Conference Agenda

Distributed leadership is considered one of the most effective approaches to leading a school, as this approach assumes that management is not concentrated in the hands of one person - the school principal but goes beyond the boundaries of the school management team and extends to the school staff. There have been various studies on distributed leadership and its effects on the student learning outcomes all over the world. Our research focuses on the phenomenon of project teams as one of the forms of distributed leadership which started to emerge in schools of Moscow (Benoliel, 2021; Moiseev, 2021). In fact, large scale reorganisation of schools that took place in Moscow (launched in 2012) has lead to major shift and changes in the educational landscape and made impossible to lead the school the same way as before. Today about 80% of schools in Moscow have 5 and more buildings (the biggest school has 22 buildings), which poses new challenges for school principals and raises the question of rethinking the role of the principal.

The major debate and question arises: whether leading a school is solely a principal's task or it should involve deputies, teachers etc. as well (Benoliel, 2021)? The concept of distributed leadership assumes that a principal involves school members in leadership. What is more, such leadership is not confined to deputies but involves teaching staff as well (Azorín, Harris & Jones, 2019). In other words, new leadership roles are appearing at schools. Research shows that the emergence of “middle leaders'' in schools has a positive effect on both the educational outcomes of students and the work of teachers (Gurr, 2023).

Bush & Glover (2014, cited in Benoliel, 2021) claim that successful schools build their leadership via creating and developing interdisciplinary teams. The teams work on solving particular school issues which can be related to pedagogical issues as well as administrative. Emergence of the teams has a positive impact on school improvement as well as on the teachers’ involvement and motivation (Lu & Hallinger, 2018) Such teams allow principals to cover the taks, issues which could not be covered by school management team alone and at the same time are significant for improving students’ outcomes.

However, Hall, Gunter, and Bragg (2012) argue that often distributed leadership, delegation of decision-making, turns out to be a facade, an illusion created by the school management team. The question arises: are middle leaders truly included in leading a school and have their “say” in decision-making? If not, what is their main task? What purpose are teams created at school for?

Our team has lead a case-study research on project teams in schools of Moscow to find out the reasons behind emergence of the teams and to answer the following research questions:

What role do project teams play in school management? What issues do they address or focus on?

What does the organizational structure of schools with project teams look like?

What is the role of a school principal in relation to these teams?

Taken the results and conclusions of two case studies, the paper analyzes and discuss the differences and similarities of the way distributed leadership is promoted by the management teams of two successful secondary schools located in socioeconomically disadvantaged urban contexts (Hallinger, 2018; Moral-Santaella & Raso-Sánchez, 2023). These two schools face difficult circumstances, serving a population with low prerequisites and high ethnic and cultural diversity. However, in both cases, we can speak of success because the management team has been able to care for and to improve the well-being of their educational community without giving up on demanding the best possible academic results of their students. Their common goal is that the majority of students get the maximum benefits, in a broad sense, from their years spent at the school (Day et al., 2016). The study was conducted following the theoretical framework and research protocols of the International School Successful Principalship Project (ISSPP), a project that has conducted case studies on successful school trajectories in more than 25 countries for more than 20 years, identifying the role of school leadership in school success (Day et al., 2022).

Our study focuses on the management teams´ achievements and strategies of the two schools, rather than on the individual role of their principals. The 'management team' is a collegiate school management body with a long tradition in the Spanish educational system (Pérez-García et al., 2018). As the general roles and responsibilities of the management team are set by law, they are common to all schools; however, each school adjusts its internal functioning and its relationship with the other governance bodies to the specific context needs and organizational culture. These two schools also take advantage of the formal aspects of the regulatory macro-system, although they transform and adapt them to implement their own management strategy (Leithwood et al., 2020). What interests us in this study is to show how two different styles of organizing the management team can lead their respective schools to relative success in highly challenging contexts. The theoretical framework that underlies our conclusions focuses on leadership as a distributed phenomenon (Harris et al., 2022); the role of middle leadership (Bennett et al., 2007; Harris et al., 2019) in the Spanish educational system; and the specific organizational conditions affecting schools located in challenging contexts (González-Falcón et al., 2020).

Nowadays, the emergence of digital technologies has begun to radically reshape the institutional design of the educational sphere. At the same time, we witness a series of new demands for the educational sphere that arise due to labour market transformation, the demand for inclusiveness and bridging socio-economic gaps. As a result, the educational system still has additional potential for transformation.

We suppose that individual innovative projects or grassroots innovations can become an important development driver in the educational sphere under the conditions of limited resources and global challenges. Simultaneously, innovators in education often find themselves in a situation of resource shortage and high institutional pressure. They also tackle problems related to the lack of peer-to-peer support, as well as a lack of trust between different levels of management in the educational system (Niedlich et al, 2021). Another conjoint problem is the high degree of centralisation of the innovation policy in education [Wu, & Lin, 2020]. Global experience shows that exclusively unidirectional top-down transfer of initiatives through formal channels do not use the full potential of transformation innate to the educational system (Van den Boom-Muilenburg et al., 2022).

We seek to combine some of the issues discussed above in order to create the whole picture of how the landscape of education evolves. To discuss these issues we build upon the concept of grassroots innovations, and we combine it with the concept of distributed leadership to incorporate the aspect of co-creation by considering transformational potential in education. This theoretical lens presents a complex approach to explore when we have to link innovative push, institutional redesign, and urgent society demands in education to provide interactions between innovators and different stakeholders in the educational sphere.

First, we consider grassroots innovations as the initiatives embedded in the local context, they are closely linked to social initiatives. Another feature of grassroots innovation is that they often have a clear social impact and are launched as a response to social injustice and environmental problems (Raj, et al., 2022). A number of authors compare grassroots innovation with inclusive innovation - aimed at ensuring equal access to benefits for vulnerable categories (Tan, & Zuckermann, 2021). Thus, the potential of grassroots innovation relates to the speed and flexibility of responses to educational problems that public institutions cannot afford.

Second, we associate distributed leadership with the number of stakeholders’ viewpoints involved in the decision making process (Denis, et al. 2012) and with a plural leadership view on change (Canterino, et al., 2020). According to previous research, distributed leadership in education develop the professional capital and instructional capacity of teachers (Harris, & DeFlaminis, 2016), impact on teachers’ use of innovative practices (O'Shea, 2021), increase motivation for change, and contribute to more innovative solutions to school challenges (Snoek et al., 2019).

Consequently, public authorities in education need to behave less like traditional public bureaucracies and more like innovation animateurs, boosting new connections. To increase transformational potential, we should support collaboration and provide incentives for experimentation, encourage teachers, innovators and other stakeholders to become involved in educational change and to seize opportunities for diversification.

The aim of this study is to reveal how distributed leadership and community engagement provide necessary resources and expertise support for grassroots initiatives. We pose the following research questions:

1. To what extent may grassroots innovations be considered as a part of transformational potential within the educational system?

2. Which formats of distributed leadership may support grassroots dynamism, fill the gaps, remove imbalances, and facilitate connections between different stakeholders in the educational space?

3. What are the main impacts of community engagement on the sustainability, diffusion, and replication of grassroots innovations?

The effect of school leadership on educational outcomes has long attracted the attention of scholars. However, the measurement of the effects of leadership on specific educational and school outcomes has proven to be a challenge, mainly due to conceptual and methodological issues. Nevertheless, research on the topic is necessary in order to facilitate the informed adoption of leadership models and/or practices in education in that policy makers often lack the evidence that can serve as the basis for the promotion of specific approaches to leadership. Several criticisms have emerged regarding the extent to which popular leadership models are backed by sufficient evidence. Moreover, research is necessary in order to ensure that leadership models are timely and relevant to educational policy and practice as opposed to “dead ideas” still walking among us (Haslam, Alvesson & Reicher, 2024).

Transformational leadership is a leadership style closely linked to a process of change, transformation, motivation and innovation in individuals and organisations. It is characterised by an explicit focus on the role of the leaders in the development of followers. Transformational leaders manage to motivate others to achieve more than originally planned or intended; they create a supportive organisational climate where individual needs and differences are acknowledged and respected (Bass, 1998). The building of trust and respect motivates followers to work for the accomplishment of shared goals. Thus, transformational leaders motivate followers to focus on the common good, through commitment to the mission and vision of the organisation. Since its emergence, transformational leadership has been investigated in fields such as psychology, business administration, sociology and education. Studies in education have examined the link between transformational leadership and specific educational outcomes (see, for example, Kilinç et al., 2022; Li & Karanxha, 2022; Polatcan, Arslan & Balci, 2021).

In this context, we present the findings of two studies on the effect of transformational leadership on educational outcomes. Both studies were conducted in Cyprus using the theoretical framework of the full range model of leadership proposed by Bass and his colleagues (see, for example, Bass, & Avolio, 1994; Avolio & Bass, 2004). The first study investigates the link between transformational/transactional/passive-avoidant leadership behaviours, teachers’ perceptions of leader effectiveness and teachers’ job satisfaction (Menon, 2014). Data collected from teachers provide evidence on the extent to which transformational school leadership is linked to teacher job satisfaction. The latter is an important indicator of teacher motivation and commitment to the profession. Moreover, data on teacher perceptions can provide a more objective way of assessing school leader effectiveness in comparison to self-reported measures.

The second study investigates the link between transformational and transactional school leadership, on the one hand, and teacher self-efficacy, on the other. Self-efficacy is an important variable in that, individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy are more motivated and more likely to succeed as a result. Self-efficacy beliefs are considered to be stronger than the actual abilities of individuals in determining motivation, action and accomplishment (Bandura, 1986).

The findings of the two studies are linked to implications and recommendations for educational policy and practice. Moreover, the paper discusses future directions for research on transformational leadership, with reference to the limitations of transformational leadership both in terms of theoretical underpinnings and research approaches to its study.

This proposal focuses on principals’ capability to successfully initiate and implement innovation and change within the context of their schools. It draws on findings from 20 years of research from Australian case studies that focus on successful school leadership as part of the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) and follows ISSPP methodology protocols. Twenty years of research have produced many key findings that show how successful principals lead and manage their schools. In this proposal we will focus on one key finding- strategies for leading innovation and change.

The OECD (2019) defines innovation in education as a significant change in selected educational practice. Innovation and change are interrelated concepts (Barsh, et al., 2008). Innovation is the idea, vision, strategy that prompts change while change is the action of brings that innovation to life. Both innovation and change are essential for organizations to adapt and thrive.

Overall principals struggle to implement change effectively. McKinsey surveys show that up to 70% of change programs fail in some way (Bucy et al., 2021). An underlying difficulty is that change is a process and not an event. Sometimes the process is non-linear. Human factors that are barriers include lack of buy-in, resistance to change, poor communication, lack of commitment, unclear goals, inadequate planning and resources, poor collaborative culture, and external factors beyond the leader’s control (Fullan, 2005; Hallinger, 2010; Hall and Horde, 2006, Wise. 2015).

The literature includes various strategies to promote change: skills in communicating a clear and compelling vision (Erickson, 2015); morale purpose (Fullan, 2001); engagement and empowerment (Moss Kanter, 2015); providing resources, time and space, (DuFour & Marzano, 2009); building capacity (Seashore-Lewis, 2009); systematic planning for change (Kotter, 2007); addressing individual concerns (Hall, & Hord, 2006), and monitoring and evaluating the innovation through data and evidence.

For our study we have explored different types of innovation as a guide to categorization of our case studies. This was to evaluate the kinds of strategies used by principals depending on the kind of change. Porter (1985) identified continuous (incremental) and discontinuous (radical) innovation as typologies. Tushman and Anderson (1986) referred to incremental and breakthrough innovation. Henderson and Clark (1990) defined four types of innovation as incremental, radical, architectural and disruptive. Christensen et al. (2018) showed the difference between sustaining and disruptive innovation. McKinsey initiated the 3-Horizons framework which outlined three growth patterns, each building on the other: core innovation, adjacent innovation (seeking opportunities for growth) and transformational innovation (Coley, 2009). Dodgson et al. (2008) conceived four types of innovation as proactive, active, reactive, and passive. Kalback (2012) distinguished four types of innovation based on levels of technology progress and market impact. These were incremental, disruptive, breakthrough and game changer. Satell (2015) categorized four types of innovation as basic research, disruptive, breakthrough and sustaining innovation. Each of these previous frameworks influenced our classification of innovation. We identified three categories: incremental, transformational, and disruptive. We based this on the framework of Mayo and Nohria [2005) who identified three archetypes of leadership: (1) entrepreneurs, who were ahead of their time and were not constrained by their environment and often able to overcome almost impossible barriers and challenges to find or do something new; (2) managers, who were skilled at understanding and exploiting their context and grew their business accordingly; (3) leaders, who confronted change and saw potential in their business that others failed to see. Entrepreneurs create new businesses, managers grow and optimize them, and leaders transform them at critical inflection points. The entrepreneurs closely align with the disruptive leaders, the leaders with the transformative leaders, and the managers with the incremental leaders.

