Conference Agenda

This is a two-part symposium focussed on educational leadership preparation and development and draws upon research from members of the International School Leadership Development Network. The first part has four papers describing programs and ideas focussed on equity, inclusion and social justice, with the second part having four papers focussed on the future through discussion of exemplary existing programs and future trends. The papers in the symposium will eventually be published in an edited book along with other chapters.

School leadership is a priority in education policy internationally, as it plays the essential role in improving school outcomes by motivating teachers, building teacher capacities, and developing good school climate and conditions (Leithwood, Sun, & Schumacker, 2020). A major finding has been that effective educational leadership is important in enhancing quality and equity in schools (Pont, Nusche & Moorman, 2008; Kemethofer, Helm, & Warwas, 2022).

Schools in recent times have faced many challenges and there are many challenges ahead such as: the impact of the COVID pandemic; the rise of AI in schools; teacher shortages in many countries; and massive migration driven through refugee crises in many parts of the world. Along with environmental and humanitarian issues, we know that there is major issues to do with school quality and equity (United Nations, 2015).Leadership preparation development is crucial to building qualified and capable leaders for schools who can take responsibility for fostering students who can deal with the challenges of the world in the long run (Harris & Jones, 2020; Lozano, Garcia, & Sandoval, 2023).

In the face of these challenges, we think it is timely to have a futures focused discussion on educational leadership preparation and development. To facilitate this, we have reached out to members of the International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN), one of the largest and longest serving international school leadership research networks, and through an interactive development process identified four broad areas of focus that will be covered through 14 papers:

- Teacher and middle leader preparation and development.

- Preparation and development of leadership for equity, inclusion and social justice

- School, community and university partnerships for leadership preparation and development.

- Leadership Training Programs for Future Leadership Development

For the two-part symposium at ECER, we have eight groups reporting on their research and writing.

Part A: School leadership preparation and development for equity, inclusion and social justice

Part B: Future focussed educational leadership preparation and development

This part is focussed on equity, inclusion and social justice, which have become important issues in recent decades and will continue to be the focus of social development globally through efforts such as UNESCO’s ambitious 2030 sustainable development goals (https://en.unesco.org/sustainabledevelopmentgoals). More research is needed to explore these areas in educational leadership development (Vogel, Reichard, Batistič, & Černe, 2021). In this symposium three papers directly address equity issues: Patricia Silva and colleagues describe the educational leadership preparation and development issues concerning social justice in the complex society context of Catalonia in Spain; Helene Ärlestig and Olof Johansson explore school leadership development in Sweden from a democracy perspective; and, Ian Potter explores leadership for equity in England and the Netherlands using the lenses of context and leader personality. The other paper do so but from a school-community partnership perspective with Alison Mitchell focussing on Scotland and a program that had school, community and university partnerships focussed on developing critically conscious school leaders and communities. All papers will consider implications for the future leadership preparation and development.

Leadership preparation is at a crossroads so that decisions taken now will have a lasting impact. One path is to continue education of managers who will develop skills to preserve the status quo. The other is to move toward transformative practices, address global issues, and adapt to a digital world that is becoming more diverse. Transformative leadership (Shields, 2017) and practices based on equity (Llorent-Bedmar, Cobano-Delgado & Navarro-Granados, 2019) are appropriate responses from school leaders and teachers to achieve an education that respects the rights of students. Leadership is presented as a practice full of challenges in the coming years. In a constantly changing world focused on the digital age (Navalpotro, 2023), globalization and diversity, school directors must be agile and have the ability to learn as priorities. Educational leadership preparation has acquired a fundamental role in defining future educational objectives, highlighting the skills and values necessary to face a society in constant evolution. Additionally, school leaders are expected to place inclusion and social justice at the center of their professional practices (Slater, Antúnez, Silva, 2021; Silva, Antúnez, Slater, 2022), promoting an environment where the voices of all stakeholders of the educational community are heard, and where sustainability and social responsibility are essential topics, along with the well-being of people and the preservation of the planet. These challenges require school leaders to develop increasingly specific competencies and maintain an open mind to address them. (Slater, Antúnez, Silva, 2021). The paper describes, analyzes, and interprets the professional practices of managers that focus attention on leadership preparation for the cultural and linguistic rights of students, as well as social justice and inclusion. Qualitative data provided by families, teachers and directors who work in highly complex schools in Catalonia are used. Preparation includes best practices of educational leaders, the organizational and didactic strategies implemented to serve students and their families in situations of vulnerability The role of directors and obstacles that they confront are identified to move towards an increasingly inclusive school. In line with Santos-Rego (2014) and Martínez, Fernández and de La Peña (2016), the importance of reviewing and using alternative, particular, and varied organizational models is highlighted to serve children and their families more efficiently.

Llorent-Bedmar, V., Cobano-Delgado, V., & Navarro-Granados, M. (2019). School leadership in disadvantaged contexts in Spain: Obstacles and improvements. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(1), 147-164. Martínez-Usarralde, M. J., Fernández-García, C. M., & Ayala-De La Peña, A. (2016). Yo acojo, tú agrupas, ella compensa": Análisis comparado de la política de integración del alumnado inmigrante en tres Comunidades Autónomas, Revista Complutense de Educación, 27(3), 1103. Navalpotro, J. (2023) Cero Grados: La dirección escolar en la era de la inteligencia artificial. Madrid: Edición Fundación Mecenas Educación y Cultura. Santos-Rego, M.A., Julia Crespo- Comesaña, J., Lorenzo-Moledo M., Godas- Otero, A. (2012) Escuelas e inmigración en España ¿es inevitable la segregación? Cultura y Educación, 24 (2), 193-205. Shields, C. (2017). Transformative leadership in education: Equitable and socially just change in an uncertain and complex world. Routledge. Silva, P., Antúnez, S., & Slater C.L. (2020). Towards Social Justice in Highly Complex Schools in Catalonia, Spain. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 49(2), 336-351. Slater, C. L., Antúnez, S., & Silva, P. (2021). Social justice leadership in Spanish schools: Researcher perspectives. Leadership and Policy in Schools Journal, 20(1), 111-126

In almost all societies schools are seen as an important base for transferring knowledge and values on how today´s society works and develop from one generation to the next. To go to school is considered as an opportunity for the individual student to require knowledge and skills to be able to make individual choices and prepare enough skills for a coming employment or occupation. At the same time, we see research report describing schools with problems to attract students, competent teachers and get enough economical founding to support and meet the needs of all students. Besides transferring individual competence and skills, schools have an important task to foster citizens in relation to national policy and culture. Schools plays in that sense an important role in how the national state is understood and valued. Right now, there is globally an increased focus on nationalism with stricter border controls and a stricter view on what to teach in relation to the own countries history and todays governance systems and policy. At the same time, we have global problems related to climate change, war, and organized crime that affects all societies in one way or the other. New technology and AI opens possibilities that we have not seen before. Taken together national and global events and processes change culture, values and norms which directly impact schools and the younger generation. With these issues, we believe that future schooling needs to focus on sensemaking, values and ethics to meet coming challenges where the ambition to sustain and build democratic citizens are crucial. This requires that school leaders generate schools that combine academic learning with issues related to how we interact and work together as individuals as well as organizations and nations. A school where being together, and experience various perspective can build new generations that see the importance of cooperation to meet mutual challenges. This paper is a commentary that explores these issues and the leadership we will argue for is an authentic value-based leadership for democratic improvement focusing on creating an understanding and balance between individual and public good.

Ärlestig, H., Day, C., & Johansson, O. (2016). A decade of research on school principals: Cases from 24 countries. Dordrecht: Springer. Johansson, O., & Bredeson, P. V. (1999). Value orchestration by the policy community for the learning community: Reality or myth. In P. T. Begley (Ed.), alues and educational leadership (pp. 51–72). Albany: State University of New York Press. Johansson, O., & Ärlestig, H. (2019). Bringing Support Structures to Scale: The Role of the State and School Districts, Umeå University, Centre for Principal Development.

This paper explores the increasing imperative of political acuity in contemporary school principalship and the implications therein for professional development that will prepare school leaders to leverage social, political and technological dynamics that threaten future democratic education (Norris, 2023). Political literacy, as a leadership attribute, is promoted in many systems globally (GTCS, 2021), increasingly so through the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic that heightened and exposed political and systemic injustices. Amidst global turbulence, the development of politically literate principals, who will lead with cognizance of the extent to which educational policy can perpetuate intersectional inequalities, is essential. In short, the world needs principals with the courage and capacity to act as empowered contributors to future local and global policy trajectories (Brooks & Normore, 2010), especially if they are to help reconcile fundamental tensions within education policy and governance structures that privilege performativity or undermine democracy. This chapter is structured in three sections. First, it offers a critical review of contemporary literature around the preparation and development of political literacy in principalship, as a compelling objective to support a more democratic, stable and sustainable educational future. Second, the chapter presents data from a case study research-practice, (university/district) partnership: the Enhanced Political Cognizance program for aspirant school principals in Scotland. Enhanced Political Cognizance was designed to strengthen school leaders’ critical understandings and interrogations of the political foundations of education and social policy, developing the courage and capacity to advance and enact positive social change (Lash & Sanchez, 2022; Magill & Rodriguez, 2022) through their leadership praxis in and beyond their communities. While the Enhanced Political Cognizance program was evaluated positively, the individual leaders still wrested with contextual applications of their learning, which required personal courage, reflexivity and understanding of the “political nature in which they, their privilege and their institutions are positioned” (MacDonald, 2023, p. 2). The chapter concludes with reflections on the tensions experienced in enactment of political acuity in the case study system, the importance of practical application of academic learning through research-practice partnerships and implications therein for education leadership preparation and development globally, if we are to reimagine a democratic and sustainable educational future (Carney, 2022).

