Conference Agenda

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.