadership, highlighting the potential they have for adding educational value, and the building of community engagement and social cohesion for sustainable change (Gill, 2017).

In this context, the paper focuses on the complexities associated with contemporary small rural primary school leadership in the post-conflict setting of Northern Ireland. It draws on case study research undertaken in five small rural primary schools and their surrounding diverse and divided communities, with a particular focus on the experiences and perspectives of the five principals of these schools. A recent scoping review of research on small rural schools in Europe (Fargas-Malet and Bagley, 2022), while revealing the similarities in the challenges facing rural school principals, found a significant number of studies remained under theorised (Fargas-Malet and Bagley, 2022). In attempting to fill this gap, the research findings are theoretically and conceptually informed by Bourdieu (1984) and his work on field, habitus and capital as a means of understanding practice. As the neo-liberal economic and political fields contaminate the field of education, a contextual understanding of the complex and shifting social space small rural primary school principals occupy, along with their habitus and the capital they deploy, is of central importance to understanding practice (Addison, 2009; Clarke and Wildy, 2004; Eacott, 2010; Torrance and Angelle, 2019). This understanding is especially relevant to a post-conflict divided society such as Northern Ireland. Thus, while the research context is Northern Ireland, the findings and outcomes from this study are of wider academic relevance and significance for those interested in a deeper theoretical understanding of small rural primary school leadership especially in divided and diverse post-conflict settings, on which research is extremely limited.

The work presented here is a proposal that focuses on schools that serve through Professional Learning Communities (PLC) that show trajectories of successful innovation and are recognised as ‘schools that transform’ their reality, culture and practice in order to respond to current challenges and improve their educational results. From this, an interest arises in expanding knowledge about the dynamics that can be carried out in schools to involve students in school governance from a child-friendly perspective. With this emphasis, two questions were formulated:

1. What kind of leadership creates spaces for real student participation in school governance?

2. What strategies can be implemented in the school to give students a voice in decision-making and change?

This study is part of the project ‘Extended professional learning communities and collaborative networks for sustainable development and inclusion: new governance and social capital’ (Ref: B-SEJ-234-UGR20). Funded by the European Regional Development Fund.

Theoretical framework

Student participation is increasingly a global phenomenon as stated in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Locating student voice in schools and classrooms - governed by entrenched traditional student-teacher roles - means that student influence in decision-making remains a problematic issue.

Previous studies have shown that giving students a voice is a way of valuing their interests and motivations, encouraging their active participation in school decision-making, and moving towards educational change and improvement by (Barker, 2018; Hardie, 2015; Lucena et al., 2021; Sargeant & Gillett-Swan, 2019) sharing school responsibilities.

However, it is common to find studies that approach the teaching profession and leadership in education in terms of student learning from a colonising and despotic perspective, i.e. for children, but without them. Several authors have already denounced the fact that the impact on learning and the improvement of education is sought, but the voice of students is not taken into account (Rudduck & McIntyre, 2007; Tonucci, 2015).

When we talk about learner voice, we are referring to any initiative that favours and encourages student participation in schools, as well as school experiences with highly variable pedagogical scope and meaning (John-Akinola et al., 2014; Susinos & Ceballos, 2012).

Faced with this reality and in order to guarantee the exercise of children's rights in schools and to transform the traditional style of governance, a horizontal, distributed and successful leadership is needed (Rincón-Gallardo et al., 2019). A leadership that is capable of responding appropriately to the demands of specific situations and that will depend on the ability to take advantage of the elements that are given to it to build a joint school vision (Bush, 2018).

For this vision to be extended to the whole community, the leader must bring trust and encourage good communication practices among members (Robinson, 2019). The driver for change must be collaboration, mutual support and trust in staff, in what Hargreaves & O'Connor (2020) have called ‘collaborative professionalism (when teaching together means learning from everyone)’.

Schools that take the Professional Learning Communities model, students, school leaders and teachers work together as partners to make change decisions and co-produce the pedagogy and curriculum of the school, as well as the relationship dynamics in the school (Prenger et al., 2021).

In this paper, leadership and governing in the Swedish, public school sector at the municipal level is examined. The concept of ‘governing chain’ is used to picture an ideal model of governing. Political intentions manifested in decisions made by central and local government, are expected to come to life as public officials, principals and teachers enact those decisions. Though reality is more complex and chaotic than this over-simplified picture suggests, the governing chain serves as an analytical model for our analysis. The links in this chain are actors upholding key functions at different levels. Both within and between these, there are intervening spaces in which policy intentions are being interpreted, transmitted, and translated.