Educational success is critical to accessing life opportunities. In Australia, the educational success rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young peoples are significantly lower compared to their non-Indigenous peers. Research within academic literature and policy of ‘Indigenous Education’ and ‘excellence’ in education (Shay, et.al, 2020) are terms that are emerging from Indigenous communities across Australia as mechanism to redress the deficit thinking towards Indigenous education. On the other hand, whilst current strategies in Indigenous education in Australia have replaced past policies, the education system continues to fail Indigenous young peoples with culturally relevant education and continues to position such disadvantage as part of Indigeneity in Australia (Morrison et al., 2019).

The continued educational achievement gap confronting Indigenous learners in Australia spotlights the pressing need to cultivate school leaders who can champion systemic change through visionary, transformative, and culturally inclusive leadership. The challenge of catering to a diversified population with the example of Indigenous students in Australia, has application not only to the European context, but diversified populations more broadly across the globe. With mass migration, global pandemics, and war the ability for different groups to maintain their identity and co-exist with different groups in a diversified population continues to be a challenge for educators, but more-so educational leaders leading their school communities.

Likewise in the European context, and more globally it is critical to address the contexts and conditions that results in segregation and discriminatory attitudes, which inevitably leads to inequitable educational opportunities and unfair outcomes for marginalised groups. There is a critical need to emphasize the key leadership capabilities (transformation, vision, cultural inclusion) required to address equity issues in schools, particularly leaders who can drive systemic reform to improve Indigenous education in Australia. It is vital for educational leaders to create school environments that harness strengths- based approaches (Perso, 2012) and are built into existing school policies and practices, that will make an intentional difference to the outcomes of Indigenous students (Hameed et al., 2021; Netolicky & Golledge, 2021). Culturally responsive leaders build their communities to value students’ existing strengths and accomplishments, supporting students and developing them further in learning and most importantly respecting and valuing the unique identity of each child (Gay, 2000).

This paper explores inclusive school leadership approaches that constitute excellence in Indigenous education (Shay et, al, 2021). Using an Indigenist lens, it discusses culturally responsive practices in school leadership that create safe learning environments in Indigenous education. It explores the practical application of inclusive school leadership approaches that harness culturally responsive pedagogical practices and values all students and the contributions and attributes that they bring to their schooling experience (Hameed et al., 2021). As we interrogated the concept of inclusive leadership in Indigenous education, the following research questions were used to study participants’ conceptualization and enactment of inclusivity at school level:

How do school leaders and administrators within Indigenous educational contexts conceptualize and enact inclusive leadership excellence?

Sub-questions:

How do participants define “inclusive leadership” and its connection to ideals of excellence in Indigenous education settings? What overlaps or divergence exist between Western notions of inclusive leadership and Indigenous paradigms?

What leadership practices, policies, and relationships do participants identify as exemplifying inclusive leadership excellence aligned to community values? How are families and community members positioned?

An integral aspect of the study is in examining the systemic and institutional barriers that perpetuate inequities within Indigenous educational leadership. This includes analyzing how leaders evaluate effectiveness and success of inclusion efforts given systemic constraints.

The USLC at the University of Texas-San Antonio is a unique principal preparation program that focuses on preparing aspiring school principals to become transformational leaders who can work in diverse, ambiguous and challenging school contexts (Garza & Merchant, 2009; Merchant & Garza, 2015). Originating in a partnership with San Antonio Independent School District, now in its 11th cohort, the USLC model established new partnerships. This new program, USLC-South Bexar (USLC-SB), is in its fourth cohort, working to prepare school leaders for small districts in urban settings. A vital feature of the USLC is the leadership from its core faculty, former school principals, and district administrators who bring heuristic knowledge in preparing and developing school leaders for social justice.

This collaborative and collective partnership was significantly enhanced with the recent award of a multi-million-dollar grant from the Wallace Foundation, the Equity-Centered Principal Initiative. The collaborative has been nurtured, sustained, and studied for the past twenty years with unconditional support from the former and present district superintendents as well as the dean of the college of education and human development (Murakami-Ramalho, Garza, & Merchant, 2009).

A constructivist theoretical approach drives teaching and learning in this program. In a constructivist classroom, students and faculty engage in critical reflection, individually and collectively (Merchant & Garza, 2015). Coupled with constructivist learning theory, the Pedagogy of Collective Critical Consciousness (Garza, 2015) engages masters students deeply in collective learning activities, including shared critical reflection, written autoethnographies, digital life stories, community engagement projects, equity audits, and ultimately, the implementation of praxis (Freire, 2000). As co-constructors of knowledge, students, and faculty are both teachers and learners.

The significance of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) on children's development globally is widely acknowledged by policymakers. Leadership competence within ECEC has emerged as a pivotal factor impacting pedagogical quality and employee well-being, as indicated by an increasing number of studies (Cummings, Wong, and Logan 2021; Douglass 2019; Ruohola et al. 2022; Sirvio et al. 2023). However, achieving desired outcomes necessitates high-quality circumstances (Cortázar 2015; OECD 2022). With global issues such as systematic education gaps and expanding center sizes posing challenges to the professional development of ECEC leaders and the sustainability of effective leadership (Fonsén & Soukainen 2022; Gibbs 2021). Our research focuses on ECEC, the initial stage of the Finnish educational system (FNAE, 2022). In Finland, contextual changes in ECEC policies have sparked controversial expectations and conflicting goals regarding the fundamental mission and core of leadership for ECEC center leaders (Kupila, Fonsén, and Liinamaa 2023). Shifting ECEC oversight from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2013 bolstered ECEC's position within the Finnish educational system. Subsequent reforms in the ECEC curriculum (FNAE 2016) emphasized leadership's responsibility for curricular content, further reinforced by the new ECEC Act (540/2018), mandating leaders to hold a master’s degree in education and possess adequate leader competence after the 2030 transition period. Consequently, ECEC center leaders in Finland face multifaceted competence requirements, driving the need for systematic qualifications (Siippainen et al. 2021). This contextual backdrop forms the basis of a study examining how ECEC center leaders position themselves within the evolving professional landscape and the future trajectory of their profession. Leadership within the ECEC domain is considered a multifaceted process within multi-professional working communities, intertwining educational theory, practical application, and interpersonal leadership development (Damiani, Haywood, and Wieczorek 2017; Sullivan 2005). It reflects a departure from traditional authoritarian leadership to a collaborative, egalitarian model aimed at fostering trust, autonomy, and communal learning within the working community (Hard & Jónsdóttir 2013; Lund 2021). This contemporary understanding requires leaders to balance formal authority with creating a supportive environment that encourages professional growth without undermining their position (Gibbs 2021; Hard and Jónsdóttir 2013). To understand ECEC center leaders' perceptions of their profession, the study employs Positioning Theory. This theory explores the dynamic and contextual nature of how individuals assume roles and statuses within their work environment (Bamberg, 1997). Bamberg (1997) sees positioning as a three-level process: the first level considers characters positioning in relation to one another within events, enabling observation of the foundation of leadership and examination of how ECEC center leaders position themselves within leadership roles. The second level examines a character’s position in relation to others included in the narrative, providing insight into how ECEC center leaders are situated within multi-professional working communities. The third level explores how characters position themselves in relation to themselves, shedding light on how ECEC center leaders perceive themselves as leaders and their responsibilities from a professional perspective. By examining leaders' positioning regarding their roles, relationships within the community, and self-perception as leaders, the study aims to illuminate the evolving landscape of ECEC leadership.

This study delves into the intricate realm of schools as complex organisations embedded in human relationships (Argyris, 1995; Daft, 2002; Brundrett, Burton & Smith, 2003), tasked with navigating societal challenges through a systemic approach. The research aims to examine the distinct role of inclusive school leaders to guarantee the provision of inclusive education within the Italian and Maltese educational contexts, both characterised by an inclusive system that promotes the eradication of a traditional divide between mainstream and special schools. These leaders, acknowledged as integral components of the school system (Pirola, 2015; Paletta & Bezzina, 2016; Bufalino, 2017; Agrati, 2018), actively collaborate with the school community to coordinate the provision of inclusive education in mainstream schools.

A qualitative approach employing semi-structured interviews was chosen to capture the perspectives of these middle leaders. The inquiry covers the leaders’ perceptions regarding:

- their function;

- the resources, both internal and external, that they believe contribute to their successful job performance;

- collaboration with other stakeholders;

- the salient factors for the creation of strong leadership teams;

- effective approaches to promote inclusion;

- prospects and areas for further improvement.

The study is grounded in the theoretical construct of distributed leadership, emphasising the efficacy of a collaborative model, contrasting with traditional hierarchical structures (Bennett et al., 2003). Distributed leadership embodies collaboration and organisational learning, signifying a transition from individual to shared and group knowledge. A model rooted in distributed leadership yields multifaceted improvements, fostering increased enthusiasm and collaboration among teachers, a propensity for change, and heightened effectiveness in decision-making processes (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Alma Harris & Jones, 2017; Paletta, 2020). International studies underscore the link between distributed leadership and positive student learning outcomes, particularly through the actions of middle leaders bridging school leadership, classroom teachers, parents and other stakeholders (Leitwood, 2016; Bezzina et al., 2018; Fullan, 2015; Harris & Jones, 2017; Hargreaves & Ainscow, 2015). These middle leaders emerge as pivotal figures in promoting distributed leadership at both organisational and classroom practice levels. They play a central role in cultivating an organisational culture founded on inclusive principles and values such as trust, active participation, and a shared vision (Harris & Jones, 2019; De Nobile, 2018) to ensure quality education for all.

The research methodology, specifically the semi-structured interviews, draws inspiration from the Appreciative Inquiry approach (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001). Appreciative Inquiry, recognised for positive outcomes in organizational and educational contexts (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987), aims to uncover strengths within an organisation to design constructive change. The positive, strength-based approach used in this design reframes the inquiry, promoting positive change based on existing practices and structures. This aligns with the philosophical consistency of Appreciative Inquiry with strength-based approaches in inclusive education (Dockrill Garrett, 2022), contributing to a holistic understanding of the inclusive school leader's role and fostering a culture of positive change within educational institutions.

Although leadership in early childhood education and care (ECEC) has increasingly been a focus of scientific interest and is currently high on the agenda of international institutions like OECD or EU and identified as a "key position”, it remains insufficiently explored compared to e.g. structural quality features of the ECEC landscape (Movahedazarhouligh 2023). The leadership role is characterised by multiple and complex tasks and serves as an interface between various stakeholders. With the continuous growth of both, sector and centres, the need for coordination, especially in management tasks, is increasing (Hujala et al. 2023; Turani 2022). Rising expectations from society, families, staff, providers etc. are putting pressure on ECEC and, consequently, on leaders to provide an adequate, high-quality offer of ECEC (Strehmel 2017).

To meet these expectations, leadership requires not only the relevant knowledge but also an efficient system of stakeholders, stability, support and planning (BMFSFJ/JFMK 2016).

Conversely, centre leaders often feel insufficiently appreciated by politics and society and are exposed daily to a variety of challenges and their consequences (e.g. staff shortage, diversification). This leads to negative effects on working conditions, health and satisfaction resulting in an excessive workload, stress and a lack of gratification (Viernickel et al. 2017).

While the role of leadership as a crucial actor in a "competent system" (Urban u. a. 2011) in ECEC has been recognized, and their tasks and various challenges in this context have been outlined, little is known about institution leaders themselves, their daily routines, task distribution, and needs (e.g. Douglass 2019; Strehmel 2017; Schreyer et al. 2014).
Based on the data from the TALIS Starting Strong Surveys 2018 from nine countries with a focus on Germany (OECD 2019), this contribution aims to examine how the actions of leadership are manifested internationally, what specific tasks they undertake, and their own expectations and needs. Additionally, the study explores conclusions for the professional discourse and insights provided by international comparisons. The research delves into the practical implementation of the work of centre leaders and the areas of tasks and responsibilities to which leaders dedicate their time in ECEC centres. The goal is to adequately represent the everyday actions of leadership. Hereby it examines differences in organisational aspects of institutions (e.g. provider affiliation) and personal characteristics of leaders (e.g., experience, qualification). Different social contexts (e.g. urban vs. rural) are also considered to clarify how various areas of leadership tasks interconnect in the daily work and how individual characteristics and overarching characteristics on the centre level structure and influence daily work of leaders and their time distribution across task areas.

Due to the nature of the study and the self-reporting by institution leaders, not only statements regarding structural conditions and activities can be captured but also subjective assessments by the leaders themselves. This provides the opportunity to particularly capture expectations and potentials on the leadership level. Needs regarding specific training and development contents for leaders as well as aspects of workload and job satisfaction are considered. Here data shows that the lack of staff and too much administrative work are main drivers of stress for centre leaders. Not only are these aspects barriers for personal professional development but also limit the effectiveness in their function as leaders.
The contribution therefore sheds light on the perspective of leaders themselves and let them have their say with the help of data from the TALIS Starting Strong study.