Brooks, J. S., & Normore, A. H. (2010). Educational leadership and globalization: Literacy for a glocal perspective. Educational policy, 24(1), 52-82. Carney, K. (2022). Review of Reimagining our futures together: a new social contract for education: by UNESCO, Comparative Education, 58(4), 568–569. GTCS. (2021). GTC Professional Standards for Teachers. [online] Available at: https://www.gtcs.org.uk/professional-standards/professional-standards-for-teachers Lash, C.L. and Sanchez, J.E. (2022). Leading for equity with critical consciousness: how school leaders can cultivate awareness, efficacy, and critical action. The Clearing house: a Journal of Educational strategies, issues and ideas, 95(1), 1-6. MacDonald, K. (2023). Social justice leadership practice in unjust times: leading in highly disadvantaged contexts, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 26:1, 1-17, DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2020.1770866 Magill, K. R., & Rodriguez, A. (2022). Intellectual leadership for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 1-22. Norris, T. (2023). Educational futures after COVID-19: Big tech and pandemic profiteering versus education for democracy. Policy Futures in Education, 21(1), 34-57. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2021). Into the Future: Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence, Paris: OECD.

The aim of this presentation and paper is to explore the traits of leadership for social justice, drawing on the work to date within the International School Leadership Development Network (ISLDN), and referring to James et al’s (2017) writings on Ego States. In doing so, an argument will develop about the implications of this thinking for leadership preparation and development for school leaders and how such contemplations need to be contextualised. The paper has 6 parts as follows: 1. Introduction to the leadership for equity, drawing on the ISLDN literature on Social Justice Leadership and my own thinking around conceptualising equity 2. Introduction to the lens of Ego States in understanding how the personal psychology of a leader impacts on their disposition and approach to leadership. 3. An acknowledgement and consideration of the contextual factors that need to be brought to bear on analysing leadership behaviours. This is in order to recognise diversity of situation across the globe and cultural sensitivities are required when evaluating practice. 4. An exploration of case studies in two countries, providing empirical evidence from England and the Netherlands, where leadership for inclusive practices are examined. These case studies are from the ISLDN. 5. The perspectives framed in parts 1 - 3 above will inform a discussion of the data presented in part 4. 6. Implications for leadership preparation and development will be extrapolated and concluding recommendations made. Contributions to knowledge include: ● An intersectionality of psychology and sociological perspectives ● Bringing the concepts of equity and inclusion to the fore when exploring the notion of social justice leadership ● Comparing and contrasting two ‘European’ case studies of policy and practice in schools, and in doing so illuminating the contextual sensitivities when discussing ‘effective’ school leadership ● Providing some evidence-informed theoretical advice for school leadership preparation and development.

James, C., James, J. S. & Potter, I., (2017). An exploration of the validity and potential of adult ego development for enhancing understanding of school leadership, School Leadership and Management, 37(4), 372-390.

This paper aims to gain longitudinal insights into the development of collaboration in school environments and asks which types of collaboration, collaborating stakeholders and effects of collaboration can be identified. Research has shown that collaboration in schools enhances school development and learning outcomes. While multiple quantitative studies already exist, this paper offers an in-depth qualitative approach through a large-scale longitudinal study at schools in challenging circumstances. Through conducting semi-structured interviews data was collected at various measurement points over a multiple-year period. 75 schools are currently participating in the study and since 2016, 659 interviews have been collected. Currently, the presented research project is at an early stage of qualitative content analysis. Therefore first, a theoretical framework will be presented that links cooperation with possible effects and school development. Second, the collaboration between principals, teachers, pedagogical staff, parents and students in the context of school environments will be outlined. In addition, collaboration with stakeholders outside of the school environment will be investigated. Third, a first typification of different forms of cooperation in school environments/between stakeholders will be reconstructed and discussed.

Spieß (2004) defines collaboration from an organisational-psychological perspective as follows: "Collaboration is characterized by a reference to others, to goals or tasks to be achieved together. It is intentional, communicative, and requires trust. It presupposes a certain autonomy and is committed to the norm of reciprocity" (Spieß, 2004, p. 199). The greater independence of schools, shared goals of educational institutions, and general school development intensifies communication, making collaboration, contacts, and cooperative relationships with external stakeholders such as parents, school supervisors, school authorities, representatives of public life, the economy, public institutions, and the media more important. However, collaborative relationships become more intensive (quantitatively and qualitatively) not only outside the school but also within the school. It is essential to develop and improve collaboration within the school environment to ensure sustainable learning outcomes and school development (Huber, 2012). School management, as well as the teaching staff and the students, represent the school and thus help to strengthen the school's prestige, competitiveness and learning outcome. As part of school development, promoting collaboration among the teaching staff, the principal, the students and other pedagogical staff is crucial. Therefore, collaborative forms of work should be effectively organised.

While studies about collaboration in schools already exist, this study focuses on an in-depth qualitative investigation of schools in challenging circumstances. Due to their location and the composition of their student body, these schools are exposed to difficult conditions and are particularly challenged. For example, schools in challenging circumstances have a high percentage of students from non-privileged family situations (often measured in terms of the educational and financial circumstances of the parents). These poorer socio-economic circumstances are associated with special compensatory services provided by the school. Some schools may be more challenged than others for very different reasons than other schools (Huber, 2012). These include for example low graduation rates or poorer learning outcomes (Holtappels et al., 2017). Furthermore, an accumulation of dysfunctional organisational characteristics (composition effect), which, among other things, leads to a significantly lower school quality and/or more difficult school development processes. Characterisation as a school in challenging circumstances is, however not always aligning with reduced school quality and output (Racherbäumer & van Ackeren, 2015).

The central questions of the research project are:

1. What types of collaboration can be identified throughout the environment of schools in challenging circumstances?
2. How does collaboration develop between stakeholders inside the school and out-of-school contexts?
3. What effects are achieved through identified forms of collaboration?

Topic

In the U.S. and many other countries across the globe, we observe curriculum and evaluation policy trends toward commonality and evidence-based school reforms that suggest the need for “what works” tested with a particular set of research methods (i.e., randomized controlled trials). Yet many schools serve culturally diverse students due to global population migrations and internal demographic shifts. Additionally, educators across the globe have experienced increased effects from digitalization in the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic that forced rapid shifts to virtual education spaces, revealed disparate access to technology and the internet, and renewed dialogue about education values as well as evidence in school development amidst what we term “a zone of uncertainty” (Authors, 2021). Educational leaders, including school principals and teachers, must navigate and mediate tensions between commonality and diversity in the “zone of uncertainty”.

In 2020, the U.S. demographics are increasingly racially/ethnically diverse, including 60.1% Hispanic, 18.5% Black, 12.2% Asian, 5.6%., 2.8% Mixed Race, and 0.7% Native American (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Currently, White people constitute the majority of the U.S. population (62%); however, the percentage is expected to fall below 50% by 2050 with Hispanic populations to experience the largest increase at 23% (Colby & Ortman, 2015). Since the 1960s, there has been a significant increase in the number and diversity of immigrants coming to the U.S. In recent years, we also observe global changes in educational policies and governance systems with increased curriculum centralization, the advent of externalized evaluation policies and the increasing scrutiny of educational organizations at all levels, particularly public schools. The most popular reason for using evidence as a basis for policymaking is that evidence provides an indicator of quality in terms of how much someone has learned or how much impact a certain educational technique has on students (Wiseman, 2010). This paper presents an historical and contemporary examination of educational tensions and dilemmas in the United States as well as findings from a school development project (Arizona Initiative for Leadership Development and Research or AZiLDR) aimed at building leadership capacity to mediate these tensions and support democratic values and outcomes for all students.

Research Questions

Research questions included:

1. How do principals build teacher leadership teams to balance contemporary tensions and lead school development initiatives in their schools?
2. What are the outcomes of school development initiatives on academic test results and students’ growth as democratic citizens?

Theoretical Framework: Leadership for Democratic Education and Cultural Diversity

Dewey (1916, 1897) argued that the aim of education in democratic countries of the world should be the cultivation of democratic values in the minds of the children and individuals - faith in a democratic way of living, respect for the dignity of other persons, freedom, equality of opportunity, justice, faith in tolerance, faith in change, and peaceful methods and faith in cooperative living and above all fellow-feelingness. Education takes place through participation of the individual in social activities and relationships with his fellow human beings. Dewey holds that education is necessary for healthy living in the society. It gives the child social consciousness. The teachers and principal must recognize the background of the child as well as the social demands.