The Swedish Education Act (SFS 2010:800) identifies the organizer of education, the superintendent, the principal, and the teacher as core links, responsible for enactment in the governing chain. Both public sector and private sector organizers are present in the Swedish educational system, and although they share the same mission, their capacity to enact varies. Principals are expected both to act as managers and administrators responsible for day-to-day operations, and as pedagogical leaders with a particular responsibility for improving teaching and learning activities. The Swedish Education Act was thoroughly reviewed in 2010, and this revision sought – among other things – to emphasise the principal as a core actor with great responsibility in the governing chain. A more recent change in law in 2018 forced organizers of education to appoint a function as superintendent if they had not already done so. The intention was to safeguard that national laws and regulations are met by the organizer, and the primary objective for the superintendent is to see to this.

In the eyes of the national legislature, principals and superintendents are identified as vital links in the governing chain. They are employed by the organizer, who may set out additional objectives that they are expected to meet. In this paper we focus solely on Swedish municipalities as organizers of education. Sweden is usually described as a decentralised welfare state and local government are self-governing bodies with strong financial and political autonomy. Both principals and superintendents are expected to meet the expectations and interests of both the state and the municipality as organizer, which in practice may turn out to be an act of balancing on slack line. Is this balancing somehow reflected in the leadership practices of the two types of functions?

The aim is to describe and analyse how superintendents and principals perceive their mandate and roles in the local, municipal governing chain and how they balance and negotiate between those, in the intervening spaces of the governing chain. Our ambition is to contribute to greater knowledge on how principals and superintendents perceive their leadership in the context in which it is situated, and how the leadership of these functions is (dis-)connected in the local governing chain. Although the results are valid in a Swedish context, the theoretical implications are of general interest for the broader research society, both in the European, and in an international context.

Studies of leadership should take context into consideration. By context we mean both the municipal context, and the structure of the local governing chain. The guiding principles behind the system of governing can also be perceived as part of a wider context. The system of governing has the potential to both facilitate and constrain different types of leadership practices. Previous research has shown that there is a potential conflict between leadership ideals that favour democratic and participatory practices, and systems of governing that favour accountability and control.

Traditionally, the Swedish principal has been regarded “the first among equals” (Ullman, 1997), as part of the teaching profession rather than a profession in its own right. The emergence of New Public Management (NPM) in Sweden and numerous other countries brought changes in the organizational structure of welfare production and introduced new roles for principals, emphasizing “keeping budgets, improving results and increasing competitiveness” (Jarl et al., 2012: 429). This has been described as a discursive shift, with “transformations both in the practices of school headship and in the ways that school heads think and talk about their role” (Gewirtz and Ball, 2000: 253). One way of framing this development is in terms of an increased emphasis on educational accountability (Leithwood, 2001), more specifically external accountability (Elmore, 2005). Wermke et al. (2022) argue that Finnish and Norwegian principals have less decision-making capacity and are subjected to less control than their Swedish counterparts (particularly in the case of Finland, with an autonomous teaching profession and fewer controlling stakeholders). For Swedish school leaders, the combination of extended decision-making requirements and extended external control poses “risks of failures for which the principals will be made accountable" (Wermke et al., 2022: 745).

This paper explores how Swedish school leaders perceive their role in relation to teachers’ assessment, grading and accountability. In doing so, the paper seeks to interrogate how school leaders navigate in a landscape characterized by leadership ideals promoting distributed orientations to leadership; and a policy context permeated by notions of external accountability. The following research questions are posed:

- Which leadership practices do school leaders account for in relation to assessment and grading?

- Which leadership ideals are manifested in school leaders’ account of their leadership practices?

- How do these leadership ideals align with an accountability-driven policy context?

In Sweden, the issue of grade inflation has been a matter of public and political debate for some time (Riksrevisionen, 2022), not least in relation to the marketized school system (Lundahl et al., 2013). According to the Swedish School Act, the principal is to ensure that teachers’ grading is carried out in line with legislation. At the same time, the principal’s mandate in relation to the actual grading procedure is very limited and is almost exclusively the teacher’s domain. Nonetheless, the Swedish National Agency for Education states that “the principal has a key role in teacher’s efforts towards fair and equivalent grades” (Skolverket, 2022: 23). Recently, new regulation regarding grading was introduced, which increases the scope for the professional judgment of teachers in relation to the syllabus. In the government bill (Prop. 2021/22:36) preceding the new legislation, the notion that the reform will have consequences for principals is mentioned only briefly and without specifying what these consequences are, thus reinforcing the sense of ambiguity and unclarity regarding the role of the school leader with regards to assessment and grading.