This paper is part of a Doctorate in Education at Maynooth University in Ireland. Focusing on an emerging technological university, the primary research question is “How do stakeholders experience and value change leadership?” The following sub research question with be the core of this paper: “What are the importance and presence of change leadership characteristics.”

In addition to dramatic disruptions because of Covid 19, major issues exist in Irish Higher Education, which include increased workload, reduced staff development opportunities and concerns over investment in information technology, which lead to inefficiencies (QQI 2016). Several key areas for development in Ireland’s Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) have been identified and include quality culture and systems, resources and leadership development and technology (Higher Education Authority 2017). In the context of most Institutes of Technology (ITs) having recently merged to become Technological Universities (TUs), change and leadership have never been so important.

While both the importance and presence of change leadership characteristics are important factors for change (Magsaysay and Hechanova, 2017), a review of literature indicated that the topic of change leadership is not well defined and there is little consensus on the associated characteristics needed for leading change. This paper utilises a diverse selection of sources to compile a total of 25 characteristics deemed important for leading change. These embrace key findings from change management and change leadership fields of research as well as the Burke Litwin organisational change model (Burke and Litwin, 1992). These characteristics were created from a total of eight sources identified, which were analysed and mapped against each other. The eight sources are as follows: Higgs and Rowland (2000), Gilley (2005), Fullan (2020), Magsaysay and Hechanova (2017), Guerrero et al. (2018), Burke and Litwin (1992), Burnes (2020) and Kotter (2012). They can been grouped into themes of strategy, culture, relationships, capability, and tactics.

Strategy involves strategic thinking and allows a clear vision to be established that inspires individuals to change and is achieved through effective communication and consultation, while understanding that change can be complex (Fullan 2020; Gilley, 2005; Guerrero et al., 2018; Higgs and Rowland, 2009; Kotter, 2012; Magsaysay and Hechanova, 2017). The second theme is culture which relates to developing an inclusive, supportive, and democratic culture that encourages creativity and innovation, while being able to deal with conflict in a constructive way (Burnes, 2020; Gilley, 2005; Fullan, 2020; Magsaysay and Hechanova 2017). Relationships is the next themes that focuses on developing and maintaining relationships with colleagues, building effective teams, rewarding staff, and celebrating milestones (Burnes, 2020; Fullan, 2020; Gilley, 2005; Kotter, 2012; Magsaysay and Hechanova, 2017). Another theme is capability associated with the overall capability of staff in terms of having adequate change management and leadership knowledge and abilities, resources, and training (Burnes et al. 2020; Fullan, 2020; Gilley, 2005; Guerrero et al. 2018; Higgs and Rowland, 2000; Kotter, 2012). The final theme is tactics associated with developing plans, removing barriers, implementing change gradually, and dealing effectively with organisational resistance to change (Burnes, 2020; Gilley, 2005; Guerrero et al., 2018; Higgs and Rowland, 2000; Magsaysay and Hechanova, 2017).

Complexity Theory was chosen as a suitable theoretical lens for this research. Mason (2008) outlines that complexity theory looks at complex systems as open systems, which survive through evolution and adaptation. He believes that organisations are complex, with many connected elements or agents, which facilitate the sharing of knowledge through formal bureaucratic structures and informal social networks.

It is hoped that this research will be timely and relevant to other researchers and HEIs across Europe undergoing significant change.

The tendency of implementation of dashboards for management appeared initially in business. This trend was the consequence of companies’ need to ensure quality and effectiveness in a highly competitive environment which reduces time on data-analysis procedure (getting, preparing and visualizing data) and making fast decisions.

Today we can see that this trend has reached the educational field as well, where educational systems of many countries started developing and introducing dashboards/platforms to gather school data (USA, UK, Kazakhstan etc.). Nevertheless, the core goal set by the educational authorities for such platforms in the majority of cases was not the automation itself but it was seen as a means for fostering a system of high accountability.

We can see that educational authorities of various Russian regions are developing dashboards and introducing them in the educational system but the question arises: who are the main stakeholders of these dashboards? Are the existing platforms assistants, tools for leading a school or merely a new form of accountability?

In this article the authors are trying to address the following questions:

• What is principal and his/her deputies’ perception of the dashboards?

• What pros and cons do they see in it? Do they see the potential in it for data-based decision-making in leading the school?

• What tasks do they address based on the data from dashboards?

Organizational context is one of the factors contributing to data-informed decision-making in schools (Dogan, E., & Demirbolat, 2021; Kallemeyn, 2014; Roegman, 2018; Smith, 2023;). In fact, educational authorities create systems for leveraging the data collection and analysis process in Russia but we can still observe the situation where it's not enough for principals, deputies and other school members. Therefore, the practice of developing surveys, and gathering additional information is common in schools of a Megapolis A. There is no unified platform which gathers all the information needed for school management.

School leaders not only play an important role in the context of digitalization-related school development processes (Håkansson & Pettersson, 2019; Tulowitzki & Gerick, 2020), their own everyday life, tasks and actions are also affected by digitalization-related transformation processes (Krein, 2024). This includes requirements from various areas of school development (e.g. organizational development, teaching development, personnel development, cooperation development or technology development) (Eickelmann & Gerick, 2018), but also tasks such as school administration or cooperation with stakeholders in- and outside the school (Schiefner-Rohs, 2019). In the context of digitalization, overarching phenomena also come into focus when considering the actions of school leaders: These include phenomena of the dissolution of boundaries (e.g. between professional and private spheres of life), which are constitutive components of a profound mediatization through the technological differentiation of the media, their ubiquity and the increasing networking of people (Krotz, 2001; Hepp & Hasenbrink, 2017). For the work context, Dehmel et al. (2023) also point out that "due to the permanent availability of the internet, more and more work tasks can be carried out with current mobile devices without being tied to a fixed location - for example an office building - or to certain time constraints - such as core working hours from morning to afternoon" (p. 59; translation by the author). Looking at the school context, alongside the actions of teachers (Dehmel et al., 2023), the actions of school leaders are also characterized by phenomena of dissolving boundaries (Krein, 2024). At the same time, it can be assumed that the professionalization of school leaders will become increasingly relevant against the background of the challenges associated with the dissolution of boundaries - for example, dealing with remote working and thus less free time. Nevertheless, little attention has so far been paid to the dissolution of boundaries in everyday school leadership, both theoretically and empirically.

Based on this desideratum, insights are provided into the phenomena of dissolving boundaries within the actions of school leaders in the context of digitalization. The focus is on challenges for the actions of school leaders and implications for their professionalization. Since mediatization is not a national phenomenon, the contribution also aims to highlight implications for the international research community. Accordingly, the article is based on the following research questions:

1. Which phenomena of the dissolution of boundaries can be identified in the actions of school leaders?
2. What challenges are associated with these phenomena of the dissolution of boundaries for school leaders?
3. What implications can be derived from this for the professionalization of school leaders as well as future research?

School leaders are central to strategically navigating schools' digitalisation. On the one hand, they are crucial actors in the design of internal school structures, processes, and the provision of digital technologies (Dexter, 2008). On the other hand, they are essential boundary spanners, who build bridges between actors outside and within the school (Benoliel & Schechter, 2017). However, to date, only a handful of studies have provided evidence-based practices for educational technology leaders on engaging stakeholders and building productive relationships when leading technological innovation and change in schools (Dexter & Richardson, 2020).

Significant conditions for implementing digital media and technology in schools unfold under transformational leadership (TL) and effective knowledge management (KM) (Afshari et al., 2010; Schmitz et al., 2023). Furthermore, digital transformation requires a shift in leaders mindsets (Kane, 2019). Especially, innovation development benefits from leaders with an Open Innovation Mindset (OIM OIM), a dynamic capability crucial for open innovation processes in organisations (Engelsberger et al., 2022; Henry Chesbrough & Marcel Bogers, 2013). Against this background our study was guided by the following research hypotheses to contribute to the field of school development and leadership with a special focus on successfully implementing digital innovation in schools:

H1: The dynamic capabilities of the OIM are crucial antecedents of transformational leadership.

H2: Transformational leadership positively impacts the implementation of digital innovations in schools.

H3: Transformational leadership positively impacts knowledge transfer practices in schools.

H4: Knowledge transfer practices positively impact the implementation of digital innovation in schools.

H5: Transformational leadership indirectly impacts the implementation of digital innovation in schools mediated by knowledge transfer practices.

H6: The dynamic capabilities of the OIM indirectly effect the implementation of digital innovation through transformational leadership and knowledge transfer practices in schools.

The political landscapes in the Nordic countries are currently undergoing a transition, marked by the influence of far-right political parties that are reshaping human rights and fostering a discourse of 'us and them' concerning foreigners (Norocel et al., 2022). Additionally, equity within the welfare states is facing challenges from neoliberal economic ideologies, contributing to a growing wealth gap between the rich and the poor (Kvist, 2011). Given this evolving context, educational leaders are compelled to respond proactively. This changing landscape underscores the need for research to theorize on how educational leaders can re-establish and re-imagine leadership practices as safeguards for democratic values and practices within educational institutions.

Sweden and Denmark, renowned for their social democratic welfare states (Gøsta Esping-Andersen, 2017), prioritizing economic growth, equality, and citizens' rights. Initially, after 1945, Nordic policymakers focused on democratic values in education to counter Nazism. However, this democratic approach has come under pressure in the last 20-30 years as educational policies shifted focus towards performance indicators such as measurable learning outcomes and benchmarking (Moos, 2017).

In the 1980s, demographic changes accelerated, leading to more multicultural societies in Sweden and Denmark. New citizens, often migrant workers in low-paying service jobs or refugees from conflict regions, contributed to this shift. Alongside the move to neoliberal governance indicators, this combination likely contributed to growing inequality and the emergence of marginalized groups within society. These groups, as described by Bauman (2007), have "all the time in the world but nothing to do with it." Kalkan (2022) demonstrated that a marginalized group of immigrants in Denmark, rather than attending schools or jobs, spends their time on the streets, emphasizing anti-establishment values.

Indeed, the inclusion of marginalized groups in the societal landscape poses a risk, as it may lead to the emergence of anti-democratic values such as racism and hate speech. Evidence shows discriminative structures within the school system (Sarri Krantz, 2018, Katzin, 2021, Wagrell, 2022). From our perspective, educational institutions bear a significant responsibility as safeguards against these anti-democratic tendencies. However, this responsibility is complicated by the performance indicators, as they tend to favour outcome-based teaching approaches.

As mentioned, educational leadership has been profoundly influenced by performance indicators, often derived from sources such as the OECD and adapted to national contexts (Pettersson, 2016). Consequently, Swedish and Danish leaders, for the past two decades, have been tasked with guiding their institutions in alignment with these performance indicators (see e.g. Laursen, 2020, Englund, 2005, Ståhlkrantz, 2019). Yet, it is becoming increasingly apparent that these indicators contribute to inequality within societies, pushing them towards anti-democratic values (Kalkan, 2022). Nevertheless, we hold the belief that educational leadership can take a different approach by initiating changes in governance and teaching methods, it can play a crucial role in safeguarding the installation of democratic perspectives in students' understanding of their own situations and their place in both the national and global contexts (Nussbaum, 1997, 2010, Bogotch, Schoorman & Reyes-Guerra, 2017, Sarri Krantz, 2023).

Our study entails a comprehensive historical and comparative analysis of educational policies in Sweden and Denmark. In this context, we aim to analyze the selected educational policies and subsequently theorize the possibilities and responsibilities for principals in ensuring the promotion and practice of democratic values within educational settings. To guide our exploration, we pose the following research question: How do educational policies in Sweden and Denmark underpin democratic values while potentially posing threats to social justice? Furthermore, how can the possibilities and responsibilities of principals be theorized in relation to these policies?

Purpose

This paper provides a cross‐national perspective on school principalship in two countries derived from an analysis of case studies in Scotland and the Republic of Cyprus. Examples from the two education systems are selected to demonstrate cross-national similarities and differences related to the purpose of education, the structure, and the role of leadership in school improvement. We pay particular attention to the research context in order to understand and explain different findings across countries. We present a secondary analysis of case studies from the participating countries which embraced a cultural and context-relevant framework to consider how the values and norms of a society might influence the expectations, beliefs, and context-relevant practices of individuals within schools. This synthesis reveals the complexity of policy and structural pressures on the practices of school leaders and the ways in which they respond to their environments.

The comparative context

In our cross-national comparison, we provide two instructive cases from which scholars and practitioners can develop nuanced understandings about the social, cultural, and economic conditions that shape and are shaped by the school systems.

Case study schools differed both within and across the countries in terms of size, location, school development phase, leadership structure, staff capacity and professional disposition (commitment and resilience), student diversity and resource needs and culture. We began by determining whether the principals demonstrated a core set of leadership practices as conditions for school success (Leithwood et al., 2020; Pashiardis and Kafa, 2023), as well as having greater focus on moral purpose and values-based leadership views (Dimmock and Walker, 2000).