In our school development project (AZiLDR), we recognize the importance of cultural diversity and values of democratic education. Here school members recognize conscious and unconscious biases that they bring to conversations, for example, around achievement gaps and racial inequities. In our model, therefore, we see education with (culturally responsive) pedagogical interactions and democratic interactions around evidence of outcomes as interrelated. Leadership of education so defined inspired our school development project.

Theoretical framework

Organizational systems strive to maintain stability assumed to decrease variance among organizational members' behaviors and promote organizational effectiveness (Liang & Fiorino, 2013). However, maintaining stability may not be an easy task when organizations encounter environmental turbulence. It creates a major source of threat to organizational stability and is considered influential on the relationship between external change, internal change, and organizational performance (Boyne & Meier, 2009). The larger the unpredictable change brought by environmental turbulence, the larger the negative effect on organizational performance (Power & Reid, 2005).

Organizational routines are among the main measures organizations employ to promote stability. The repetitive nature of organizational routines allows organizational stability to develop while, at the same time, routines enable organizational members to introduce changes that increase the correspondence of their actions with the changing circumstances (Feldman & Rafaeli, 2002).

When facing a turbulent and unpredictable environment, organizations may choose to stick to their existing structure and routines, hoping that this will enable them to maintain their internal stability and overcome environmental instability. Such a reaction is supported by the Structural Inertia Theory (Hannan & Freeman, 1984), arguing that maintaining existing routines is the best response to a dynamic and unpredictable environment.

Alternatively, the Structural Contingency Theory advocates that organizational effectiveness may be maintained only if organizations change and adjust their routines and increase their fit to the newly created circumstances (Gordon et al., 2000).

While routines guide and stabilize organizational behavior in all organizations, in some sectors, routines may have a more traditional and widespread nature. This seems to be the case of public schools, which have maintained their basic routines unchanged for decades. This feature seems to be related to the stability of schools' organizational environment characterized by state sponsorship regulations and laws (Mayer & Rowan, 1977). Consequently, domesticated organizations (Carlson, 1964) such as public schools face little pressure to change (Cuban, 2013).

The arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 created circumstances that forced schools to change their basic and traditional routines. Many considered his event an opportunity to alter school routines and introduce deep changes in schools' traditional processes.

This study attempts to assess the impact of an environmental crisis on the routines characterizing traditional institutions such as public schools. Specifically, it attempts to answer two questions: (1). what were school leaders' preferred coping strategies while attempting to establish stability for their school communities during the pandemic, and (2). to what extent they considered the extreme conditions of uncertainty and turbulence as a catalyst for altering school future routines?

This paper is situated in a larger research project concerned with how principals deal with controversial issues in their everyday practice. One early finding is that resistance to change is perceived as controversial issue by many principals (Rantala, forthcoming). In this paper I seek to deepen knowledge about the resistance from employees that principals meet and how they deal with it.

Having to change is inevitable. As society changes, schools and preschools also need to change to meet the demands which is placed on children and pupils both during and after their time in school. The principal, as a change leader, has the responsibility over and an important role in the improvement work that must take place (SFS, 2010:800; Timperley, 2011), but leading change work is no easy task (Holmes, Clement & Albright, 2013; Starr, 2011). Leading change involves dealing with resistance (Dolph, 2017; Starr, 2011) and resistance is always in relation to power (Foucault, 2002).

There is a vast body of research that describes how leaders carry out or should carry out change work (e.g. Fullan, 2015; Hargreaves et.al., 2010; Kotter, 2014). Research has also focus on strategies that principals need to adapt to enable change management to lead to change (e.g. Shaked and Schechter, 2017; Soini, Pietarinen & Pyhältö, 2016; Wang, 2018). But it also emerges, in research, that change leadership is complex and that the strategies even can collide (e.g. Homes, Clement & Albright, 2013).

Previous research on teachers' resistance to change has focused on resistance to specific changes, for example change in the curriculum (Kazakbaeva, 2021), resistance against educational reforms, for example introduction of in-service teacher certification (Choi, 2017) or quality assurance policies (Terhart, 2013). These studies show how resistance can arise when there is a lack of support and resources to create understanding for the change initiative (Kazakbaeva, 2021). Resistance can be expressed implicitly and that there can be prestige in the fact that the change initiative must succeed (Chio, 2017; Terhart, 2013). Research shows four factors that influence human resistance, self-interest, different values, low tolerance and lack of trust (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2013).

There are knowledge gaps in research regarding teacher's resistance to change in relation to principal's strategies, which is done in this paper. The aim is to study principals’ and deputy principals´ leadership of change, by analyzing principals’ and deputy principals ‘description of employee’s resistance and their strategies to handle it in school development work. This is then discussed in relation to power techniques.

Amundsdotter et.al. (2015) and Linghag et.al. (2016) describes, anchored in Foucault’s theory of power techniques (2002; 2003; 2008), three different techniques, repressive, pastoral and regulated. They use these concepts both to describe employees' resistance and the principals' strategies for dealing with it. Amundsdotter et.al. and Linghag et.al. describes repressive resistance as clear and direct resistance, pastoral resistance takes more subtle expressions or is masked in other forms, e.g. lack of time or resources, and regulated resistance is about placing responsibility on others. Repressive strategies are for example when principals refer to laws or governing documents, blaming individuals, threats reporting or raising to a higher instance, pastoral strategies refer to offering help and guidance, demonstrating benefits, inspiring and motivating and regulatory strategies refer to building the change into the organization by emphasizing that it is a shared responsibility, reminding of the mission and what different roles entail. In this paper this concept is used to both to categorize and analyze the principals' and deputy principals' descriptions of employees' resistance to change and to categorize and analyze their descriptions of strategies they use to deal with the resistance.

The purpose of the study referenced in this presentation is to identify and describe local school responses to principal turnover. The rationale for examining this phenomenon rests on general knowledge about the importance of school leadership (e.g. Bush, 2020; Louis, 2015; Nihlfors & Johansson, 2013; Ärlestig et al., 2016), and previous (mainly international) research on school-level effects of principal turnover. The latter typically relates to declining student achievement (Bartanen et al., 2019; Béteille et al., 2012; Miller, 2013), disrupted teaching and school developmental processes (Pietsch et al., 2020; Wills, 2016), and excess expenditure due to the high cost of replacing the departing incumbent (Superville, 2014). The recruiting process may, in turn, add stress to the organisation and thus contribute to the decline in student achievement.

However, many of the reported negative consequences are “downstream effects”, i.e. they occur due to a previous event, or series of previous events. What these events are, and how they are shaped by and shape various practices, and practice conditioning arrangements within the local school organisation are less clear, since the practices that produce these effects have not received significant attention in previous research. Subsequently, knowledge about the complexity of practices and practice arrangements that link the incident of principal turnover to the stipulated consequences remains weak (Thelin & Lund, 2023). This lack of knowledge is problematic, since ‘it is not principal turnover per se that is the problem’ (Fullan, 2004, p. 31), but rather the discontinuity it creates in the organisation, and how that, in turn, affects the various educational practices on which schools are dependent for their performance. Therefore, in the presented study in this paper, attention is directed towards the discontinuity that arises when there is a shift in the principal leadership position. The research is fuelled by the following overarching questions: What happens in schools when there is a shift in the principal leadership position? When and for whom is it a problem or an opportunity? In our search for answers to these questions, the focus will be placed on qualitative changes in educational practice and practice conditioning arrangements (Kemmis et al., 2014).

The analysis of the data, which comprised 497 unique free-text answers drawn from a survey targeting staff and parents/guardians with experience of principal turnover, suggests that principal turnover is a ‘critical incident’ (Cook & Tripp, 1994) and a practice-changing event in the local school organisation. The preliminary findings of the study suggest that principal turnover is critical to local school organisations. It disrupts the ‘the flow of practice’ (Lok & de Rond, 2013, p. 186; cf. Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009), and changes practices as well as practice conditioning arrangements and practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014).

In this study we seek to illuminate the ‘happeningness’ (Schatzki, 2002) of local school organisations during times of principal turnover, and thereby provide knowledge that is of importance for the development of more robust and sustainable school organisations; in this case, schools that are less sensitive to principal turnover, e.g. better suited to prevent and deal with its negative consequences and make use of its possibilities. In an age of uncertainty and global change, the need for more robust and sustainable schools is palpable.

Methodologically speaking, educational leadership and management research has been largely underpinned by standardized surveys when carrying out quantitative research and interviews for qualitative research. Beyond these “classic” approaches, other methods, such as observations have been employed to varying degrees of popularity. Among the observational methods, shadowing has been frequently utilized to study the various facets of school principals, though less frequently than in management studies (Bøe et al., 2017; Hughes, 2019). The origins of shadowing in the educational setting are often attributed to Henry Mintzberg and Harry F. Wolcott. Wolcott conducted what he called “the ethnographic study of a school principal”, consisting of “enumeration, participant observation and interviewing” (Wolcott, 1970, p. 116). He followed a school principal for two years, which quickly earned him the nickname “The Shadow” (Wolcott, 2014). Although he himself did not use the term “shadowing” at the time of his study, his approach was labeled as such by other scholars soon after Wolcott published his research.