With their dominant position in the public policy debate, leadership theories are here described in terms of leadership ideals (Ek Österberg and Johansson, 2019), with different normative statements about the role of the leader. The leadership ideals which resonate with principals may align more or less with the policy context at hand, specifically a policy context where external accountability is a prominent feature. The study presented in this paper sheds light on the potential conflict between the principal’s task to act as a both a manager and a pedagogical leader – a task which the principal is to be held accountable for – and the mandate and objectives to fulfil that task in practice.

The idea that educational systems and schools must be adaptive in order to keep pace with the changing social and cultural realities is certainly not new. Yet, the particularly disruptive characteristics of the present disorienting age (Wergin, 2019), in which everything is in flux or in what some complexity theorists have called a 'continuous disequilibrium' (Uhl‐Bien & Marion, 2009), have made adaptivity an imperative for organizations and social systems. Informed by developments in complexity theory and adaptive learning theories (Heifetz, 1994), primarily in the fields of organizational leadership (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2009), 'adaptivity' has gradually gained currency in educational discourse and has become a conceptual lens for thinking about school transformation (Hung et al, 2014), school improvement (Harris, 2005), learning processes and pedagogy (Schwartz et al, 2005). There is a growing understanding that 'adaptivity' must be accounted for so that schools remain effective and relevant for students in the present knowledge society and global economy. Notions such as the 'adaptive school' (Gramston and Wellman, 2016; Kershner and McQuillan, 2016), adaptive learning (Wergin, 2019), adaptive expertise (Schwartz et al, 2005), adaptive teacher expertise (Anthony, Hunter, and Hunter, 2015), and adaptive leadership (Harris, 2005; Linsky and Lawrence, 2011) are becoming more central in attempts by educational thinkers, policy makers and teacher educators to envisage how to transform schools for the 21st century. At its core, adaptability discourse is essentially about the attempt to bridge the gap or tension between innovation (creativity) and effectiveness (stability). It is the possibility of holding the two competing skills together that characterizes adaptive organization or complex adaptive systems and individuals. Together with 21st century skills discourse, policy papers are now centering on adaptivity as one of the core attributes of future-oriented education, which effectively responds to the complexities and dilemmas characterizing a volatile, complex and ambiguous world (OECD, 2018).

Parallel to the above discourse, in the past few years the notion of social justice has been proliferating in educational leadership discourse and has gained international recognition (Author, 2021; Bogotch & Sheilds, 2014; Gümüş, Arar & Oplatka, 2021). The increased attention to social justice issues can itself be considered as a kind of adaptive endeavor to changing social circumstances: Given changing school demographics, heightening achievements gaps, and student immigration and mobility, school leaders are facing pressing issues of individual and group marginalization and discrimination. While multiple meanings of social justice are found in the literature, “a common understanding among many leadership scholars is that social justice focuses on the experiences of marginalized groups and inequities in educational opportunities and outcomes” (Furman, 2012, p. 194). Social justice leadership, then, is primarily about confronting and possibly eradicating the discrimination and oppression of marginalized individuals or groups largely on the basis of color, race, disability, gender, and ethnic-cultural background. Leadership scholars are calling schools to become more inclusive and attend to the diverse needs of individuals and groups who have been discriminated and marginalized (e.g., Theoharis & Scanlon, 2020) and call for the preparation of social justice educational leaders (e.g., Diem & Carpenter, 2012; Jean-Marie et al, 2009).

The aim of the present paper is to explore possible connections between the discourse on 'adaptivity' and the discourse on social justice educational leadership. Despite their different ends, it is my impression that both discourses share basic principles and that the dialogue between the two discourses may promote important insights for each discourse. I shall discuss the connecting links (principles) between the two discourses and briefly discuss the implications of connecting the two discourses for social justice educational leadership discourse.

Many people recognize that PISA examines what students know in science, reading and mathematics. But PISA also examines students’ wellbeing and covers both negative outcomes (e.g. anxiety) and the positive impulses that promote healthy development (e.g. interest, engagement and motivation). The OECD (2017) comparisons on wellbeing is an example of a growing international consideration for the young generations’ health and wellbeing. Within EU an expert group will in 2023 start to develop proposals on strategies for supporting wellbeing. However, there is yet no consensus on what the responsibility of schools and school leaders are. The curricula between countries differ.