In Cyprus, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Youth, and Sports wields significant power in the education system. The Ministry oversees all schools and is in charge of enforcing existing rules and developing new ones (Pashiardis and Tsiakiros, 2015). It also oversees each school's education policy, including administering, monitoring, and assessing education quality and creating the curriculum. The state funds local school boards, who subsequently distribute monies to schools under their control. Cyprus has a restricted centralised education system that requires all school to meet specific rules. A large body of evidence shows that school leaders in Cyprus, both in primary and secondary education, appear to develop external relations as well as networking with all relevant actors; foster a collaborative and shared ownership feeling among their members and within their school organisation; and finally promote a clear vision based on a specific set of values (Kafa and Pashiardis, 2019; Pashiardis et al., 2018).

The Scottish education system has a unique and distinctive history and tradition within the member countries of the United Kingdom. The administration and strategic direction are the responsibility of the Scottish Government in Edinburgh, not the UK Government located in London. A series of reform programmes over the last decade or so, aim to promote overall improvement in schools and close the educational attainment gap (Campbell and Harris, 2023). This involved reforms to the curriculum and assessment, quality assurance and inspection, and teacher education with an emphasis on promoting professional development, leadership, and innovation towards a self-improving school system. This shift from a hierarchical to a much flatter-collaborative culture stresses the increasing complexity of schooling and requires attention to the local and cultural context when choosing leadership strategies.

Framework

We anchored our study in Hallinger’s (2018) context and culture framework for studying how leaders were able to engage with and utilise the multiple contexts (institutional, community, socio-cultural, political, economic, school improvement) to improve their schools. Specifically, this framework reflects leadership approaches that are influenced by multiple contexts and cannot be understood without aspects of school culture and the wider environment.

Self-efficacy beliefs play a central role in human functioning. They influence whether individuals set ambitious goals, how much effort they invest and how long they persist when facing difficulties and failures (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy can be general or specific, and both aspects of self-efficacy may promote optimal functioning (Schutte & Malouff, 2016). General self-efficacy beliefs are conceptualized as “individuals' perception of their ability to perform across a variety of situations” (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998, p. 169). Specific self-efficacy describes an individual’s belief he or she can bring about good outcomes in a defined area of life, such as during work (Bandura, 2012). Most studies on self-efficacy have examined either general or specific self-efficacy as unique separate constructs. Only a small number of studies have simultaneously looked at the two facets of self-efficacy (Schutte & Malouff, 2016).

In the present study we focus on the concepts of general self-efficacy and specific self-efficacy among Flemish elementary principals and how these two concepts relate to each other.

The first goal of this study is to validate the multi-dimensional principal self-efficacy instrument of Federici and Skaalvik (2011). In developing this questionnaire, the authors (Federici & Skaalvik, 2011) performed a confirmatory factor analysis on the data, but no exploratory factor analysis. Also, their instrument was developed in a study with Norwegian principals. We believe it is important to validate their instrument again in a new study with a different population of principals (in Flanders, Belgium).

A second goal in this study is to examine the relation between principal self-efficacy and general self-efficacy. According to Schutte and Malouff (2016) both specific and general forms of self-efficacy have the potential to support optimal functioning. It is important to establish if the concepts refer to different phenomena and in what way there is overlap between the two concepts.

The third goal of this study is to analyze the relation between both principal self-efficacy and general self-efficacy with other variables. Exploring the similarities and differences between both forms of self-efficacy in relation to other variables can shed light on the way in which we must perceive both concepts, their mutual relationship, and their respective relevance. We have included demographic, career-related and work-related variables to study in relation to the self-efficacy forms. One of the most researched variables related to self-efficacy is the seniority of principals. Previous research has suggested that experience affects self-efficacy (Fisher, 2014; Özer, 2013). In addition, based on the research of Elias and colleagues (2013), we can hypothesize that work-related variables will be more correlated with principal self-efficacy than with general self-efficacy. Therefore, we selected two variables related to a more or less challenging work context, namely the school size and the location of the school. Schools with a large number of staff are more difficult to manage and urban schools have a more diverse population than rural schools. We expect these variables to make a greater difference for principal self-efficacy than for general self-efficacy. Finally, gender, tenure and principal training were also included. Gender is an important demographic variable, and it is interesting to explore if gender makes a difference for both forms of self-efficacy. Gaining tenure is an important step in the career of principals. We want to explore if this career step makes a difference. It can be expected that tenure enhances the self-efficacy of principals. Finally, the training of principals can be considered as an important potential influence on school leadership development. It is interesting to study if training is related to the self-efficacy of principals.

Social mobility refers to “the ability to move between different levels in society or in employment, especially from a lower social position to a higher one” (Iversen et al., 2019: pp. 239–240). No consensus has been reached on the different components of social mobility, but there is a broad agreement that a just society should create equal opportunities for diverse citizens to succeed in society, regardless of the economic status of their families (Iversen et al., 2019).

Studies addressing the role of a school principal as an agent of social change employ key theories that explore the dynamic interplay between leadership and cultural contexts, such as culturally responsive leadership model (Khalifa et al., 2016) or culturally relevant leadership (Horsford et al., 2011). At the same time, researchers have also studied the role of the school principal in contexts such as ensuring social justice (Arar et al., 2017; Lai, 2015; Wang, 2018), empowering students (Kirk et al., 2017), and fostering achievements and abilities (Greaves et al., 2014). Each of these models and areas is based on different concepts and theoretical notions about how school leadership is related to social mobility; nevertheless, the broad agreement is that school principals are in a key position to influence students’ social mobility and integration (Bloomberg, 2023).

Based on these theoretical concepts, school principals implement various practices to promote social mobility among their students. For example, principals design and maintain respectful relationships, allow the expression of different voices around the school community, and demonstrate social justice within schools (Lai, 2015). Regarding students’ empowerment, principals can create positive traditions, support student leadership, accept cultural diversity, or encourage teachers to believe in their students (Kirk et al., 2017). Other important practices deal with the improvement in students’ grades, especially for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics subjects (Hoskins and Barker, 2020).

Nevertheless, most of the literature about educational school leadership and social mobility deals with schools that have ethnic and cultural diversity, where the role of the principal is to ensure social justice within the school borders (Arar et al., 2017). The role of the school principal in empowering students in the context of schools that are within a minority group and are not ethnically diverse has not been sufficiently explored. Moreover, previous studies on the role of the school principal in promoting social mobility have focused on principals in poverty-stricken areas and not on those in ethnic minority areas (Greaves et al., 2014; Mowat, 2019).

The purpose of the current study is to address this research gap by focusing on the perceptions and practices of principals regarding students’ social mobility within a minority group. Building on the social-ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), which emphasizes the interconnectedness among various subsystems within the educational landscape and the impact of contextual factors on students’ outcomes, the study aims to explore this topic through a holistic approach that examines how different members of the educational realm perceive the role of school principals regarding the social mobility of students from a minority group. For this purpose, two research questions were formulated:

1. How do principals and other school/community members within a minority group perceive the role principals play in promoting social mobility among students?
2. What practices do principals employ to promote social mobility among students?

mproving student performance, regardless of background factors, is an important objective in educational research, policy, and practice. Academic optimism responds by identifying key variables that enhance performance for all students(Hoy, 2012). This study aims to advance this exploration by outlining critical antecedents for fostering such optimism in secondary schools. The academic optimism of schools comprises three interrelated subcomponents that positively impact student performance, even when controlling for background characteristics such as socioeconomic status (SES) or migration background (Boonen et al., 2014; Hoy et al., 2006a; McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). Teacher teams that demonstrate greater collective efficacy beliefs (1), prioritize academic emphasis (2), and foster trust in both their students and the parents (3) are more likely to achieve the goal of improving performance, in contrast to teacher teams lacking this academically optimistic focus (Hoy et al., 2006b). Previous studies have shown a link between authentic (Srivastava & Dhar, 2016), distributed (Cansoy & Parlar, 2018; Hasanvand et al., 2013), instructional (Allen, 2011),transformational (Atif & Abid, 2021) and social justice (Feng & Chen, 2019) leadership to increase the level of academic optimism. Building upon these findings, we hypothesize that, in terms of effectiveness, a leadership approach that directly evaluates and guides teacher performance in alignment with academic optimism – whether explicitly stated or demonstrated through the leadership's own actions – will generate an even more profound impact. This type of leadership behavior, which we will refer to as performance management for academic optimism, embodies a direct and purposeful approach, underscoring the notion that leaders play a pivotal role in shaping the organizational culture. In addition, we anticipate that a principal’s proactive efforts to enhance the team’s collective efficacy, foster trust in students and parents, and believe in the capabilities of all students will also deepen the connection between teachers on the one hand and increase the participation and involvement of parents and students on the other. Principals who take the initiative to emphasize the importance of reaching out to others are more likely to foster social bonds that can enhance the density of relationships within schools (Bishop Harris, 2015; Bryk, 2010). Research from Scott (2016) showed the importance of ongoing communication from teachers to parents to increase involvement. Clearly articulating these expectations by school leaders is anticipated to boost the likelihood of teachers investing more in such interactions (Epstein, 2002). Additionally, principals who cultivate a positive learning climate are anticipated to enhance teachers’ connectedness with the school (Hallinger et al., 2018). As these alignment practices become more widespread, we anticipate it will further augment the academic optimism of the school. The heightened connectedness and interaction will contribute to an increased confidence within the teacher team, build more trust in students and parents, and foster a stronger belief in the potential of all students. In prior qualitative research, teachers themselves highlighted the significance of connectedness as a vital condition for academic optimism, as well as the importance of authentic relationships with students and parental involvement (Lelieur et al., 2023). In summary, we hypothesize that school leaders who explicitly focus on academic optimism not only generate more academic optimism but also foster more alignment between teachers, students and parents, which, in turn, will further elevate the level of school academic optimism. In that way, this research seeks to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by uncovering critical antecedents that promote academic optimism, paving the way for a more comprehensive understanding and practical application in educational settings.

The accelerated pace of life and heavy workloads have made it increasingly difficult to engage parents in parental involvement, and the lockdowns during COVID have also weakened this relationship (Brown et al. 2011, Wright, et al. 2022). It is a current research challenge to re-examine the factors that promote and hinder parental involvement. Researchers classified the factors affecting the quality of the family-school partnership into child-related, parent-related, and school-related types (Epstein, 2001, Magwa & Mugari, 2017). Perents influence students’ school performance in many ways, and the biggest challenge for the education system is to compensate for the resulting disadvantages. Education policies aimed at reducing social inequalities in the school system emphasize the importance of involving parents in their children’s school life and studies, and of developing family-school partnerships (Epstein 2001). Current research suggests that school policies, district leaders and principals’ support for family and community involvement can dominantly influence parents’ attitudes toward schools (Epstein, et al. 2011).

Significant differences can be observed in parental involvement by social background. Parental involvement is much higher for parents from favorable social backgrounds even today(Guo et al., 2018; Pribesh et al., 2020, Gibbs et al. 2021). A key reason for this lies in parents’ different communication, worldviews, and attitudes due to social differences and in the resulting teacher-parent distance. Unfavorable social status influences parenting through low educational attainment, lack of positive school experiences, lack of information, and insufficient confidence in the educational process (Morawska et al. 2009; Bæck 2010). Some explain the low intensity of parental involvement to economic disadvantage, low income, inflexible and longer working hours, the need to supplement income, and time constraints due to overtime (Dyson et al. 2007). It is the low SES families, for whom an effective Family-School-Community Partnership (FSCP) would be key to promoting their children's success in school. This raises the critical educational policy question of how to support parental involvement of low SES families. Epstein argues that the school policies that support FSCP can reduce the disadvantageous impact of low-SES families on PI. Research results do not clarify which school policies effectively involve low-status parents in different school cultures.

This research aims to reveal the types and effects of FSCP policies in Central and Eastern Europe. The main question of this research is: Which policies are successful in involving low-SES parents? Our research focuses on the most hard-to-reach, yet most significant actors: how parents of different SES perceive the schools' FSCP policies—hypotheses: (1) A more favorable SES results in a more active home-based and school-based PI. (2) Parental SES impacts parents’ perceptions of FSCP policies. (3) Parents’ perceptions of FSCP have a greater impact on home-based and school-based PI than individual student- and parent-related factors.

Rapid changes in society and new knowledge in the field of education require that teachers learn to support students’ development as a natural part of every school’s daily work. McLure and Aldridge (2022) emphasized that the link between new and ongoing changes in schools should be balanced with the flexibility of the school, taking into account the socio-cultural factors present in the context of each school and ending with the capacity of the school leadership to manage change.

The development needs of schools during the recent COVID-19 pandemic were particularly acute. Research findings highlight the critical importance of leadership, emphasizing, in particular, the central role of school leaders in both problem-solving and fostering collaboration among teachers. Research shows that pre-existing (pre-Covid) practices in schools, such as distributed leadership, peer networks, and collaboration, were beneficial factors that helped successful schools lead the learning process calmly and respond to challenges (e.g. De Voto & Superfine, 2023; Watson & Singh, 2022). Nonetheless, the willingness to learn together and systematically renew one’s own practices is an effortful and time-consuming process, and requires a supportive environment and from leaders to maintain focus, share responsibility, and create a collaborative learning culture among teachers (Sims & Fletcher-Wood, 2021).