Numerous criticisms and advantages of shadowing can be found in the literature. With reference to more structured shadowing variants, some researchers have criticized structured observation in educational leadership research for failing to adequately capture the complex and multifaceted activities of school principals (Gronn, 1982). Representatives of a more qualitative understanding countered similar criticisms by arguing that shadowing in an open, flexible variant is actually suited for capturing complex activities because it allows for focusing on the simultaneity of events in different settings, as well as the nonsimultaneity of experiences and growing number of actions and processes (Czarniawska, 2014). Other criticisms often leveled at qualitatively and quantitatively oriented variants of shadowing are “the high level of resourcing needed and the time it takes to undertake such studies” (Earley & Bubb, 2013, p. 20).

Additionally, ethical aspects can pose a challenge when using shadowing. As that shadowing involves the direct observations of people in their (professional) daily lives, its immersive as well as intimate and relational character needs to be considered (Bøe et al., 2017). Ethical aspects are noticeable here at different levels: First, shadowing can build intimacy and trust between the observer and observed person, which Czarniawska (2007) describes as “a peculiar twosome” (p.10). Second, shadowing always has an impact on the associated institution and its members, such as the school whose school leader is followed (Johnson, 2014), especially if the consent of all persons encountered was not obtained, or they may not have all been informed beforehand, requiring the researcher to “make ethical judgements in the moment” (Ferguson, 2016, p. 23). In this context, it is also important to consider issues of data protection or the involvement of third parties who might unknowingly participate in the research, such as parents.

The present contribution seeks to address the issues raised and continue the reflection on shadowing by analyzing the objectives and parameters of shadowing studies, definitions of shadowing, identified merits and pitfalls, and ethical considerations.

Existing international literature points to the key role of headteachers in school development and improvement. Although the literature has focused on the extent to which classroom and school conditions influence student learning, less attention has been paid to how leadership can positively influence those conditions (Leithwood & Day, 2007; Cruickshank, 2017). Headteachers' may combine transformational and instructional leadership strategies to promote school improvement (Day, Gu, & Sammons, 2016; Cruickshank, 2017). An effective integration of these approaches is closely linked to teacher commitment and school culture, contributing to enhanced student outcomes (Cruickshank 2017). In this regard, school headteachers play a crucial role on school improvement and, on improving classroom conditions.

Drawing on the work by Leithwood et al., (2006) and Day, Gu and Sammons (2016), this paper reports on findings from a 3-year research project aimed at investigating the impact of school leadership on teachers’ work and on pupils’ outcomes. The goal of this paper is to look at Portuguese teachers’ views of the impact of leadership in school and classroom conditions. The 3-year research project included three phases of data collection and the participation of a range of stakeholders (e.g. headteachers, the senior leadership team, teachers, pupils, and parents. In this paper, we focus on teachers’ views of the influence of leadership in school and classroom conditions and its impact on students’ outcomes.

Teacher leadership, as a significant component of school change has become a topical issue in the last decades (Wenner and Campbell, 2017). In recent decades, teacher leadership has evolved from small-scale cooperation and instructional contexts to becoming a cornerstone of school reforms in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and eventually focusing on supporting accountability systems in the early 2000s. (Little, 2003). Current studies have made important contributions in the literature by identifying factors that precede teacher leadership, e.g., school structure, school climate, teacher personal characteristics, and they have also recognized the outcomes of teacher leadership, such as improved collegial relationships (e.g., Wenner and Campbell, 2017; York-Barr and Duke, 2004), enhanced teaching practices and increased student achievement (e.g., Martin and Coleman 2011). Despite such important contributions, the literature still lacks a common definition of teacher leadership which would support future research on the topic and development of teacher preparation programs. In order to develop responsibilities for teacher leadership, it is important to be clear on the definition of teacher leadership. The critique towards lacking a clear definition of teacher leader is supported by the York-Barr and Duke (2004) review which stated that the literature on teacher leadership is “largely atheoretical” (p. 291) and Wenner and Cambpell (2017) review which concluded that only 35% of articles published in the period 2004-2013 clearly state the definition they use for the term “teacher leadership” in their study. This gap in the understanding of teacher leadership necessitates additional empirical evidence to promote cohesive future research in this field. Considering the limitations in the literature, this review paper aims to add to the existing body of literature on the teacher leadership topic by understanding the current conceptualization of teacher leadership. More specifically, through the review of relevant articles, the authors will identify the definitions used for describing teacher leadership and while using the deductive method the authors will rely on the theoretical framework of Snoek et al. (2019) to understand the conceptualization of teacher leadership in the recent literature. Finally, considering the ubiquitous presence of the concept teacher leadership in the current literature, through the inductive method the authors will try to distinguish the most important outcomes of teacher leadership. Against this background, the study aims to answer the following research questions by reviewing the studies that examined teacher leadership as a central topic published in the period from 2018 to 2023:

• How is teacher leadership defined and conceptualized in the literature?
• What are the outcomes of teacher leadership as identified in the literature?

The work of teachers has a fundamental social value because education can ensure economic growth and technical and scientific development in any society (Vedovato & Monteiro, 2018). The teaching profession is characterized by high stress and physical complaints, a high workload, relatively high absenteeism, and early retirement (Grabara et al., 2018). The current age structure of teachers indicates several problems in higher secondary education that can occur in the future. The ageing of the teachers may be linked with higher absenteeism or a general shortage of teachers in schools. These problems may be caused not only by individual factors (reduced working ability) but also by factors related to the work performed (characteristics of the job performed, working conditions) (Hlaďo et al., 2020). Thus, the ageing of the teaching population raises the question of maintaining teachers' work ability. Work ability can be defined as a person's ability to meet the demands of his or her job (Cadiz et al., 2020). Work ability is based on the balance between the worker's resources and the job demands placed on him or her (Ilmarinen et al., 2005). This definition highlights an individual's capacity to fulfil required work tasks and effectively manage job demands (Ilmarinen et al., 1997). Work ability is a dynamic process influenced by various factors, including physical and mental health, functional abilities, qualifications, professional competencies, attitudes, motivation, working conditions, job demands, and environmental factors (Tuomi et al., 2001).

Several aspects go into the work ability, which can positively and negatively influence it. For management and support work ability, the concept of age management is mainly used, which offers the perspective to support work ability at three levels, depending on the interests of stakeholders expressed and implemented. These are the individual level, the organizational level and national/regional (Novotný et al., 2014). Managing work ability and wellbeing at schools requires, among others, leadership support and commitment, effective communication, employee health awareness and engagement (Shiri & Bergbom, 2023). Although the implementation of the measures of work ability support is not systematically addressed in the school environment, it is possible to identify measures that, within the organizational level, implementation of age management lead to the promotion of work ability. The first large group consists of benefits that can be positively reflected in the promotion of health and a healthy lifestyle. The second large group consists of workplace measures that lead to an increase in job resources. These include, for example, workplace ergonomics, the provision of support from a supervisor, work organization, feedback and opportunities for further training.

Schools can then be seen as essential actors that can contribute to the reduction of work demands and workload and, at the same time, are the ones who can, through individual measures, increase work resources and thus support teachers' work capacity. McGonagle et al. (2022) note that employers can prevent excessive work exhaustion and the associated deterioration in health and wellbeing by changing aspects of work that reduce staff workload or increase work resources.

This paper aims to reflect on the crucial role of headteachers in promoting teachers´ work ability and find an answer to the research question: What is the role of headteachers in promoting teachers´ work ability?

Teacher attrition presents a growing concern for schools in the UK and internationally (Avalos & Valenzuela, 2016; Department for Education, 2019a). Within England, recent figures show that 59% of staff in schools considered leaving the profession in 2022 due to pressures on their mental wellbeing, and 55% of staff took concrete steps to change or leave their jobs (Savill-Smith and Scanlan, 2022). Alongside the problem of staff turnover, there are growing concerns over teacher wellbeing with a startling 81% of staff in schools reporting mental health symptoms related to their work in 2023, a 3% increase on the previous year’s figure (Education Support, 2023). Similar concerns around teacher recruitment, retention and found within Europe (e.g. European Commission, 2018). For example, in Sweden where teachers are subjected to similar pressures as those found in England due to competition and marketisation of the state school sector (Toropova et al 2021), there are major teacher shortages across age phases (European Commission, 2023) and rising teacher stress levels (Ramberg et al., 2019).