Sweden is a country which has stipulated that health and wellbeing is the responsibility of schools and principals. The National School Act (SFS 2010:800) requires that schools must have multi-professional teams of doctors, nurses, counsellors, psychologist and teachers with competence in special education. These teams are to cooperate with the teachers and be involved in the regular school work. Since Sweden combines national regulations with a decentralized local responsibility for implementation, including a school level (with principals) as well as a municipality level (with superintendents and other leaders) the aim of the paper is to explore the leadership of this complex local curriculum making. The research question is:

• What are the leadership challenges in transforming the holistic approach of the national curricula, to local curriculum processes?

Until recently questions of health and wellbeing related to education has predominately been studied within the field of health education (see for example; Boot & de Vries, 2010; Carlsson, 2016; Jourdan et al. 2016, Kostenius, 2021). Within this research a whole school approach with a focus on professionals other than teachers, including school nurses, counselors and others, has been recognized. But few studies so far have had the focus on school leadership for learning, health and wellbeing (XX).

The primary focus of school leadership research has often been on instructional practices and what successful school leaders do to improve students’ learning in the classroom (Leithwood et al., 2019). For over a decade, these leadership practices have been central to school leaders’ work. In many countries, they have even been established as standards within preparation programs (Young et al., 2017) and linked to various leadership models such as distributed leadership, instructional leadership and transformational leadership (Gumus et al., 2018; Leithwood et al., 2019). It is stressed that teachers’ work is the most important factor in students’ results, and when wellbeing is added, that it improves the chances of student success (Leithwood et al., 2019). However, a holistic approach including multi-professional coordination and a multipurpose approach including different aims for schools is absent in most school leadership research. There is, however, a growing interest in complexity (Day et al., 2016; Hallinger, 2018; Hawkins and James, 2018). This paper brings together the research of principals with that on superintendents (se for example Moos et al, 2016; Ärlestig & Johansson, 2020; Sigurðardóttir et al., 2022). It explores the complexity of coordinating curriculum processes within and between different system levels.

The paper uses a curriculum theory perspective developed within Sweden (Dahllöf, 1967; 1999, Lindensjö & Lundgren 1986; XX). The focus is on the how the transformation of national curricula transforms into local curriculum processes. This takes place within and between two local system levels, the meso level (meso) and the micro level. The theoretical contribution of the paper is that it highlights the importance of coordination of curriculum processes within and between different local system levels. This in turn requires a coordinated leadership.

This paper aims to highlight diversity in educational leadership by exploring the middle leader role without formal managerial power in Higher Education (HE). Based on ongoing research including a systematic literature review this paper contributes new insights and perspectives on the role's possibilities, challenges, and limitations. The study asks the following questions:

• how is the middle leader role constructed as a solution to which problem?
• how can the middle leader role adequately function in higher education organisations?

The middle leaders may be labelled as study leaders, educational leaders, course coordinators, or programme leaders. A common characteristic is that they are both teachers, and researchers, and additionally are formally appointed to take special organisational responsibility for coordinating and developing education/teaching. Empirically, the role seems quite implicit and hence, invisible, where the middle leaders find themselves on their own, navigating tensions between a formally appointed role and the lack of formal role structures, expectations, and managerial power. In research, there are a limited number of English-speaking and Scandinavian studies focusing on the role. In some of the few studies, a common theme is that educational leaders often lack formal power to lead and thus, are caught in the middle between management and staff (Gjerde & Alvesson, 2020; Marshall, 2012). Even though there are individual studies, and the research interest has been around for some time, the field is nevertheless sparse and fragmented, lacking a more robust and explicit picture of how these middle leader roles are organisationally constructed and how they can handle the role.

In general educational leadership has over the last two decades, become a common response to quality demands in HE (e.g. Stensaker, Elken, & Maassen, 2019, p. 91), where leadership is understood as having an impact on the quality of student learning (e.g. Cardno, 2014, p. 352) and where educational leadership is needed to support educational development in local collegial contexts (e.g. Mårtensson & Roxå, 2016, p. 248). In research, educational leadership is a broad and messy concept. For example, educational leadership is often linked to the concept of distributed leadership commonly understood as an advantageous way for management to delegate some of their decision-making power to special responsible employees (e.g. Kjeldsen, Quick, Jønsson, & Andersen, 2020, p. 54). The idea is that management can place formal managerial power on middle leaders outside of traditional management structures. Educational leadership can also be related to middle leaders both with and without formal managerial power in the same study (e.g. Bryman, 2007; Grunefeld et al., 2017) if these different leaders have to do with influencing the goal-directed behaviour of others (Bryman, 2007, pp. 694-695). Both examples are ignoring the fact that middle leaders without formal power have different possibilities than those with formal power to influence the behaviour of others within the authority and power structures. Given this background, it is relevant to distinguish the middle leader in this study from those with fixed managerial roles and who are part of hierarchies and thus explore the role as a role ‘in itself’ (Lassen, 2020, p. 265).