Teacher collaboration constitutes one of the key elements of school improvement, quality, and effectiveness (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2010). It is also argued that collaboration represents a general characteristic of good schools and encourages teachers to view innovation as a common and continuous process of change rather than as an additional task (Vangrieken et al., 2015). In an effective collaboration process, certain organizational routines provide structure and enable the coordination of various tasks by helping teachers and school leaders interact in a way that is consistent with organizational goals. Organizational routines have been understood in the literature as driving forces for improvement and change in schools (Maag Merki et al., 2023).

The most commonly mentioned strategies that leaders employ to increase the collaborative nature of school culture are implementing distributed leadership (Spillane, 2006), creating a shared vision and setting goals focused on the quality of teaching and learning (Leithwood et al., 2020).

External support is an important element in the school improvement process, and one form of external support that has received significant attention is joint university-school programs (e.g., Bryk et al., 2010; Timperley et al., 2014), where school and university staff collaborate in the development process. This partnership between researchers and practitioners aims to build the capacity of educational systems to engage in research-informed improvement efforts (Bryk et al., 2010). University-school partnerships often aim to collaboratively develop and test interventions and work out new practices, which is a process that engages researchers and practitioners in designing and testing solutions for improving teaching and learning (Coburn et al., 2016; Sjölund et al., 2022).

In line with Coburn et al. (2016), this study aimed to identify the factors that foster the development of a collaborative culture in the school improvement process.

The study is guided by the following research questions: 1) How was the arrangement of teamwork perceived in the school improvement process? 2) How was the goal setting perceived in the school improvement process? 3) How was external support perceived in the school improvement process?

Researchers have long been interested in possible reasons and differences that make some leaders more effective and which profit their community. For instance, Leithwood and Jantzi’s impact model (2006) is one amongst many models that explore positive effects of school leadership. This model depicts how school leaders predict student outcomes through leadership motivation, commitment, and capacity, as well as school leader’s working conditions and teaching behavior. Research supports these predictions and points to certain common characteristics as predictors of student achievement, such as the leaders ability to manage the school and their time, to create a healthy learning climate and culture, to positively invest in internal and external school relations, to have vision and direction, and to communicate effectively (Barkman, 2015; Daniëls et al., 2019; Osborne-Lampkin et al., 2015; Quadach et al., 2020). Arguably, the positive effects of leadership are vital in ages of uncertainty: the school is dependent on a leader who shares their responsibility effectively with the teachers.

Research on characteristics of effective school management has relationship to the concept of Leadership for Learning and thus shows practical application. This concept describes learning-centered leadership actions and focuses on student outcomes and their knowledge acquisition in the context of school as a learning organization. Moreover, it describes student outcomes not only as a result of classroom teaching, but also from other factors. To give an example, trust and cooperation (i.e., characteristic of effective school management), is linked to learning communities and team orientation (i.e., Leadership for Learning action) which can influence student achievement (Tulowitzki & Pietsch, 2020). Thus, further research on characteristics of effective school management could be beneficial to study one important aspect of the conditions for success of this leadership model in detail.

We argue that many of the investigated school leaders’ characteristics are occupational in nature due to their specific work features and the institutional context of school. On that note, many of the beforementioned characteristics arguably concern leadership strategies and approaches. Those variables distinguish themselves from individual differences in a narrower sense, such as personality traits and motivational characteristics, that also play an important role for attributes of school leaders’ and which is needed to create a more complete picture.

In sum, relatively few findings exist of individual differences in school leaders. Taking up this desideratum, this presentation addresses the research questions of what personal characteristics school leaders possess. In addition, it investigates what potential effects such characteristics have on criteria variables, and aims to systemize the empirical research on individual characteristics. For example, Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins (2019) claimed that a few personality traits can explain a high share of the variation in leadership effectiveness. On that note, the Big 5 personality traits have been investigated amongst school leaders. In this regard results are diverse: school leaders have been found related to high levels of extraversion and openness to experience by some studies (Colbert et al., 2012), others highlight high levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness (Deinert et al., 2015; Benoliel, 2021).Whilst Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins (2019) claim was aimed at traits as “typically defined”, Leithwood (2012) in cooperation with the Ontario Leadership Framework have specified some personal leadership resources that extends beyond the Big Five personality traits. These personal leadership resources are categorized as cognitive (e.g., problem-solving expertise), social (e.g., perceiving and managing emotions), or psychological (e.g., self-efficacy and resilience).

Megapolis A, one of the biggest megacities of Russia, experienced major changes in the educational system (starting from 2012) which implied reconstructurisation of the schools and school organizational structure. Today schools of Megapolis A are huge educational complexes, where about 80% of schools comprise 5 and more buildings which can be located in different parts of Megapolis A. School management team consists of a principal and 4 deputies. During the process of reconstructurization there have been launched a variety of studies focusing on leadership and management practices of principals (Kasprzhak, Kobtseva & Tsatrian, 2022, 2020; Kasprzhak et al., 2016; Kasprzhak, Isaeva & Bayburin, 2015 ). With the reform coming to the end, we suppose that there are shifts not only in the practices of principals, their priorities and the level of distribution of responsibility among the deputies but also in the role of a principal. Today a school principal is seen not only as a head of one school but a leader of a huge educational complex whose prior goal is to work for the goals of Megapolis A educational system. In fact, school management which is concentrated in the hands of a principal only became impossible in the existing context. In this study we are basing on the professional standard for school principals (2021) to identify the core leadership practices of the school management team, their focus.

Research questions:

What issues/tasks are in the focus of a school principal within the domains of existing standards?

Is there a correlation between the principals’ background and his/her focus?

How is the responsibility for tasks distributed among the members of the school management team?

We developed a conceptual framework of a principal’s leadership profile to serve as a basis for the research The standard of a Russian school principal (2021) served as a basis for the framework, in this way we picked out the key leadership direction of a school principal: educational process, administration of the school, school improvement, interaction and collaboration with stakeholders. To ensure the sufficiency of the framework that it covers all the leadership tasks:

• we analyzed existing professional profiles and dimensions of successful leadership of other countries (UK, the U.S., the Netherlands, Finland, Malaysia etc). The analysis allowed us to see the differences and priorities set for school leaders from different perspectives.

• we carried out interviews with school principals and their deputies to unpack their leadership practice, key tasks and also get their feedback on the framework (is it mirroring the key leadership dimensions of a principal?)

• we carried out a focus group session with principals and deputies

All this allowed us to develop the framework taking into account peculiarities of the context.

We believe that public schools in our respective countries (Kenya, Sweden, United States) are essential to maintaining the democratic societies in which they are located. In addition to an unprecedented global pandemic, the last three years have witnessed increasing threats to democracy. The racially, ethnically, and religiously-motivated hatred, rise in extreme right-wing political violence, and anti-immigrant sentiment provide a challenging context for school leaders responsible for ensuring an equitable education for all children and the continuation of a democratic society. Historically depicted as “apolitical”, principals and superintendents must now contend with enacting their role and responsibilities within highly charged political and social contexts with various constituencies attempting to control public education through such efforts as: banning books, restricting curriculum topics, decreasing funding, and electing anti-public education candidates to school boards.

These threats to superintendents’ and principals’ leadership occur alongside the challenges that accompany teacher and administrative shortages and turnover, as well as the ongoing consequences of COVID. Despite the fact that school leaders are making educational decisions within these challenging contexts, we know very little about how and why they are making these decisions.

In reviewing the research from 1993-2011 on principals’ leadership identity, Cruz-Gonzalez, Rodrigues and Segovia (2019) report that the evidence indicates that “political and contextual factors influence leadership practices and are a source of concern among principals” (p. ). Additionally, they acknowledge that this body of research was dominated by researchers in Anglo-Saxon countries. A notable contribution in this regard is Lopez & Rugano’s (2018) study of the leadership practices of three female principals in post-colonial Kenya.

The study conducted by Antonios & Peshardis (2019) is an also important counterpoint to the lack of cultural diversity in this research, with findings confirming that the contexts in which school principals in Cypriot work are relevant to their personal, personal, and professional identities. A recent study of Swedish principals (Nordholm et al., 2020), however, indicates that principals’ identity is more closely connected to the professional dimension than either the situated, socially located or personal dimensions. It’s interesting that the situated or socially located dimension had the least impact on principals with respect to their identify. In contrast, a study of principal identity by Crow, Day, & Møller (2017) concludes that identity has a strong connection to the context of work.

Our research focuses on how school leaders construct their identities within the current divisive social and political climate, and what factors influence their decisionmaking when responding to the challenges that emerge from the increasingly polarized social and political contexts within which they work. In doing so, we acknowledge the research conducted by Dempster, Carter, Freakley and Parry (2004) which points to the situational and sometimes contradictory nature of principal’s ethical decisionmaking.

In responding to call for a broader range of cultural perspectives in educational research, as well as the theme of ECER 2024, Education in an Age of Uncertainty: Memory and hope for the future, our research includes data from Kenya, Sweden and the United States (Texas). We selected three different groups of school leaders: a) those who retired prior to 2020; b) those who retired within the past 3 years (2020-2023); c) those currently in their position. (a & b = memory, and c = hope for the future). In synthesizing previous studies on principal identity and how it’s constructed, Sylvia Robertson (2017) explores the idea that principals’ professional identity consists of five related and overlapping aspects: 1) values; 2) beliefs; 3) knowledge; 4) understanding; and 5) experience. Our analysis of the ethical dimension of principal identity is informed by the work of Begley & Johansson (2003).

Workplace interruptions are a pervasive challenge, reducing performance, evoking negative emotions, and impacting relationships (Zide et al., 2017). Definitions of interruptions have evolved from Jett and George’s (2003) definition of interruptions as “any disruptive event that impedes progress toward accomplishing the organizational task.” Brixey et al. (2007) added the dimension of the suspension of goal-directed action. Later, Werner and Holden (2015) considered interruptions through a systems-based lens rather than as a single “event.” Recently, Puranik et al. (2020) added the unexpectedness of its occurrence to the definition of a “work interruption.”. Interruptions interfere with performance by moving the attentional focus from the planned work task (Puranik, 2020) and can engender negative emotional responses (Poirel et al., 2014).

Although School principals are “eminently interruptible” (Philips 1991), there is in general a conspicuous lack of specific research on interruptions experienced by educational leaders. Based on the literature regarding interruptions (Jett & George, 2003; Brumby et al., 2019; Puranik et al., 2020), one might presume school principals’ responses to interruptions would be similar to those of other types of managers. Even though interruptions potentially expose educational leaders to short- and long-term deleterious effects, school principals often view interruptions as time invested (Hunter et al., 2019). The goal of this study was to map the patterns and sources of interruptions that school principals face and to explore the typical responses to those interruptions.

The study focused on how school principals perceive an interruption in terms of the source of the interruption. The study explores how principals perceive the various sources of an interruption and how their perceptions can influence the interpretation of an unexpected event. Given this aim, the following research questions were proposed. (1) What do principals define as an interruption event in their job? (2) Who are the key stakeholders who are the source of these interruption events? (3) How does the source of the interruption affect the principals' interpretation of the event? (4) What determines whether a stakeholder or event is considered an interruption?

Principals are interrupted by various stakeholders (such as students, parents, teachers, and officials from the local municipality). The study shows that these stakeholders can be divided into extrinsic and intrinsic categories. Principals categorize interruptions based on how they align with or contradict their role definition, evaluating the event and the stakeholders based on their affinity to the principals’ core goals. Extrinsic sources not aligned with these core goals are most likely to be considered interruptions. For example, when the Ministry of Education makes an ad hoc request for data it is always considered an interruption as the principals perceived this request as not advancing their goal of concern for student welfare. By contrast, stakeholders aligned with their core goals are mostly considered an intrinsic source. For instance, parents asking for an emergency meeting to unexpectedly help a student would be considered intrinsic stakeholders because of their strong affinity to principals' core goals - such an event would not be considered an interruption.

Based on the findings of the Principals Leadership Behaviour Project in two provinces in China, this paper provides empirical evidence from three school principals that contributes to the understanding of the factors that influence the resilience of school principals in their profession. Resilient leadership is one that is able to sustain an organisation or group's competitive advantage over time through its ability to perform two tasks simultaneously: to adapt and adjust effectively to rapid, turbulent change, and to thrive and prosper successfully against current goals (Dartey-Baah, 2015, Robb, 2000; Masten, 2012; Vera et al.,2020). If educational leaders fail to manage adversity, not only will the leaders themselves suffer psychological disorders, but students and teachers will also suffer as a result of the dysfunctional climate for all concerned.

Resilience research has been around for 50 years, but has been greatly intensified in the last 20 years (Förster & Duchek, 2017). The origins of this field of research lie in developmental psychology in the context of children at risk, suggesting that it is the protective factors with the individual, family and community that allow children at risk in adverse living conditions to thrive in their lives (Werner, 1996; Luthar, 1991). After that, resilience in the context of education is widely applied to children and teachers (Luthar, 2015; Beltman, Mansfield & Price, 2011).