In response to these international concerns a discourse has emerged around the need to ‘build teachers’ resilience’ (Mansfield et al., 2016). Policy documents such as the Early Career Framework (Department for Education, 2019b) aim to tackle the teacher retention crisis by providing enhanced professional development to promote teacher competence and confidence. Implicit in such policies is the premise that if only we could make teachers better at their jobs, they would be ‘more resilient’ and stay within the profession. While teacher self-efficacy has indeed been shown to be an important predictor of resilience in teachers (Ainsworth & Oldfield, 2019), it is important to recognise that individual factors represent only one side of the teacher resilience problem. If teachers are to thrive (and stay) in their roles, action is needed to address levers for change within teachers’ professional environments as well as providing support to teachers at the individual level.

Within social-ecological framings of resilience, resilience is not a trait which resides within the individual, but rather is a process of interaction between factors operating at different ecological levels (e.g. the individual, the school, the broader policy landscape), which results in varying levels of positive adaptation (Kangas-Dick & O’Shaughnessy, 2020; Gu, 2018; Ungar et al, 2013). These factors influence teachers’ capacity for ‘positive adaptation’ – the extent to which they are able to adapt to the many demands of their professional role. Positive adaptation may be reflected by high levels of job satisfaction and wellbeing on the one hand, and low levels of stress, anxiety, burnout and depressive symptoms on the other. Our previous quantitative research found that contextual factors (e.g. support from leadership, workload and school culture) explained as much variance in measures of adaptation in teachers as individual factors (Ainsworth & Oldfield, 2019); however, this design was only able to explore the direct effects of predictors (like support from management and self-esteem) on resilience, and did not have sufficient statistical power to explore the interactions between them. Our recent qualitative research (Oldfield & Ainsworth, 2022) suggests that these interactions may be an important part of the resilience process, with teachers’ accounts of their professional experiences suggesting that individual factors (e.g. self-esteem) do not exist independently from the environment, and tend to be influenced by broader environmental factors (e.g. support from management and accountability frameworks).

School systems internationally are focused on improving classroom teaching and learning to enhance student outcomes, with teacher professional development (PD) recognised as an important strategy to improve classroom practices (Ostinelli & Crescentini, 2024; Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). School middle leaders (MLs) are acknowledged experts in teaching and learning, who collaborate closely with classroom teachers and school executive (Harris & Jones, 2017). The curriculum expertise and the unique positioning of MLs sees them having the capacity to positively influence classroom teaching and learning (Edwards-Groves et al., 2019). This potential has led MLs increasingly being recruited to develop and facilitate school-based teacher PD to improve classroom teaching and learning (Lipscombe, Tindall-Ford & Grootenboer, 2019) and has resulted in a greater interest by schools and education authorities in ML roles, responsibilities, and practices (Lipscombe, Tindall-Ford & Lamanna, 2021).

Internationally a range of ML practices have been identified as potentially positively influencing classroom teaching and student learning (Grootenboer, Edwards-Groves, & Rönnerman, 2020). These include, MLs collaborating with principals and teachers to ensure shared understandings (Leithwood 2016), ML translating school system policy directives, school executive expectations and curriculum changes to be successfully implemented in classrooms (Nehez et al. 2021), ML creating a collaborative school culture focused on teaching and learning (Bryant, Wong, & Adames 2020) and, ML developing and sharing resources with the support of, and through, collaboration with colleagues (Hammersley-Fletcher & Kirkham, 2007). While there are a range of ML practices identified as positively impacting classroom teaching and learning, there is limited understanding of the practices MLs perceive as central to their work, if these practices actually support classroom teaching and learning, and currently there is no empirically informed instrument to investigate the phenomenon.

Informed by a series of small-scale empirical research studies in Australia, Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand, Grootenboer, Rönnerman& Edwards-Groves (2017), using the ‘theory of practice architectures’ (Kemmis et al., 2014), a ML practice model was developed. The theory of practice architectures provides an ontological perspective of ML practices, focusing on the ‘sayings, doings, and relatings’ of MLs in their particular school sites. This is an intentional ontological shift that centres the study on the (middle) leading that actually occurs in school sites, and the happening of middle leading as it unfolds in time and space.

Three broad and related practices undertaken by middle leaders when leading professional development in schools were identified, and informed the ML practice model (see Grootenboer, Edwards-Groves, & Rönnerman, 2020, p. 5).

1. Leading & Teaching: Leading both curriculum and pedagogical development of other teachers AS WELL AS teaching their own classes. Includes providing professional learning for other teachers.

2. Managing & Facilitating: Managing spaces for curriculum and pedagogical development e.g., moderation meetings that require ‘management’ practices to organise time and place, AS WELL AS facilitation of the moderation p

3.Collaboration & Communication:Collaboration AND communication with senior leaders and teachers on actions needed to achieve school goals.

This presentation reports on Middle Leading Practice School Survey (MLPSS), which was theoretically grounded by ML practice model. The survey provided an understanding of the demographics of Australian MLS, but importantly investigated MLs perceptions of the practices that were central to their leading of teaching and learning in their school sites.

The research questions that guided this study were:

1. What are the dominant demographic profiles of the Australian school MLs who completed the MLPSS survey? (maybe take out?)
2. What practices do Australian school MLs perceive they enact in leading teaching and learning development in their school sites?

Teacher leadership is at the centre of numerous researches in European and international contexts (Hunzicker, 2017; Pan et al., 2023), focusing on their pedagogical action in the classroom (Warren, 2021) and their role in the institutional dimension of the school (Frost, 2008; Muijs & Harris, 2003). Indeed, the figure of the teacher as a middle leader is becoming indispensable in increasingly complex school contexts (De Nobile, 2018). A middle leader, who acts as a link between the school leadership and the teaching staff in relation to specific areas, is useful to improve the functioning of educational institutions in terms of student experience, professional development of all teachers and the administrative area (Lipscombe et al., 2023).

The middle leader is a teacher who holds a middle leadership role within a school (Harris et al., 2019). This figure plays an important coordination and management role, coordinating the relationships between the different components of the school community from a horizontal perspective (Willis et al., 2019). This figure plays a crucial role in improving the quality of education and creating a positive school climate.

This idea of the teacher as a middle leader is central in decentralised school systems characterised by school autonomy, such as the Estonian, Finnish, English, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Dutch, Polish, Scottish and Swedish school systems (Eurydice, 2019). A decentralised school system with school autonomy gives individual schools considerable freedom to make decisions (Gamage & Zajda, 2005; Keddie, 2015). These institutions autonomously manage resources, educational programmes and pedagogical strategies to promote local adaptability, stimulate innovation and strengthen schools. This model aims to create dynamic learning centres and promote tailored approaches to improve the quality of education. Of course, the degree of autonomy is not the same in all school systems. In any case, in these contexts, the presence of middle leaders is crucial for the development of educational policies that are consistent with a clearly defined school vision: These teachers address specific areas of planning in collaboration with teachers and leaders, and management in collaboration with administrative staff (Hashim et al., 2023).

This theoretical-conceptual contribution focuses on the teacher as a middle leader in Italian schools; our discourse may prove useful for those school systems that have similar characteristics and problems to the Italian system. Here, since the year 2000, school autonomy has allowed schools to make organisational, administrative, financial and pedagogical decisions in order to achieve the general objectives of the educational system set by the central administration. Thus, teachers play a key role not only in pedagogical action in the classroom, but also at the management level (Agasisti et al., 2013).

In particular, we would like to answer the following questions:

• What is the nature of teachers' engagement as middle leaders in the Italian context?
• Why and how does their engagement in the processes of school autonomy work or not?
• What strategies can be implemented to strengthen teachers' engagement as middle leaders and improve the use of school autonomy by individual schools?

In te ao Māori (the Māori world) standing tall ensures that our ancestors stand tall (Norman, 2019). This presentation draws on the stories of two wāhine Māori (Māori women) who led in the education sphere in Aotearoa New Zealand (Aotearoa) from the 1970s to the 2000s. This qualitative, narrative inquiry, kaupapa Māori research focused on the origins of the women’s leadership. It explored how insights into the women’s leadership could be used in the education sector. One of the benefits of using a narrative inquiry approach is that “the closer, more holistic attention to the narrator’s perspective can provide extremely rich insights” (Taylor et al., 2016, p. 21).

Kaupapa Māori research developed during the 1970s in response to the realisation that research in Aotearoa reflected colonial perspectives not reflective of Māori epistemology, values and beliefs. Kaupapa Māori research has been defined in many ways (Pihama et al., 2019; Tuhiwai Smith, 2021a). The kaupapa Māori-centred research in this presentation used stories and the kaupapa Māori principles of whānau (extended family, family or kin) and whakapapa (genealogy, lineage, descent) as proposed by Tuhiwai Smith (2021b) to celebrate the lives and education leadership of two women. The researcher’s whakapapa connection to one of the women in the research is a fundamental characteristic of kaupapa Māori research (Simmonds, 2019).

Each women’s story was compiled from archival and other sources as well as from interviews with whānau members (extended family, family or kin). The interviews focused on missing information about the origins and orientation of the two women’s social justice leadership. Two interviews were carried out for one of the women and one interview was carried out for the other woman. Reflexive journalling was used by the researcher to help understand how the researcher's assumptions and values influenced the research process and outcomes. Once the stories were assembled Nvivo qualitative research software was used to code the data and identify themes.