Theoretically, the paper draws upon and is inspired by Systems Theory, formulated by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998). The theory explicitly focuses on organisational systems and structures, including the concept of role and function that resonates with the focus of this study. Through a functional methodology (Luhmann, 2000, p. 94), it becomes possible to observe functional equivalents, by “[…] considering whether there are special system-dependent conditions” (Nissen, 2014, p. 189), that constructs and affects the middle leader’s possibility to function more adequately.

The concept of the ‘expert teacher’ has is an increasingly global phenomenon with many advanced systems investing in a formal designation, this is partly explained by education systems profound need to recruit and retain the best teachers, providing them with a career structure, maintaining their classroom impact and, in some designations, developing other teachers in the system. This research closely examines the purposes and structures of these evolving models and their successes and challenges in each national context and it traces global influences and the challenges of governance and political control of such designations. It also analyses 3 relatively new models ‘The Extended Teacher’ from Norway, ‘The Chartered Teacher’ in England and the Korean ‘Master Teacher’.

The concept of the ‘expert teacher’ has become an increasingly global phenomenon with many advanced systems investing in a formal designation. This phenomenon is partly explained by the need systems have to recruit and retain the best teachers and to provide them with a meaningful and high status career structure that maintains their impact in the classroom and, in some designations, on the development of other teachers in the system. There are many examples of the phenomenon with the Advanced Skills Teacher [AST] in Australia [over 30 years] and The Highly Accomplished Teacher [HAT]in the USA [28 years] being the most established. However some models have already come and gone – the AST in England 1997-2013, the Chartered Teacher in Scotland only lasted 5 years. There are new developments, the Chartered teacher in England, launched by the Chartered College of teaching in 2017 and the Highly Accomplished Teacher in Australia, now 4 years in development, Singapore is evolving an elaborate structure of Leading and Master teachers with several career pathways. Each of these models has been designed for the local system with different models of governance and control for example the totally independent National Board for Professional Teaching Standards in the USA, or the completely politically managed system in Singapore.

This research examines the purposes and structures of these evolving models and their successes and challenges in each national context. It traces global influences, for example the adoption of the the HAT designation in Australia, being adapted from the USA, the Chartered model beginning in England just as it is abolished in Scotland. These changes are part of the challenge of governance and political control of such designations and their relative stability or fragility.

Ontologically, the research adopts a critical realist perspective examining the expert teacher concept as fundamentally concerned with structural, systemic improvement, a potentially emancipatory project for the agentive teaching profession in each system. Epistemologically it adopts a phenomenological stance to understanding ‘expert teaching’ as a designation. It also examines the structures and stratifications in the system and the context of each society that may enable teacher emancipation or obstruct and diminish it. The analysis of 3 relatively new models ‘The Extended Teacher’ from Norway, ‘The Chartered Teacher’ in England and the Korean ‘Master Teacher’, traces the extent to which they are influenced by previous models in other jurisdictions and reveals that there are both global trends and local adaptations. There is also evidence of what may be deemed ‘expert teacher cultures’, that is how the ideologies infused in education systems dominate the character of what it means to be an expert teacher. Much of this ‘character’ is revealed through analysing the descriptors and standards used to define the teacher role and behaviours.

Objective: This study aims to explore how Chinese volunteer teachers enact their leadership. Generally, volunteer teachers are those who support teaching in underdeveloped areas without payment or with little payment (Zhou & Shang, 2011). This teacher group has been and is making immeasurable contributions to students’ learning, regional educational resources’ balance, and educational equality in underdeveloped areas, especially areas where education development lags (Duthilleul, 2005). Governments and non-governmental organizations in some countries and regions (e.g., China, America, and Africa) also constantly organize and implement diverse volunteer teaching programmes to exert the leadership of volunteer teachers (Koerner et al., 2008). Under the efforts of volunteer teachers, these public welfare activities positively influenced students’ development and social well-being. However, a few researchers paid attention to volunteer teaching activities, not to mention how volunteer teachers enact their leadership and the corresponding implications (Zhou & Shang, 2011).

Research Question: 1) how do volunteer teachers enact their leadership in a Chinese underdeveloped area? 2) what are the outcomes of their leadership’s enactments?