Resilience in the context of education has been studied from a number of approaches to its definition. Firstly, resilience is seen as an important psychological trait associated with optimism, perseverance, adaptability, responsibility, courageous decision-making, personal ethical values, personal efficacy, personal well-being, etc. (Bennis, 2007; Lazaridou, 2020; Olmo-Extremera, Townsend and Segovia, 2022), which help individuals to bounce back from the challenges, disappointments and adversities they face. Secondly, resilience is considered as a socially constructed concept that is relative, developmental and dynamic and influenced by contexts or scenarios (Rutter, 1990; Bernard, 2002; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Henderson & Milstein, 2003; Gu & Day, 2007; Day, Johansson & Møller, 2011). In this case, resilience develops over time and is influenced by situational and personal factors and determined by individuals’ capacities to manage context-specific factors (Day, Johansson & Møller, 2011; Sarkar and Fletcher, 2014; Rutter, 2006). Apart from the two understandings mentioned above, there is another approach to explore resilient leadership. It is considered as a kind of transformational capability to demonstrate how to use resources (Dartey-Baah, 2015; Teo, Lee & Lim, 2017). Specifically, the capability perspective believes that resilient leadership is the use of social capital and financial, structural or technological resources to achieve the institution's goal so that it can thrive even in the face of adversity. (Vera et al., 2020).

Although the need and importance of resilient leadership is known, only a limited number of empirical studies have involved school principals. Some studies believe that resilience is static and resilient leadership is related to personality traits (Lazaridou & Beka, 2015; Olmo-Extremera, Townsend & Segovia, 2022), while others argue that resilience is dynamic and resilient leaders are influenced by positive and negative circumstances and are able to manage these context-specific factors (Day, Johansson & Møller, 2011). However, there is little evidence on which relevant factors, the trait variables or the context-specific variables, are more justified in Chinese principals and how such variables relate to success in the principalship.

This paper aims to portrait three resilient principals to demonstrate the range of internal and external protective factors impacting on leaders’ work which, together contribute to exercise leadership that resilience plays in enabling them to thrive, flourish and sustain their effectiveness.

Trust is crucial in many areas and levels of society. School is a place for children and students’ learning that promotes personal development to become active, creative and responsible individuals and citizens. Trust between principals and teachers is important regarding collaboration, professional learning and the quality of teaching. Results from various international studies suggest that the interaction between the principal and teachers and the teachers' trust in the principal is closely connected to a school climate that is favorable to students' learning (Price, 2015; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015).

Trust is crucial for leadership. It is a part of caring for and loving of others, and the way a leader use experience, imagination and empathy that makes life of the other person as eliberating as possible (Løgstrup, 1994, 2007). To create trust is not only something for the other person, rather trust in a relationship makes it possible for both lives to flourish. This is also the case in a principal-teacher relation. To show trust is to completely open oneself up (Løgstrup, 1994) and contains a willingness to make yourself vulnerable for the other and to take a risk, believing, that the other will meet your needs (Blom, 2022; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 2000; Løgstrup, 1994).

Vulnerability has an important role in a trusting relation and to be open in contributing to the life of the other. This natural vulnerability and responsiveness to one another is an important part of leading in schools, for example in collaborations, professional learning and teaching. Relational vulnerability can be understood as the “intrinsic ability of humans to be open to their experiences, reflect upon their physical and mental states of existence, and navigate their lives” (Satama, Garcia-Lorenzo & Seeck, 2023, p. 4).

Vulnerability can be seen as both positive and negative, but is traditionally understood as being related to weakness, dependency, and powerlessness (Gilson, 2014). Positive vulnerability can be seen in the willingness to be honest and open to learning by accepting our not knowing everything and the possibility of being wrong (Mayer, La Fevre & Robinsson, 2017). As Gilson (2014) states “epistemic vulnerability is what makes learning, and thus a reduction of ignorance, possible” (p. 93).

Negative vulnerability can for example be the possibility of embarrassment, emotional pain or feelings of powerlessness, which can result in defensive or ineffective behavior (Lasky, 2005). This affects the trusting relationship between a principal and teacher and may cause negative consequences on students learning.

Leaders and those who hold positional power need to model the courage it takes to confront and discuss difficult issues, especially if these can evoke emotional reactions (Mayer, La Fevre & Robinsson, 2017). For principals this can be issues regarding the cooperation within the school, professional learning and school development. Thus, this includes that vulnerability is also about being sensitive and responsive towards the other.

The notion of vulnerability is important when thinking about how leaders can build more trusting relationships (Mayer et.al., 2017).

Previous research focuses on the broader concept of trust and this study aims at examining how school leaders and teachers think about relational vulnerability and how it manifests in their everyday school life.

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to examine how principals show vulnerability and responsiveness in their leadership in schools as a part of trust, with a particular focus on the principal-teacher relationship.

Research questions

How do principals describe their actions that involve vulnerability and responsiveness to other persons?

What are the possible reasons for principals’ willingness to be vulnerable to others?

How do teachers experience principals’ actions in regards to vulnerability and responsiveness?

The task of principals in schools and preschools is complex and far reaching and thus hard to handle by one single person. Yet, in Sweden the law states that the principle is solely responsible for leading and coordinating the activities at schools and preschools (SFS 2010:800). However, to strengthen the school leadership and support the principal many Swedish schools have hired assistant principals. In fact, the number of assistant principals in Swedish schools have increased fourfold in the last ten years (skolverket 2022). These developments can be understood through the developing research field of shared leadership (Döös & Wilhelmson, 2021). In shared leadership research the understanding of leadership practice goes beyond traditional, singular ways of organising leadership functions. Instead, leadership is seen as a collective endeavour including multiple individuals with different forms and functions.

In the international literature there is an expanding acknowledgement that issues surrounding schools and education in general is becoming increasingly complex (Yada & Jäppinen, 2022). This, in turn, have spurred the question of whether principals can, or should, tackle diverse organisational problems alone (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Indeed, many researchers suggest that school leadership is better understood as a shared phenomenon that requires collective actions to address and manage issues at hand (Hallinger & Heck, 2011; Harris, 2003).

In this study, I take my point of departure in shared leadership research and apply it to the Swedish case. I find the Swedish case of particular interest to investigate shared leadership for two reasons. First, the increase of assistant principals in recent years indicate an increased focus on shared leadership in Sweden. Second, the mission of the principal is clearly elaborated in the education act and other relevant steering documents, but the mission of the assistant principal is less defined. This means that the role and function of the assistant principal can differ greatly between school contexts. In addition, the role of the assistant principal as well as the relationship between the principal and the assistant principal is contested and up for negotiation since the Swedish education act and other steering documents provide none or limited guidance to these issues.

To further investigate how leadership in schools work, other leader functions than primary leaders such as principals needs to be investigated. In this paper assistant principals in the Swedish school system are investigated to further develop the understandings of how shared leadership can be understood in a Swedish context. The questions for this study are; What perceptions do assistant principals have about their role and responsibility in the cross-municipal management organization? What perceptions do assistant principals have about their role and responsibility in the school-specific management organization?

Objective and Research Question

In this paper we explore the construction of collective agency in the context of educational innovations employing a dual case study approach. Specifically our research question was: How is collective agency constructed when implementing top-down and bottom-up educational innovations in schools? We build on the literature regarding agency and construction of agency as a theoretical foundation for our study.

Theoretical framework

Agency refers to teachers’ conscious ability to influence their work through their actions (Imants & Van der Wal, 2020), resulting in impact on both the school context and/or their professional identity (Etelapelto et al., 2013). Teacher agency is increasingly recognized as a crucial capacity in the context of educational innovations and educational quality (Vähäsantanen, 2015). Educational innovations are integral to every school and thus a part of teachers’ professional lives. Society and policymakers require schools to address aspects such as equal opportunities for students and educational quality by introducing innovations that improve their practices.

Although the significance of teacher agency in the context of educational innovations is acknowledged, it concurrently faces threats from policies emphasizing school and teacher accountability, resulting in the perceived lack of space and perceived agency (Oolbekkink-Marchand et al., 2017). This pressure of policies can lead to weak or bounded teacher agency (Vahasantanen, 2015; Oolbekkink et al. 2022). In such instances, teachers perceive themselves as passive rather than active subjects, lacking influence on their work conditions in schools and in the policy decisions being made. To foster a strong or extensive sense of agency among teachers and enable them to utilize this agency in the context of innovations, a stimulating interplay of personal and social resources is essential. Support from a school leader and a strong commitment to their work can empower teachers to experience a robust sense of agency and drive changes in their professional practice (Oolbekkink et al., 2022).

In the context of schoolwide educational innovations, the need for not only individual agency but also collective agency becomes paramount, Collective agency “is manifested when a group of people share and pursue a common interest in order to improve their own lives and to affect larger contexts, for example by transforming structures and cultures” (Hökkä et al. 2019). Collective agency can be manifested when a group of teachers collaboratively develops new professional practices, or reaches a shared understanding of what is important in school and their classes, defining who they want to be as teachers in this context. Despite this importance, little is known about the construction of collective agency in the professional practice of teachers and school leaders in the context of educational innovations. We assume that the ‘type of innovation’ (top-down or bottom-up) may influence the construction of collective agency in schools. Top-down innovation is initiated by school leaders sometimes in response to districts or nationwide policies, while bottom-up innovation originates from teachers often in response to perceived needs in classrooms or their subject matter department. The literature indicates that neither top-down nor bottom-up innovations are inherently superior; however, fostering interaction between bottom-up and top-down processes is crucial. This requires actors and activities that integrate these processes to establish collective agency for collaborative educational innovations aimed at improving educational quality (Fullan, 1994; Saari et al., 2015).

This study focuses on examining top-down and bottom-up educational innovations in school practice and the construction of collective agency in these cases.

Living in a changing world we are constantly faced with new challenges which require new knowledge and capacity building. Consequently, principals’ continuous professional development (CPD) has become a central concern of educational actors in many countries (Grissom & Harrington, 2010; Gurr & Drysdale, 2012). Still, research about principals’ CPD is limited although growing. As most of the research is conducted within Anglo-Saxion countries, more knowledge of principals’ CPD practices, especially from outside of North America is needed (Huber, 2011; 2013). So far, research results have recommended a mix of strategies and methods, being embedded in practice and adjusted to local needs (Newmann, et al., 2000). However, if CPD is to challenge prevailing understanding and practices, it needs to provide opportunities for collegial inquiry and systematic learning (Goldring et al., 2012). In addition, Campbell et al. (2017) stress the importance of external support and mentoring for leaders at different stages in their career trajectory. As principals are lonely in their position, an important element of high-quality CPD is group coaching and networking with other principals who could stimulate critical reflection and help identify gaps in knowledge and skills (Aas & Varvik, 2015; Nicolaidou et al., 2016).

In Sweden, central regulation prescribes that local education authorities (LEAs), i.e., the 290 municipalities and the many independent school providers (business companies and non-profit organizations), must ensure principals with CPD. However, due to decentralised implementation, each LEA is free to choose direction and design. To support LEAs, the National Agency of Education offers a variety of voluntary courses and seminaries, individually or in cooperation with universities. In addition, CPD for principals is also offered by companies and organized by LEAs themselves. Swedish research about principal CPD is, in line with international research, limited and primarily restricted to single case studies (e.g. Liljenberg, 2021; Sahlin 2023). Consequently, the aim of this study is to contribute to the research field by capturing a broader picture of principals’ CPD in Sweden. We do so by addressing the following research question: What characterize the CPD offered to and valued by principals?

The theoretical point of departure for the study is taken in Wenger’s (1998) and Wenger Trayner and Wenger Trayner’s (2020) perspective on social learning and social learning spaces. In their view, a CPD initiative could be termed a constellation and understood as a designed social learning space. Constellations define relations of locality, proximity, and distance, not necessarily congruent with physical proximity, institutional affiliations, or even interactions. Hence, learning in social spaces of CPD reconfigure relations of proximity and distance. Even as principals can participate in global improvement initiatives of any kind, they can only engage locally. Engagement in the local while participating in the global are thus to be seen as related levels of participation, always coexisting and shaping each other (Wenger, 1998, p. 131). Learning can also be viewed as value-creation through experiencing meaning in life (Wenger Trayner & Wenger Trayner, 2020 p. 48). Learning to make a difference goes through practice where social learning reveals the value it creates through action. In this sense caring to make a difference is an investment in uncertainty but also in identity, it involves being in tension between caring to make a difference but not yet knowing how to get there, actualising the need to pay attention to responses in the learning process. This means, the ECER 2024 theme ‘education in an age of uncertainty: memory and hope for the future’ is inherent in the approach taken in this study.

This paper examines a professional development program for school leadership and school development combining multiple interventions and their quality and benefits. The longitudinal mixed methods study analyses the effect on school leadership, school development and school quality in schools in challenging circumstances. It is based on data from an accompanying study of a program aimed at supporting schools in disadvantaged areas, providing school principals from schools in low socio-economic environments with various interventions to aid in the further development of their schools.