The women’s leadership was influenced and shaped by five factors. These are first, their role models, second, their personal struggles, third, mana wahine and four, social norms. Forster et al. (2015) define mana wahine as the strength and power of women and Simmonds (2011) definition of mana wahine emphasizes the importance of narrative. This research draws on both of these perspectives. The fifth theme identified from the research was that there was a cost to the women’s leadership. Two overarching characteristics that influenced the women and their leadership across all five themes was one, identity and two, gender, religion and generational contexts.

This presentation concludes that examining, recalling and celebrating our indigenous education leaders stories can deepen our understanding of how we lead in education in an age of uncertainty into the future.

Research repeatedly emphasizes that if education is to provide students the best prerequisites for development and learning, principals need to support and participate in instructional development (e.g., Grissom et al., 2013; Leithwood et al., 2020; Robinson, 2010; Robinson et al., 2008). Doing so, Robinson (2010) argues that principals need to have general knowledge about management, teaching and learning as well as specific pedagogical knowledge about teaching in different subjects and curriculum orientations. Timperley (2011) too emphasizes the importance of principals’ pedagogical knowledge, but also the ability to put knowledge into action e.g., to give teachers relevant feedback in teaching situations. Despite the knowledge of the importance of principals’ support and participation in instructional development, giving priority to pedagogical leadership tend to be a challenge for many principals. Principals stress lack of time, although lack of knowledge, prevailing norms, and uncertainty in the relationship with teachers also can be contributing (Emstad & Birkeland, 2021; Leo, 2015; Ärlestig & Törnsén, 2014). While demands on principals have expanded over time, the support for principal professional development has not been as prominent.

In Sweden the principal’s role started out, up till the 1950s, as “the first among equals” but afterwards changed and became more of a public administrator of education. In the 1990s, during the NPM era, the principal’s role was further changed, and principals became more of managers of schools with responsibility for both administration and education (Jarl, 2013). In recent years a new principal’s role has been proposed where principals, although being managers and leaders, work collaboratively with teachers for the common good of educating the students (Jerdborg, 2023). However, embracing this new role might not be as easy in all school contexts and for all principals.

This study from the Swedish context, aims to explore how principals’ pedagogical leadership for instructional development can be supported in a R&D-program. The following research question directed the analytical work:

1. How do principals make sense of their role(s) as pedagogical leaders for instructional development in the R&D-program?
2. What leadership actions are implemented and how can it be understood?

The theoretical point of departure is taken in Weick’s and colleagues (1995; 2001; 2005) sensemaking perspective. Weick (1995) explains sensemaking as an ongoing process through which people seek to make sense of what is unclear and to which questions such as: What does this mean? and What to do now? can be asked. Sensemaking is done in relation to previous experiences and with the intention to be able to move on in new a situation without disruption. Reducing the interpretation options thus becomes a way of handling the situation. However, Weick (2001) believes that when we get the opportunity to create meaning together, new interpretation alternatives can emerge that give perspective on the situation and invite a broader understanding. In this way, collective sensemaking can open for new ways to handle new situations. Weick et al. (2005, p. 417) also emphasize that sense-making is shaped by the rules, norms and cultural-cognitive elements that prevail in the institutional context in which sensemaking takes place. Principals’ sensemaking can thus be understood in relation to the historical development of the principal’s role as well as in relation to the specific school contexts in which principals operate.

The study is of relevance to European educational research for several reasons. First, research about how principals’ take on pedagogical leadership for instructional development is limited. Second, as educational improvement is high up on several national policy agenda, we need to learn more about how principals’ professional development adequately can be supported.

In Europa we can distinguish the increased autonomy and flexibility in curriculum development at the school level and it has raised he importance of empowering schools and educators to have a more active role in shaping curricula based on their specific contexts (Priestley 2021). Also Estonian schools have received more decision-making power to manage learning and teaching in recent decades (Kukemelk & Kitsing, 2020). Estonian schools compile their own curricula based on the National Curriculum. Each school has a different curriculum which serves as the basis for all learning related activities (Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act, 2010). The previous research has indicated that education policy pushes school principals toward innovative initiatives for school improvement (Eisenschmidt et al., 2021) and teachers are characterized by low curriculum ownership (Viirpalu et al., 2022). Curriculum development is essential in a school that strives to enhance teaching and learning and requires organizational routines to facilitate leadership for learning and ensure teacher collaboration.

School improvement goals defined in school improvement plans set the direction of improvement a school is taking and lead to more coherent organizational practices that result in more focused, specific, and consistent teaching practices in classrooms (Meyer, Bendikson, & Le Fevre, 2020). To enhance the teaching and learning, the curriculum leadership is crucial. According to Wai-Yan Wan & Leung (2022) the curriculum leadership has been decentralized and the focus on school principal has shifted to multitude forms of teacher collaboration and collective teacher decision making processes. Therefore, the interactions among school leaders and teachers need frame and structure that can be characterized by organizational routines as repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions, involving multiple actors (Feldman & Pentland, 2003, p. 95). Previous studies (eg Liljenberg et al 2017, Binkhorst et al 2015) about school improvement routines revealed the lack of well-designed routines for principals to implement a well-established idea of pedagogical leadership and to collaborate with teacher teams.

In this study, we explore how school improvement teams' perceptions of how curriculum leadership routines are shaping the pursuit of school improvement goals. The following research questions will be addressed:

● In terms of curriculum development, what are the school's improvement goals?

● What is the school improvement teams' understanding of how curriculum development contributes to school improvement?

● What curriculum leadership routines are implemented in the schools?

In this paper, three pivotal theoretical perspectives will be employed to explore the curriculum leadership routines for school improvement goals. Curriculum Leadership (Wai-Yan Wan & Leung 2022) delves into the influence of leadership on the development, implementation, and evaluation of curricula. Organizational routines, recognizable patterns of actions within an institution, will be a key lens through which the paper examines interactions among teachers and school leaders (Feldman & Pentland, 2003, Liljenberg et al 2017). The perspective of school improvement goals will guide the investigation into specific objectives set by schools (Meyer, Bendikson, & Le Fevre, 2020).

Studies on leadership and educational leadership (EL) on the European and international level have not been ideal regarding theoretical foundations (Alvesson, 2019; Niesche & Gowlett, 2019; Wang, 2018). The pace of theoretical and conceptual development appears more modest than the increase in the volume of empirical research (Alvesson, 2019; Wang, 2018). This conceptual paper contributes to the ongoing theory turn in recent critical EL research (Niesche & Gowlett, 2019). We focus on the theoretical foundations of EL research by addressing three critiques pointing at some of the conceptual challenges in contemporary research on EL. The paper then elaborates the potential for non-affirmative theory of education to offer a theory and language to overcome these challenges. The study is anticipated to have impact on both European and international audiences.

Challenges in need of resolution

Examining the current state of the art, we have identified three critical challenges within Educational Leadership (EL) research.

Firstly, there exists an ambiguity in how EL research conceptually and theoretically connects EL practices with other societal fields, such as the economy or politics. This lack of a well-defined position poses the risk of fostering isolated or partial interpretations of the relationships between education and broader societal fields, potentially constraining the understanding of educational institutions. An approach devoid of context overlooks the various levels of leadership autonomy and remains silent on the educational role of schools, both from an individual and societal standpoint.

Secondly, numerous approaches to EL as a multilevel phenomenon rely on universal terminology or generic theories, neglecting the necessary conceptual sensitivity required for the leadership of educational institutions. Universal approaches tend to treat multilevel leadership uniformly, irrespective of the specific societal institution under consideration. Conversely, particularistic research approaches, when focused on educational institutions, often isolate separate levels of leadership, failing to grasp the comprehensive view of EL. Moreover, many multi-level approaches omit addressing the mechanisms through which policy interests permeate educational institutions, encompassing both affirmative and enactment-oriented processes.

Thirdly, research on leadership and EL commonly asserts that a crucial aspect of leadership involves providing direction, creating conditions for change, and influencing others' learning. While it is widely acknowledged that leadership encompasses a pedagogical influence, the field remains significantly undertheorized in this regard. Despite various initiatives, such as those proposed by Kasworm and Bowles (2012), EL research lacks a comprehensive language to address both the pedagogical dimensions of leadership and the ultimate objectives of EL—namely, teaching, studying, and learning.

In response to the aforementioned limitations, this paper advocates for a shift that involves recognizing the following. (i) EL requires an idea of how education relates to other societal practices, (ii) EL and pedagogical leadership (PL) are phenomena occurring at different leadership levels simultaneously, and (iii) EL theory requires an idea of the pedagogical process because pedagogical processes constitute its object, and because EL itself features a pedagogical dimension (PL). Theory acknowledging these dimensions could better explain the pedagogical dimensions of leadership at and between different levels, while understanding the object of EL: teaching, studying, and learning.