Theoretical Framework: Although it is challenging to gain consensus on defining teacher leadership (Wenner & Campbell, 2017), this study found two main trends in conceptualizing this term: competence- and interaction-oriented. Competence-oriented teacher leadership emphasizes that teacher leaders can engage colleagues in experimentation and examination of effective practices for students’ learning” (Wasley, 1991, p.170). However, interaction-oriented teacher leadership focuses on the relationship between teacher leaders and contexts. One high-incited definition is that “teacher leadership is the process by which teachers, individually or collectively, influence their colleagues, principals, and other members of school communities to improve teaching and learning practices with the aim of increased student learning and achievement (York-Barr & Duke, 2004).” Whether competence-oriented or interaction-oriented teacher leadership, teacher leaders tend to balance the relationship with different contexts. For example, to encourage teachers to master a specific teaching ability, teacher leaders would cooperate with teachers to explore this strategy and explain its benefits (Sinha & Hanuscin, 2017). As a result of teacher leadership’s enactment, teacher leaders’ dispositions and abilities in teaching and learning would be strengthened (Landa & Donaldson, 2022). Also, teacher leadership’s enactment could contribute to achieving educational goals in various sub-contexts (Akiba et al., 2019; Campbell et al., 2022).

However, there is a gap between the research and practice of volunteer teachers’ leadership (Zhou & Shang, 2011). Although many volunteer teaching activities are conducted, and volunteer teachers play a non-negligible role in alleviating educational inequality in the world (Koerner et al., 2008), these teachers’ leadership has not been thoroughly analyzed and discussed in the research field. This gap is, to some extent, detrimental to the improvement of volunteer teaching programmes and the preparation of volunteer teachers.

Therefore, this study was rooted in the Chinese context to research the enactment of volunteer teachers’ leadership in self, interpersonal, institutional, and socio-cultural sub-contexts. China has been and is now making national efforts to realize modernization, including getting rid of poverty in education, accompanied by apparent challenges and changes (Xi, 2022). For example, the central government encouraged high-quality teachers as volunteers to support the development of students, teachers, and schools in remote areas (Xi, 2022). These volunteer teachers need to coordinate and balance their relationship with self, interpersonal, institutional, and socio-cultural sub-contexts, and on this basis, exert their leadership to improve the educational quality in schools and regions. Thus, the Chinese context could help me understand volunteer teachers’ leadership from various perspectives.

Professional learning is more than a linear process leading to pre-determined outcomes (Boylan et al, 2018, Strom and Viesca, 2021). There can be no single way that education leaders can determine the best or most effective approaches. McMillan and Jess (2021) argue that teachers need to move towards adaptive classroom practice, “…moving beyond the simplistic transmission of knowledge by developing the ability to respond to, and influence, the dynamic and ever-changing environment in which they work” (p276). In the same way, education leaders need to be developing strategies of complex adaptive leadership to address this ‘complex turn’ rather than restricting their actions to outcome-focused approaches (Daly et al, 2020).

The research which underpinned this presentation focused less on the nature of professional learning and more on the leadership of professional learning in schools in Wales. The ways in which leaders build supportive cultures of professional learning is central to ensuring continuing learning. Leaders of professional learning at all levels will stimulate active learning and enable enquiry, analysis, reflection and evaluation in a professionally critical and constantly changing environment. While the essence of professional learning rests with the individual, the interactive, collaborative nature of most professional learning needs to be effectively managed and led .

In complex education environments, much professional learning is implicit and highly personal (Evans, 2019). What works in one case may not be effective or relevant in another. However, many aspects of professional learning need to be managed and led to ensure equity and opportunity. Leaders build professional learning networks, enabling everyone to achieve. Leaders oversee professional working relationships; they intervene when necessary and always support the professional learning of others. They create and sustain cultures of critical enquiry. With others, they ensure that professional learning is active, collaborative, inclusive and not insular. So, multi-dimensional strategies are needed if leaders are to guide and support their professional colleagues most effectively (Jones, 2020), and these need to be enacted through a variety of approaches, referred to in Wales as ‘the professional learning blend’ (Jones et al, 2019).

The research evidence base on leading professional learning is wide and growing (Hallinger and Kulophas, 2020). Much of it has only marginal relevance to individual school contexts and, being international in its scope, it carries with it cultural characteristics which make direct transferability tricky. Just because it worked there, it may not work here. There is also a tendency to focus on ‘what works’, identifying examples of ‘most-effective practice’ and implying that leaders should aspire to emulate these ways of doing things successfully. Much of this research is very helpful, for example the paper by Cordingley et al (2020) on “Developing great leadership of CPDL”. Occasionally we see research which throws light on less-effective practice, and this may be just as helpful to education leaders when working with their teams to confront the realities of highly complex situations. McChesney and Aldridge (2019) identify “What gets in the way” and map obstacles facing education leaders in implementing strategies for professional learning.