The study builds on research on school effectiveness and school improvement, especially regarding schools in challenging circumstances in terms of school turnaround and the role of school leadership.

Due to their location and the composition of the student body, schools in challenging circumstances face more difficult conditions. These schools typically have a high proportion of students from underprivileged family backgrounds, often measured by their parents' education levels and financial circumstances. These poorer socio-economic conditions are frequently associated with the need for special compensatory efforts by the school. However, characterizing a school as a being in a disadvantaged area does not automatically imply diminished school quality (Racherbäumer & van Ackeren, 2015). Some schools may face greater challenges for various reasons, including lower graduation rates or poorer academic performance (Holtappels et al., 2017). Moreover, there can be a cumulative effect of dysfunctional organizational characteristics (composition effect), which can lead to significantly lower school quality and/or more difficult school development processes. In other words, stressors not only affect the current quality of the school but also hinder its progress and improvement (Author, 2018, 2020). As a result, quality characteristics can differ. These schools need external support. The necessary additional support from the system can be provided within the framework of professionalization and advisory services. The range of support measures can vary, including leadership development through training and further education, process consulting and coaching offers, and providing additional resources in the form of time, equipment, and funding.

School leadership also plays an important role not only in school development and building school development capacities but also in accessing external resources and moderating and mediating external interventions. The importance of school leadership for school effectiveness (see, among others, Fend 1987, 1998; Rutter et al. 1979; Sammons et al. 1995) and school improvement, aimed at continuous enhancement of schools (see, among others, Fullan 1988, 1991, 1992; Leithwood & Montgomery 1986; Schratz 1998), has been well-established since the 1980s (Author 1997, 1999a,b,c, 2010a,b, 2011a, 2012, 2016a,b). Consequently, the question of effective and successful actions by educational leaders, especially school principals, has become one of the central topics in educational discussions. There is now broad agreement on the necessity and significance of corresponding professionalization and qualification opportunities. In this sense, leadership development is closely related to the development of the quality of schools.

There is an international consensus that the professionalization of school leaders through education is necessary due to the increased complexity of governance expectations and needs of change (Crow et al., 2008; Spillane et al. 2002). In a complex world people and organizations are expected to learn something that is not stable or understood ahead of time (Engeström, 2001, p. 138). Consequently, there is a need of professional learning in ongoing work activities. During years, school leaders have had the opportunity to participate in various arrangements of school leadership development such as networks across schools and partnership with researchers. Developing partnerships between researchers and practitioners is a common strategy for supporting school improvement and professional development (Coburn & Penuel, 2016). It may involve interventional approaches, such as action research, design-based research, and formative interventions (Engeström, 2011) which is the strategy being used in the present study. In the present study, we are inspired by the Finnish version of formative intervention. This mode of intervention is building on cultural historical activity theory and on the principles of double stimulation and ascending from abstract to the concrete to mediate agency in and between workplaces (Sannino et al, 2016). The point of departure is ‘a problematic and contradictory object, embedded in the participants´ workplace (Engeström, 2015, p. xxxi). It can be manifested as a problem space riddled with conflicting motives and dilemmas (Engeström & Sannino, 2011; 2017). We have explored the method of ChangeLaboratory (CL) in leadership teams in upper secondary schools in Norway. A central feature of CL is that the researchers intervene with specific triggers such as theoretical models and “mirrors” generated from data being collected from workplace to trigger explorative work with a problem statement based on the practitioners needs and future visions. Formative interventions have been conducted in a range of fields over the past three decades, such as in court reforms, farming, health care, small-firms and industries, media companies, medical care, and to a limited degree in vocational teacher education and in teacher teams (Engeström & Sannino, 2010). Some studies have been conducted within the field of teacher education (Jakhelln & Postholm, 2022) but to a limited degree in leadership teams in schools. As such, we organized several workshops in leadership teams in three upper secondary schools. The purpose of the paper is to contribute with empirical knowledge about school leadership workshops as an arena for formative interventions in partnership with a specific attention to the tools, the processes, and the experiences. The research questions are as follows:

1. What characterize the use of tools in ongoing school leadership workshops?
2. How do the participants experience participation in the workshops?
3. To what extend do the collaborative work between school leaders and researchers have relevance when leading processes of school improvement in upper secondary schools?

This symposium examines substantial challenges in the principals’ role that have been further exacerbated by the COVID 19 pandemic, drawing on research into the principalship conducted in England, Sweden, Australia, and Finland. The rationale for this examination is that internationally, schooling systems are facing a principal recruitment and retention crisis (Riley et al., 2021, Heffernan & Pierpoint, 2022). In nations such as Australia, England, and Sweden, stress and burnout, due to increasingly complex social conditions and workload intensification, is leading to an exodus of school leaders and a reluctance from teachers to apply for the principalship. In Sweden, for example, heavy workloads and stress appear to be the main reasons why Swedish principals quit (Thelin & Lund, 2023). In Australia, an annual survey of principals’ occupational health, safety and wellbeing reported 29 per cent of principals were at significant risk of burnout and self-harm - the highest level since the survey commenced in 2011 (See et al., 2022).

Quality educational leadership is instrumental in achieving nations’ aims for fairer, more democratic and socially cohesive societies. The attraction and retention of high-quality educators into the principalship and lower turnover has been shown to accrue significant social benefits: positively impacting teacher retention, school-community engagement and students’ outcomes, particularly for pupils from more marginalised backgrounds (Bartanen et al., 2019; Kelchtermans, 2017). The impact of a principal attraction and retention crisis is significant for students and communities from disadvantaged backgrounds and schools.

Principals’ work historically has been stressful, involving a constant juggle of often-conflicting demands of multiple stakeholders. However, what is new and what this symposium will address are increasing challenges in the role exacerbated by the COVID 19 pandemic. Each paper addresses different aspects of these challenges, drawing on a range of theoretical tools and methods. Papers cover a range of topics: The English study draws on a three-phase research project on school leaders’ work during and after lockdown. This research shows that during the pandemic there were considerable affective costs on school staff, with care leadership roles (pastoral, welfare and safeguarding) extended with increasing poverty, unrecognised, and disproportionately experienced by female members of staff.

A Swedish research team is studying how community-context-related particularities and challenges contribute to shaping the leadership of principals in schools in urban low socioeconomic status communities, with a particular focus on aspects concerning the principals’ emotional labour. The study also aims to explain principals’ emotional labour in light of the cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social-political arrangements that frame their leading practices.

The Australian research examines the emotional labour of educational leading in socially volatile times. Employing the theory of practice architectures, it draws on critical incident testimonies contributed by Australian principals in 2023-2024 in which they reflected on the incident’s emotional impact and key learnings. The paper aims to build new knowledge about the heightened emotional dynamics shaping principals’ work; the dialectical interactions between these emotional dimensions and the contextual and systemic arrangements that influence principals’ labour.

A Finnish research team sheds light on principals’ job crafting, which emerged as a potent strategy helping educators to navigate the contemporary educational terrain marked by increasing uncertainty. Specifically, this study seeks to explore the potential of job crafting in increasing occupational well-being through fostering the development of crucial personal resources, such as curiosity and resilience.

In sum, the objective of this symposium is to collectively explore “the challenges, uncertainties and unstable ground that characterises” the principals’ role and bring to light unrecognised and crucial aspects of their roles whilst also examining how such an exploration can “assist us in addressing current and future needs, challenges and opportunities” (ECER 2024 Call).

Demand for care work intensified and extended during the pandemic and continues to the current day.' Care work’ refers to everything that schools do to support children’s emotional, social and physical well-being. Care-full leadership also covers support for staff in safe and professionally generative and rewarding workplaces. We understand care-full leadership, following Tronto (1998, 2015), to be work which combines (1) attentiveness, becoming aware of need; (2) responsibility, being willing to respond and take care of need; (3) competence, having the skills and knowledge to provide effective care; and (4) responsiveness, considering how others see their position and recognising the potential for the responsibilities of caring to be violated (1993). Our paper draws on a three-phase research project on school leaders’ work during and after lockdown (Greany et al., 2021, 2022, 2023). Our data includes two surveys (n=1491 and n=6057), leader interviews (n=101), stakeholder roundtables (n=9), and analysis of job advertisements. This research shows that during the pandemic there were considerable affective costs on school staff, with care leadership roles (pastoral, welfare and safeguarding) extended and disproportionately experienced by female members of staff. The situation is now critical. Escalating poverty has meant that care demands on schools serving poor communities have further increased, while a youth mental health crisis coupled with rising numbers of children with special needs places unprecedented demands on all schools. Our current four UK nations study of the sustainability of school leadership (https://sustainableschoolleadership.uk) suggests that the English performative and marketised education policy agenda is “care-less” rather than care-full (see Grummell et al., 2009, Lynch, 2010). Leaders must focus on teaching/learning and support students to excel in tests/exams and their school to excel in inspections. Escalating leader vacancies suggest that the predictions made in pandemic research – up to one in three of serving leaders in our studies – are now reality. Leaders argue that government needs to trust them and provide support and resources so that they can continue exercising care-full leadership of students, staff and themselves. This would promote well-being and encourage them to stay. We argue this means policymakers adopting Tronto’s four interlinked care practices. Provocatively, we suggest that the system could well learn about care-full leadership from its school leaders.

Greany, T., Thomson, P. & Bernardes, E., 2023. Still leading after lockdown? Recommendations for enhancing how senior school leaders in England are recruited, trained and sustained: University of Nottingham School of Education. Greany, T., Thomson, P., Cousin, S. & Martindale, N., 2021. Leading in lockdown. Research on school leaders’ work, well-being and career intentions https://schoolleadersworkandwellbeing.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/leading-in-lockdown-final-report.pdf: University of Nottingham School of Education. Greany, T., Thomson, P., Cousin, S. & Martindale, N., 2022. Leading after lockdown. Research on school leaders’ work. well-being and career intentions. Phase 2 findings https://schoolleadersworkandwellbeing.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/leading-after-lockdown-final-report-2-2.pdf: University of Nottingham School of Education. Grummell, B., Devine, D. & Lynch, K., 2009. The care‐less manager: gender, care and new managerialism in higher education. Gender and Education, 21, 191-208. Lynch, K., 2010. Carelessness. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 9, 54-67. Tronto, J., 1993. Moral boundaries. A political argument for an ethic of care London: Routledge. Tronto, J., 1998. An ethic of care. Generations. Journal of the American Society on Aging, 22, 15-20. Tronto, J., 2015. Who cares? How to reshape a democratic politics Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.

This paper examines principals’ emotional, and often invisible, work (Hochschild, 1983; cf. Wilkinson, 2021). Recent studies undertaken in a long-term network collaboration between school principals in low socioeconomic status Swedish communities and educational researchers, show how leadership is learned and shaped in and by context specific circumstances, entailing several challenges. The most prominent challenges are connected to a) high population mobility, b) comprehensive linguistic and cultural diversity, c) comprehensive knowledge diversity, and d) an intense problem complexity, i.e., a dense flow of extraordinary incidents in and around the schools (Hirsh et al., 2023). Although not explicitly elaborated on in these studies, the results also indicate that emotions are a prominent, albeit often unspoken, part of the principals' work. In this study, we re-analyse the same data that led to the above-mentioned findings, with specific interest directed towards finding discursive manifestations of emotional labour. Additionally, the new analysis is directed towards understanding and explaining principals’ emotional labour through a practice architectures lens. Principals’ leading is explored as a practice that consists of sayings, doings and relatings conditioning and conditioned by site-specific cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social-political arrangements (Kemmis et al., 2014). The empirical data underlying this study consists of five audio-recorded peer group dialogues between principals (N=20), conducted within the framework of the longitudinal R&D collaboration mentioned above. Our preliminary results show that some site-specific conditions in particular involve emotional labor: Work intensification, clearly connected to the context-related challenges that the previous study made visible and navigating the local policy context. We suggest that understanding emotional labor as an essential and demanding aspect of principals' work is necessary for the building of support structures around them, which in the long run can counter the impact of work intensification. Preliminary analysis also makes visible how the intertwined site-specific arrangements condition the principals' leading practices, and how they navigate and learn 'how to go on' based in the emotional labor. This suggests that emotional labor can be understood as conditions for educational leading practices, sometimes perceived as a burden for the individual but indeed also as important, site-based practice knowledge that gives principals’ work joy and meaning. Further, the methodological approach in the R&D collaboration, i.e., the peer-dialogues, seem to empower the principals and trigger agentive action in terms of proposing and initiating educational and workplace changes (cf. Hirsh et al, 2023).

Hirsh, Å., Liljenberg, M., Jahnke, A., & Karlsson Perez Å. (2023). Far from the generalised norm: Recognising the interplay between contextual particularities and principals’ leadership in schools in low-socio-economic status communities. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1-18. DOI: 10.1177/17411432231187349 Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press. Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing practices, Changing education. Springer. Wilkinson, J. (2021). Educational leadership through a practice lens: Practice matters. Springer.