Based on these assumptions, our aim is to take educational theory as a starting point for approaching EL by studying whether non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung (NAT) (Benner, 2023) may provide a theoretical language for elucidating the pedagogical character of relational leadership interaction, at and between all levels of governance and leadership. NAT draws on the relational and processual theory of Bildung, aligning itself with the Humboldtian model of education in the Western tradition. Given the conceptual nature of this paper, our theoretical approach serves as our methodological foundation.

Ample research has consistently highlighted the positive influence of both principal instructional leadership and teacher collaboration on pupil performance. Given the collaborative nature of schools, we sought to investigate whether there is a mediation effect of principal instructional leadership through teacher collaboration on pupil performance. Surprisingly, the results unveiled a counterintuitive pattern—negative relationships emerged. In other words, the combination of effective principal leadership and enhanced teacher collaboration was associated with a negative impact on pupil performance. While this finding may raise eyebrows, it is not an isolated occurrence in the literature, prompting a re-evaluation of the conventional understanding of leadership dynamics in schools, emphasizing the pivotal roles played by both teachers and principals. Our journey into this novel perspective begins with a robust longitudinal dataset encompassing 79,683 teacher evaluations, offering a nuanced exploration of principal leadership and teacher collaboration in shaping the educational landscape.

The significance of principal instructional leadership in education has been extensively discussed, particularly its impact on pupil academic achievement (e.g., Böhlmark et al., 2016). Effective instructional leadership sets high academic standards and nurtures a conducive learning environment, vital for student success. Principals who prioritise academic goals, provide teacher support, and foster a collaborative culture can significantly enhance school performance. However, empirical research is lacking, particularly concerning the interplay between instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and pupil outcomes.

In educational research, instructional leadership is a cornerstone concept, focusing on principals' roles in shaping teaching and learning environments. This involves defining educational goals, developing pedagogical programs, and fostering a conducive learning climate. In Sweden, where this study is based, school leadership research has been limited despite the acknowledged importance of principal leadership for school performance (Ärlestig et al., 2016).

Principal leadership is believed to indirectly affect pupil outcomes through various channels, including teacher morale and school culture. Meta-analyses have consistently demonstrated positive associations between principal leadership and pupil achievement (Wu & Shen, 2020; Tan et al., 2020). However, the exact mechanisms through which leadership influences academic outcomes remain complex, with potential moderating factors such as school context.

Teacher collaboration is critical to effective school environments, facilitating resource exchange, targeted student learning discussions, and mutual learning experiences (e.g., Banerjee et al., 2017; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Principals play a vital role in fostering a culture of collaboration (Voelkel, 2022), which has been shown to impact pupil achievement positively (Goddard et al., 2007). However, recent research has yielded mixed results regarding the relationship between teacher collaboration and pupil performance (Goddard et al., 2010; Mora-Ruano et al., 2021), necessitating further exploration.

This study investigates the relationship between principal instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and pupil academic achievement. This research seeks to elucidate the intricate dynamics of school leadership and its impact on student achievement by assessing principal leadership through teacher ratings and examining its association with pupil outcomes. Additionally, the study aims to explore the potential indirect effects of instructional leadership on pupil performance through teacher collaboration while controlling for various confounding variables.

In sum, this research provides valuable insights into the role of principal instructional leadership in shaping school environments and influencing pupil achievement. By elucidating the mechanisms through which leadership impacts student outcomes, this study aims to inform educational policy and practice, ultimately enhancing school performance and student success.

Education is seen as a key instrument for overcoming global challenges and contributing to the sustainable development of society (Ibisch et al. 2018). The United Nations has also recognized the potential of education and emphasizes its relevance with Goal 4 "Quality Education" of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UNESCO, 2021). However, the number of schools focussing on sustainability - so-called ECO schools or green schools - is only slowly increasing (Hedefalk et al., 2015).

Principals are important in achieving sustainability goals and are multipliers of sustainable development (Rieckmann, 2018). ESD is a leadership issue: School management has a key role to play in the comprehensive anchoring of ESD (Müller, Lude, & Hancock, 2020). Müller, Lude, and Hancock (2020) emphasize that despite extensive literature on ESD, the role of school leaders has been neglected to date.

Mogaji and Newton (2020) conducted an analysis revealing that school leaders frequently possess a limited comprehension of ESD, typically interpreting it primarily through environmental perspectives (Mogaji & Newton, 2020), and therefore find it difficult to implement ESD in their schools. Accordingly, the authors point out the following research gap: There is a need to investigate what specific knowledge and skills (competencies) school leaders need to implement ESD in their schools (Mogaji & Newton, 2020). The second review on the topic by Laurie, Nonoyama-Tarumi, Mckeown, and Hopkins (2016) also found similar findings. In their review, which consisted of a literature synthesis of studies from 18 countries, they discussed that 1) the implementation of ESD in the school as a whole has a positive effect on teaching, but that teachers need professional support and 2) it requires school management that has an understanding of ESD and competences in the field of sustainability management (Laurie, Nonoyama-Tarumi, Mckeown & Hopkins, 2016). Empirical studies such as the one from Bottery, Wright and James (2012) emphasize the need to rethink the understanding of leadership in educational institutions to integrate ESD. Zala-Mezö, Strauss, and Müller-Kuhn (2020) confirm that schools with distributive leadership strategies experience more effective ESD transformation processes. Leo and Wickenberg (2013), Mogren and Gericke (2019), and Verhelst, Vanhoof, and Van Petegem (2021) emphasize that specific sustainability management skills are crucial for the successful implementation of ESD.

Based on the findings of the two literature reviews (Laurie, Nonoyama-Tarumi, Mckeown & Hopkins, 2016; Mogaji and Newton, 2020) and empirical studies (Bottery, Wright & James, 2012; Leo & Wickenberg, 2013; Müller, Lude, & Hancock, 2020; Verhelst, Vanhoof & Van Petegem, 2021), there is a clear research-gap on the question of what competences school leaders need to be able to implement ESD in schools. In this context, Verhelst, Vanhoof and Van Petegem (2021) emphasizes the urgency of further developing school leadership education. Accordingly, this research project examines the role of school leaders in the implementation of ESD in schools as part of a comprehensive systematic literature review:

RQ: What sustainability-specific competencies do principals need to implement Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in schools?

The hypothesis is that targeted promotion of knowledge and skills on the topic of ESD among school leaders will lead to improved implementation of ESD in schools. The education of school leaders plays a key role in this.

Leading schools has become more challenging in recent years as the role of headteacher or principal has evolved and unprecedented challenges have arisen. Research in England, during and after the lockdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, revealed the intensity of the experience for headteachers and the longer-term impact on their well-being and career intentions (Thomson et al., 2023, Greany et al., 2022). The research brought the sustainability of school leadership into sharp focus.

This paper draws on early findings from an ongoing, comparative study of sustainable school leadership across the UK, which seeks a deeper understanding of i) how the UK nations recruit, train and retain school leaders, ii) how well these approaches take account of individual, local and systemic needs and sustainability.    

The focus of this paper is to introduce the conceptual framework for the study. We show how we are exploring leadership sustainability alongside the ideas of identity and place, by highlighting each of these aspects with early findings from the first locality case studies we have conducted in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England.

We approach the study recognising that the way leadership and leadership development are defined reflect understandings of what education is ‘for’. We see leadership as culturally situated and context specific (Torrance and Angelle, 2019), distributed, and a process of influence geared towards the achievement of shared goals (Northouse, 2021). Leadership development we understand as a process of individual career-long growth involving the development of knowledge, understanding and abilities as well as shifts in aspirations, beliefs, values and/or identity.

We thus see the sustainability of school leadership as multi-dimensional and plans for realising it as reflective of values and ethics (Hargreaves and Fink, 2006). An understanding of supply is required but also consideration of diversity, equity, quality and fitness for the future, reflecting understandings of the purpose of education.

Seeing leadership as context-specific means considering place. We take place-related issues – e.g. school catchment, history, staffing and community resources – to mean that every school is unique, and requiring specific leaders/leadership. While the local can be understood as a boundaried place, place is also a site of power, which exists in time/space, through which information, people, things, and discourses flow. Place operates at different scales - national, regional, local – which intersect and interact.  

Identity is the third aspect of the conceptual framework. While individual identities are important, we also recognise collective identities that can be organisational and/or place-based. We thus understand professional identities as dynamic and changing over time - shaped by individual, school, local, national and global dimensions. Identities are individual and collective, socially constructed, and influenced by multiple factors (biography, history, culture, emotions, and professional norms). Identities are negotiated at micro and macro levels (e.g. school and policy), and bound up with values, power and legitimacy.  

We illustrate each of these aspects with data from one of the locality case studies we have conducted, providing insights into the current experience of leadership in specific contexts in each country.

We conclude by drawing out themes and issues that arise from applying our understanding of sustainable leadership, place and identity to the cases. In so doing we contribute to the conference theme by exploring and characterising current reality and beginning to draw out implications and indications for future development.