This presentation will focus on the implications for school leaders in Wales of the new National Entitlement to Professional Learning. It will resonate with professionals in other European countries and internationally beyond Europe. As an example of professional learning policy and practice within Europe, it is intended to raise questions and stimulate discussion on the appropriate use of linear models in setting out strategies for leading professional learning.

The paper forms the basis of a chapter in Innovation in Teacher Professional Learning: Research, Policy and Practice accepted for publication by Routledge in 2023.

Over the past decades, principals have experienced an increased pressure emanating from the responsibility for managing change to improve students’ learning outcomes. Leadership learning programmes appear to emphasize the generic requirements of the job rather than leaders’ individual capabilities, moral purpose and need to take an active role in learning (McKinsey & Company, 2010), and there seems to be a challenge in finding the balance between system and reform needs and school and individual needs. A Nordic school leader profile involves performing leadership within long-established democratic societies which build on equal and collaborative relationships between leaders and staff and doing this in parallel to meeting system level accountability demands. In practice, this implies balancing the democratic idea of involvement and exerting influence with necessary decision-making (Author et al 2016 a). Despite these challenges, there is consensus in the literature that principals and school leaders need to develop knowledge and skills to understand their schools and leadership roles (Fullan, 2018; Author, 2017).

Coaching has been increasingly reported as the type of school leadership development intervention that is gaining energy and popularity (Forde, McMahon, Gronn, & Martin, 2012; Aas, 2020). In many countries, coaching is a part of national school leadership programmes (Lumby, Crow, & Pashiardis, 2008; Robertson & Earl, 2014). For example, was coaching introduced as one of the key approaches to leadership development evident in the National College in England (Bush, Glover, & Harris, 2007). So far, has the literature addressed coaching as a component of headship preparation (Earley, Weindling, Bubb, Evans, & Glenn, 2008), a tool for school development (Creasy & Patterson, 2005), succession planning (Hanbury, 2009) and the development of leadership across the school including middle leadership (Simkins, Coldwell, Caillau, Finlayson, & Morgan, 2006) and teacher leadership (Blackman, 2010).

This paper reports from a study of group coaching integrated into National Principal Training Programmes in Sweden and Norway, which aims to promote reflections on personal agency (role clarity and self-efficacy) that can lead to changes in leadership practices. In this paper, we set out to investigate the process that starts with an original coaching question that is reformulated during the group coaching session, and to investigate what support the school leader gets as a result of the coaching. The research questions are: What kind of leadership challenges do school leaders bring forth for coaching, and how can group coaching support them in developing their leadership practices?

In the study, the definition of coaching is inspired by of the GROW model – Goal setting, Reality check, Options available and Wrap up – produced by Whitmore (2004). Such an adaptation is seen in the coaching work with educational leaders by Robertson (2016). Brown and Grant (2010) developed the GROUP model – Goal; Reality; Options; Understanding others; and Perform – which takes into account that understanding others is the key factor of successful group coaching. The group coaching protocol used in the study emphasizes one participant in the group (the coachee) as the focus of the coaching process, whilst the other participants assist in the coaching role as co-coaches. The participants take turns to become the coachee. A group coach manages the process, using the protocol that ensures time is apportioned adequately and the process adheres to the agreed (Author et al b 2016).

Different educational research traditions have shown that the quality of school leadership is one of the factors with the greatest impact on student performance (Hattie, 2015). Therefore, for decades, school leadership has been one of the most flourishing lines in educational research, concluding that leaders who set common goals, promote teacher development and establish satisfactory relationships with their school community achieve better outcomes (Day et al., 2016). Diverse studies indicate that in high-performing and excellent schools, principals adapt their leadership practices according to specific needs and situations (Rehman, Khan & Waheed, 2019). Bastian and Henry (2015) described that some personal traits of the principals improve students’ achievement, as they influence teacher retention and development, as well as school’s working conditions. Pietsch and Tulowitzki (2017) estimated the effects different leadership models have on the instructional practices of teachers, finding the significance of being focused on the quality of teaching in classrooms. However, it is necessary to analyze from the evidence which are the practices developed by principals that have a more substantial impact on student's performance.

Likewise, Izquierdo (2016) emphasizes the need to increase school management autonomy and students' academic objectives monitoring. Recently, Huang et al. (2020) studied the relationships between principal leadership, teacher-related factors (job satisfaction, teaching self-efficacy, and collaboration), and student performance in science. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the practices of principals.