As an intrinsically caring profession, emotions matter in educating and educational leading. Managing one’s emotions and that of others is a key part of the largely invisible labour of the principalship (Hochschild, 2012). Moreover, educational practices such as caring, disciplining, influencing, administering and managing people and their emotions are crucial sites of knowing in the principalship (Gherardi & Rodeschini, 2016). From a practice theory lens then, emotions as sites of knowing are not the property of individuals. Rather, the emotionality of a practice such as leadership forms part of the collective know how or taken-for-granted understandings of ‘how we do things around here’. Moreover, in relation to practices such as managing, administering and leading a school, this practice-specific emotionality consists of knowing both what to do and how to do it (Gherardi & Rodeschini, 2016; Wilkinson, 2021). In this paper, we adopt a practice approach – the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014) to examine the practice-specific emotionality (Reckwitz, 2002) of practices of educational leading. In order to render visible this tacit knowledge, we draw on testimonies contributed by Australian principals in 2023-2024 (N=201) in which they narrated a critical incident that had occurred under their leadership and reflected on its emotional impact and key learnings. The data forms part of a three-year, Australian Research Council study examining the emotional labour of Australian principals in socially and politically volatile times (https://www.monash.edu/education/research/projects/school-principals-emotional-labour-in-volatile-times). In keeping with the practice lens adopted in this paper, critical incident as a method was selected for such incidents disrupt ‘normalcy’ to illuminate “underlying trends, motives, and structures that have a more general meaning and indicate something of importance” in the “wider context” of Australian society (Gherardi & Rodeschini, 2016, p. 272). In analysing these incidents through a practice architectures lens, we ask: What is the work these emotions and practices are doing/performing? What are the broader discursive, material and social arrangements that make certain practices and emotions more or less likely to emerge in this site, rather than that one? What are the implications of this analysis for the broader project and praxis of educational leading? A practice lens thus adds new knowledge about the heightened emotional dynamics shaping principals’ work; the dialectical interactions between these emotional dimensions and principals’ individual demographics; and how emotional labour unfolds over time.

Gherardi, S., & Rodeschini, G. (2016). Caring as a collective, knowledgeable doing: About concern and being concerned. Management Learning, 47(3), 266-284. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507615610030 Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling (3rd ed.). The University of California Press. Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing practices, Changing education. Springer. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Towards a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310222225432 Wilkinson, J. (2021). Educational leadership through a practice lens: Practice matters. Springer.

The well-being of school principals is paramount, as they play a central role in school operations and education (Beausaert et al., 2023). According to Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), job characteristics (job demands and resources) and employees’ personal characteristics (personal resources) are key determinants of employees’ well-being. Within this framework, job crafting is proposed as an employee-driven job design approach, by which employees proactively seek an optimal equilibrium between job demands and job resources. Through strategies such as increasing structural or social resources, increasing challenging job demands, or decreasing hindering demands, employees can proactively redesign their jobs, potentially resulting in enhanced occupational well-being (Tims et al., 2013). Research has demonstrated that job crafting indeed changes job characteristics in the intended direction, ultimately leading to improved occupational well-being (Tims et al., 2013). However, less is known about how job crafting affects personal resources, and how it, in turn, influences occupational well-being. Drawing on JD-R theory and Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll et al., 2018), this study argues that job crafting fosters the development of curiosity and resilience (Toyama et al., 2023), which, in turn, predicts positive changes in work-related well-being, such as work engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout, over time. Longitudinal data from 257 Finnish school principals collected at two time points one year apart (2022 and 2023) were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Results showed that increasing challenging job demands was the only job crafting strategy significantly predicting an increase in curiosity and resilience. No job crafting strategies directly predicted change in work-related well-being. Instead, the change in resilience predicted an increase in work engagement and job satisfaction and a decrease in burnout, and the change in curiosity predicted an increase in work engagement and job satisfaction. Curiosity fully mediated the effect of increasing challenging job demands on a change in work engagement and job satisfaction. Resilience also fully mediated the effect of increasing challenging job demands on a change in work engagement and burnout yet failed to mediate the effect of the job crafting strategy on job satisfaction. These results highlight increasing challenging job demands as a central job crafting strategy in predicting positive changes in work-related well-being through the development of personal resources. Overall, this study advances our understanding of job crafting by providing new insights into the mechanisms by which job crafting affects work-related well-being through personal resources.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056 Beausaert, S., Froehlich, D. E., Riley, P., & Gallant, A. (2023). What about school principals’ well-being? The role of social capital. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(2), 405-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143221991853 Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. -P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640 Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032141 Toyama, H., Upadyaya, K., Hietajärvi, L., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2023). Job crafting among school principals before and during COVID-19: Investigating the associations with work-related well-being and personal resources using variable- and person-oriented approaches. European Management Journal, in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.07.006

This paper is part of a larger study exploring local reconceptualizations of school governance and educational leadership through a continuous, annual data collection. It will enable us to study how governance and leadership is interpreted, translated and recontextualized over time and to possibly identify trends and fluctuations in conceptualizations of leadership. It also includes developing a methodological toolbox for participatory research involving master students (Cooper & Karlsson, 2022) inspired by a Nordic tradition of collaborative research (Rönnerman & Salo, 2012).

Research shows that school leadership on different levels have impact on developing and improving schools, teachers’ collaboration, school culture etcetera (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Meyer et.al, 2023; Nehez, et.al, 2022). Context and culture in turn, matter for how leaders are perceived and expectations towards them (Forssten Seiser et.al, 2020; Moreno, 2023). Thus, conceptualisations of leadership are interrelated to context, actions, culture, language and leadership behaviour.

Our systemic approach to context and leaders extends from subgroups (such as teachers in classrooms) within school organisations to international politics and policy-making (Uljens, 2021). Drawing on the work of Stephen Ball (2006) we argue that policy-borrowing on local, national and international levels influence conceptualisations of school leadership on all levels. Similar views are expressed for instance in a study of educational administration and global policies (Sifakakis et.al., 2016) and a study of how leadership practices travel between contexts (Wilkinson et.al., 2013). What is found in one local context can consequently be discursively connected to other local understandings on a national, European and even global scale.

The objective of this particular paper is to critically examine how school governance, management and educational leadership are constructed in local contexts through interviews with educational leaders on different levels. What discourses of governance and leadership are expressed and which subject positions are made available for the leader subject?

The theoretical framework draws on theories consistent with post structuralism, post humanism and discourse analysis. They share a number of ontological and epistemological assumptions that emphasize instability, difference and contingence and regard the social and knowledge as constituted in temporary and contested discourses (Cooper, 2019, 2022). The subject is thus stripped from its hegemonic humanistic position as autonomous, rational and unified and positioned as fragmented and decentered (Foucault, 1972).

Important concepts are:

Assemblage - a constellation of diversified element such as social, discursive, material, cultural, psychological, historical and affective, which are temporarily unified and construct meaning and understandings (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987).

- Distributive agency – agency shared between humans and other elements in an assemblage. It does not presume humans/the subject as the cause of events (Bennett, 2009; Strom & Martin, 2021)

- Intra-action – an assemblage constitutes the social, phenomena, and subjects through intra-action within or between assemblanges (Strom & Martin, 2021)

- Subjectivation – drawing on Laclau and Mouffe’s (1986) understanding of Lacanian theorizing, the subject is understood as a constitutive lack based on the notion of the infant’s apprehension of wholeness being confronted with external images of identity. Consistent with the idea of the subject as fragmented and decentered this constitutive lack is the driving force in the subject’s identification (Cooper, 2019).

For several decades, government authorities and practitioners in many countries, including Norway, have focused strongly on the prevention and restore of bullying (Olweus, 2004; Stephens, 2011). Nevertheless, the number of Norwegian students who report that they have been subjected to offensive words or acts seems to be relatively stable over the years (Wendelberg, 2017). Therefore, Norwegian students’ rights to a safe psychosocial environment, articulated in chapter 9a in the Norwegian Education Act, has been strengthen in 2017. The new law includes descriptions that are more detailed how to redress a safe psychosocial environment. This increases the pressure on principals, who are responsible for implementing measures and restore a safe school environment.

On this background, three research questions are formulated: 1. How do principals interpret and translate the new law into school practices in 9a-cases? 2. How do they construct and legitimise their practice? 3. What kind of dilemmas and tensions do they experience when they try to restore a safe psychosocial environment?

The theoretical framework is connected to Evetts’ (2009, 2010) distinction between two ideal types of professionalism in knowledge-based work in the public sector: occupational and organisational professionalism. The former denotes professionalism as an occupational value; that is, work is controlled by professionals and based on their discretion. Organisational professionalism, on the other hand, is characterised by standardised work procedures and practices that are closely linked to organisational objectives, external forms of regulation and accountability measures (Evetts, 2009). However, occupational and organisational professionalism need not to be mutually exclusive. While organisational control may affect professional work, exactly how this changes occupational values and the space for professionals’ discretion is an unsettled question after the implementation of the new law, depending on local organisational work contexts and the principals’ perceptions of legal regulations.

International studies on changes in professionalism in schools have indicated increased external pressure from national and local governments (Evetts, 2009; Grace, 2014; Ozga, 2000; Sachs, 2001). New public management (NPM) regimes is about public sector becoming more efficient and effective. While management discourses continue to emphasise professionals’ empowerment, autonomy and discretion, professionals in schools are increasingly held accountable for adhering to regulation in law. Earlier studies have explored how institutional regulative pressure impacts work in public schools (see, e.g. Coburn, 2004; Lundström, 2015; Spillane et al., 2011) and demonstrated tensions between external and internal accountability. Discretion is described as a hallmark of professional work. Professional discretion rests on trust in the ability of certain occupational groups to make sound decisions ‘on behalf’ of social authorities. It has been suggested that in Europe, managerialist-influenced policies with increased focus on control and accountability have placed pressure on professional discretion. In welfare states, processes of juridification have been identified, indicating more detailed legal regulation and a tendency to frame emerging problems or conflicts in legal terms (Magnussen and Nilssen, 2013). A recent research in a Norwegian context, called ‘Legal standards and Professional Judgement in Educational Leadership’ have highlighted how rational–legal forms of authority are key aspects in the regulation of education, and how professionals handle legal standards in their practices (Andenæs & Møller, 2016; Ottesen & Møller, 2016; Møller & Karseth, 2016). My project builds on this and wants to understand the interplay between legal standards and professional discretion in schools after implementation of the new law, when students’ rights are strengthened. It is important to unpack the way that legal norms are translated into social practices, how principals legitimise their work in schools and what kind of challenges and dilemmas the new law brings. After recent changes in the law, we know little about how principals’ experiences more juridification in their work as school leader.

Time is a central theme in policymakers’ and educators’ work on curriculum and teaching. It permeates all aspects of policymaking and decision-making from how much time should be allocated for the teaching of school subjects to time for professional learning in education systems. With respect to primary school science, research consistently points to a shortage of teaching time that in turn contribute to inequities in children’s opportunities to learn globally so they can understand the natural world and pursue STEM careers (NASEM, 2022, Tate, 2001). Conceptions of time within the literature on leading improvement in primary school science, however, are undertheorized. Recognizing the importance of time in efforts to improve the quality of elementary science education, we theorize time for primary school science to create a conceptual framework to inform empirical, development, and practical work. In this theory building paper, I examine educational leaders’ (at system and school levels) sense-making about time as they engage in efforts to lead improvement in the teaching of primary school science.

To frame our work theoretically, we bring two literatures - sense-making in educational systems and the sociology of time - into conversation with each other. Educational leaders and teachers ongoing sensemaking is central to the implementation of curricular reforms (Coburn, 2001; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002). Whereas interpretation assumes an object to be understood (e.g., policy text), a sensemaking perspective takes a broader approach by attending to what individuals notice in their environments and how they frame, interpret, and respond to those cues (Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). Sense-making is triggered by situations where system actors encounter change, ambiguity, uncertainty, surprise, or discrepancy arising from changes in their environment and from interruptions to their ongoing work practice (Weber & Glynn, 2006; Weick et al., 2005). Sociologists of time identify several different conceptions of time including— 1) time as objective, 2) time as political, and 3) organizational time (Gokmenoglu, 2022; Poole, 2004; Zerubavel, 2020). Time as objective refers to how time is sometimes conceived as being a finite commodity. We often talk, for example, of not having enough time, or of saving or wasting time. Time as political refers to its “political” and value-laden nature drawing attention to how time is tied to power dynamics in society and education systems (Gokmenoglu, 2022; Zerubavel, 2020). Organizational time refers to how “people and organizations orient themselves to common externally defined time scales such as calendars, but also experience critical and significant events that interact with the objective temporal scale” (Poole, 2004, p. 22).

Motivated and framed by these two literatures my research questions are: How does time figure in education leaders’ efforts to lead improvement in primary school science education? How do educational leaders, at both the system and school levels, make sense of time as they make decisions about leading improvement in primary school science?