Thus, there are different models in the management career. In this study, four different models, from four different countries, were chosen. In the UK, previous experience is required to become a principal. But other merit like being senior managers or deputy managers are part of the competition. In addition, some professional development training, such as the National Professional Qualification for Management, accredited by the Department of Education, is desirable. Something similar happens in France, where headteachers are recruited by competition, aptitude list, or secondment. There is no compulsory training, but several years of experience are required. In Spain, in addition to the necessary skills and experience, principals must develop a school project that will be implemented. Likewise, another legal requirement is an aptitude evaluation for the position. This is like the States, principals must have a master's degree in educational leadership or educational administration, as well as several years of teaching experience.

Moreover, the roles and practices are different in these countries. In the U.K., headteachers will typically distribute leadership and management with their workforce, so all the roles are played, while they maintain a strategic supervision or monitoring (Day & Armstrong, 2016). In France, though, pedagogical decision making is carried out by school principals, as their responsibilities lie on management, evaluation and on teachers’ motivation (Ortega-Rodriguez, 2022). However, in practice, they share a static vision of leadership, culminating in the pure management of schools (Normand, 2016). Also, teachers benefit from great pedagogical autonomy, due to just accounting to their inspectors and not to their principals (Normand, 2016). Conversely, López-Rupérez et al. (2020) observed that a significant proportion of Spanish principals carry out leadership practices related exclusively to management. When asked about their roles and responsibilities, U.S. principals stated to give their priority to providing a safe and nurturing environment “for students to make effective academic, emotional and social progress” (Chang et al, 2019; pp 49), although their roles are more related to the instructional leadership.

This study aims to analyze the effect of certain principal practices on the academic performance of 15-year-old students in science, comparing four different models in four countries: United States, United Kingdom, France and Spain.

Every year, organizations spend considerable amounts of money to train their leaders. The training might take place through “the education of leaders" (settings where aspiring and practicing school leaders are enrolled in programs that confer formal qualifications) or through “school leadership development” in workshops, networks or partnerships that offer continuing development without bestowing formal qualifications. The present study examines ongoing school leadership development as a research-practice partnership (RPP) between schools and universities in a reform context.The emphasis on school reforms is considerable and increasing internationally (Røvik et al. 2014). The process of implementing reform intentions is both long and complicated (Cuban, 1988). Reforms initiated at the central level often face problems when interpreting and implementing these initiatives locally. It may take time before the reforms bring about changes in the school organization (Karseth & Møller, 2014). In order to guide transformational work at the school level, reform initiatives from above and local initiatives from below must be interpreted and executed as concrete actions (Røvik et al., 2014). There is a need to be more sensitive to how reforms are negotiated and how they play out in local contexts (Rasmussen & Ludvigsen, 2009). One problem with reform research is that limited attention has been paid to the interpretation of the intentions of reforms and the negotiation of priorities at different levels in the reform work (Olson, 2003). The present study focuses on reform work in RPP at a school level. Several methods have been tried to support developmental work in RPP such as action research, design research and critical friendship. The present study implies formative interventions in so-called Change Laboratories (CL) (Engeström, 2001). Researchers and practitioners meet in workshops to explore various issues arising in workplaces. Reviews on "formative interventions" in CL the last 25 years (Engeström & Sannino, 2010; Sannino & Engeström, 2018) states that the method has been used in health and industrial work, teacher education, nursing education, vocational education, as well as the postal system. However, CL has to a limited degree been introduced in educational settings.There are however some exceptions. One study (Author 1, 2014, 2022) examined leadership development in a team consisting of principals, municipal-level leaders, and researchers, while Jachellen & Postholm (2022) examined a university–school collaboration as an arena for community-building in teacher education. Whether explorative work on leadership issues in CL becomes conducive to any changes in daily leadership practices is an empirical and a methodological question which raises issues of causality in qualitative research. Causal relationships are traditionally examined in quantitative research, although some researchers (Miles and Huberman 1989; Miller and Fredericks 1987) have attempted to reestablish both the legitimacy and potential of causal and qualitative analyses of empirical data. The attention in the present study is the ongoing processes in CL. The assumption is that the result is achieved in the processes (Engeström 2011). Theoretically, we built on third generation of CHAT which makes it possible to study developmental work in boundary spaces across activity systems such as schools and universities by tracing what is being worked on here and now in terms of different problem-spaces (situation constructed objects) (Engetsröm, 1999). The empirical data in the present study is examined with the help of three layers of causation (Engeström (2011). The purpose of the paper is to contribute with methodological insights into how causational relationships can be studied qualitatively in RPP. The following research questions have guided the contribution:

1. How can causational relationships be traced in research-practices-partnership with a CHAT approach?
2. What is the potential of tracing causaltional relationships in school leadership development