There is a persistent debate on the meaning of management and leadership, as it is assumed that people in management positions are leaders, but not all managers lead (Bush, 2020). The truth is that management and leadership are distinct but entirely complementary actions. While leadership is concerned with managing change and nurturing shared vision, management deals with complexity and advocates for stability and preserving established routines (Leal-Filho et al., 2020; Mogren et al., 2019) (e.g. it is concerned with organisation and staffing).

Leadership for sustainability refers to the processes that leaders, policymakers and academics undertake to implement sustainable development policies and other initiatives within their organisations. It, therefore, encompasses systemic approaches, methods and solutions to solve problems and drive institutional policy towards a more sustainable organisation. In leadership for sustainable development, the aim is to create current and future benefits while improving the lives of stakeholders (Verhelst et al., 2023; Broman et al., 2017).

Academia has identified the importance of leadership of management teams in education for successfully implementing the 2030 Agenda (Kuzmina et al., 2020; Mogren & Gericke, 2019; Persaud & Murphy, 2019). Integrating the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in education depends critically on their knowledge and skills (Abidin et al., 2023). It is, therefore, a priority that the people who are part of these teams have a deep understanding of sustainability. However, research on this specific training of school leadership teams has not received much attention.

The breadth of the SDGs, their targets and indicators, as well as the lack of specificity and clarity in the definition of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), continue to deter school leaders from understanding and implementing this pedagogical approach in schools (Hadjichambis et al., 2020; Rieckmann, 2017). Mahat et al. (2016) attribute this lack of interest of these school leaders to their low level of knowledge about the SDGs and ESD. Fullan (2005) also recognised the complexity of being a sustainable leader and identified some attributes needed for sustainable leadership, including persistence, knowledge of sustainability, emotional intelligence, receptiveness to new visions and concepts, commitment to working collaboratively and the ability to transform the school. In addition, Müller et al. (2022) highlight the communication skills, change management, and in-depth knowledge of the staff working at the centre. Abidin et al. (2023) point to the importance of lifelong learning and optimising the use of resources.

Against this background, leadership training on the SDGs and ESD should not only be based on educational legislation, as has been the case so far but on how to transform schools and the lives of children and young people. The issues facing Europe and the world today call for more pragmatic, realistic leadership that addresses local and global challenges. Knowing and understanding the training needs of management teams could offer alternatives to effectively manage and implement ESD in the initial training of future teachers and their professional development. Based on this framework, the following research question is posed:

• What knowledge do the leadership teams have about the SDGs?
• What kind of specific training have the management teams received?

In order to address these questions, the study has the following objectives:

• To analyse school management teams' knowledge of the SDGs.
• To identify the type of training school management teams have received on the SDGs.

This symposium aims to explore the contemporary evidence and insights surrounding the improvement of underperforming schools and those facing challenging circumstances, with a particular focus on the critical role of leadership and the effectiveness of interventions.

Underperforming schools and those facing challenging circumstances often require local or national interventions due to difficulties in meeting acceptable performance levels, managing school development processes and facing scrutiny.

Due to their location and the composition of the student body, schools in challenging circumstances face more difficult conditions and are particularly challenged. Serving a high proportion of students from non-privileged family situations (usually measured by the educational attainment and financial circumstances of the parents), these poorer socio-economic circumstances are often associated with special compensatory services provided by the school. In addition, schools in challenging circumstances have different organizational quality characteristics (e.g., Author, 2020).

When quality characteristics differ, schools need external support. To be able to face these different problem and stress constellations of particularly challenged schools, it is therefore necessary to take a differentiated view of the stress characteristics as well as different school development and support approaches, which are based on the specific needs of the schools (e.g., Author, 2017).

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.

The symposium addresses this complex issue through four papers from the UK, the USA and Germany.

The first paper examines the importance of school leadership in the turnaround process of underperforming schools and explores its influence on school improvement through a review of evidence from 2010-2020. The paper provides insights on current research and generates seven key themes based on the selected evidence, that related specifically to the leadership in the improvement of underperforming schools.

The second paper examines school improvement planning in the context of underperforming schools in the United States. It investigates the mechanisms and effectiveness of the University Leadership Development Program (ULDP) which is an in-service program that partners with school districts to provide both district-level leaders and school principals of underperforming schools with joint professional learning services.

The third paper investigates the development and implementation of leadership pipelines in the United States which operate to identify and prepare candidates for school leadership positions to address shortages in the education profession, especially hard to staff schools. The mixed methods study provides insights on the effectiveness and the relevancy of leadership pipelines.

The fourth paper presents a mixed methods longitudinal study assessing the quality and benefits of a support program for schools facing challenging circumstances. The study assesses the impact of interventions on school leadership, development, and overall quality and highlights the importance of coherent and persistent interventions which also consider the school context for successful changes in the school quality.

The symposium will discuss the role of leadership for school turnaround, the effectiveness of school development programs, necessary conditions for successful implementation, and practical implications with the plenary.

Overall, this symposium seeks to contribute valuable insights into enhancing school improvement efforts in underperforming schools and those facing challenging circumstances. By focusing on effective leadership and evidence-based interventions, attendees will gain a deeper understanding of the strategies and approaches necessary to drive positive change and foster educational success in challenging contexts.

The international evidence base concerning the improvement of schools considered to be underperforming is diverse and wide-ranging. Schools that fail to meet acceptable levels of performance, often measured in standardised ways, regularly fall under scrutiny and frequently are in receipt of local or national interventions (Brown & Malin, 2022). This paper reviews the contemporary evidence (2010-2020) to ascertain how far leadership remains a critical factor in the turnaround process. This paper draws upon a selected evidence base to explore the influence of leadership on the improvement of underperforming schools. The review process involved identifying, screening, and selecting 19 articles, 16 books, and 10 reports related to the topic. The findings emphasise the critical role of leadership in addressing the complex issues faced by underperforming schools as the key resource for improvement. The paper offers a current lens on leading the improvement of underperforming schools and adds to the knowledge base by providing seven new themes based on the evidence considered. Collectively, these seven themes reflect the way that leadership is understood and enacted within schools that are underperforming. Based on the evidence, implications for policy, research, and leadership practice are derived and discussed.

Brown, C., & Malin, J. R. (Eds.). (2022). The Emerald Handbook of Evidence-Informed Practice in Education: Learning from International Contexts. Emerald Publishing Limited.

School turnaround and related policy in the United States have emphasized school improvement planning as a key mechanism for the leaders of underperforming schools to radically improve their organizations and increase student performance (Mintrop et al., 2001). Principals have developed school improvement plans (SIPs), however, mostly to comply with federal and local policy (Author, 2022), resulting in satisficing behaviors (Simon, 1957) in which they do enough to meet reporting expectations but not to engage in authentic efforts to change (Author, 2019). The University Leadership Development Program (ULDP) is an in-service program that partners with school districts to provide both district-level leaders and school principals of underperforming schools with joint professional learning services spanning approximately 2.5 years. Despite evidence of impact on student achievement (Herman et al., 2019; Player & Katz, 2016), the mechanisms of ULDP remain understudied. Combining multiple strands of research on ULDP, I draw on more than 300 SIPs, 50 interviews, and 100 hours of observations of district leaders and school principals to report on how successfully partnering district and school leaders effectively leverage SIPs together to build cohesion across levels; strategically identify, garner, and leverage resources and supports for underperforming schools; and incorporate leader coaching and guidance through a shared focus on achieving SIP goals. I conclude that for SIPs to be a lever to improve underperforming schools, district leaders and school principals must intentionally and collaboratively develop SIPs and maintain focused, ongoing coaching relationships centred on completing them and making necessary, ongoing adjustments to them.

Author. (2019). Author. (2022). Herman R., Gates, S. M., Arifkhanova, A., et al. (2019). School leadership interventions under the every student succeeds act: Evidence review. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1550-3.html Mintrop, H., MacLellan, A. M., & Quintero, M. F. (2001). School improvement plans in schools on probation: a comparative content analysis across three accountability systems. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 197-218. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969299 Player, D., & Katz, V. (2016). Assessing school turnaround: Evidence from Ohio. The Elementary School Journal, 116(4), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1086/686467 Simon, H.A. (1957), Models of man, Wiley.

Teacher shortages, exacerbated and heightened by the pandemic, not only impact classrooms but have implications for the future of school leadership as well. Leadership pipelines operate to systematically identify and prepare candidates who are equipped to step into the principalship (Gates, et al, 2019). The objective of this paper is to examine the development and implementation of leadership pipelines to address shortages in the education profession, especially hard to staff schools. Leadership pipelines typically work towards alignment among seven domains: leader standards, high quality pre-service principal preparation, selective hiring and placement, on the job evaluation and support, principal supervision, leader tracking data systems, and systems and capacity to support and sustain principal pipelines. The paper is rooted in the literature on distract capacity for complex change that articulates the capacity for ongoing learning in central office settings, staffing expertise, and strategic leadership (Russell & Sabina, 2014, Farrell & Coburn, 2017; Honig, 2018). Mixed methods are used to analyze the development of leadership pipelines in a sample 60 districts across the United States who participated in an initiative to plan, develop and implement principal pipelines. We collected and analyzed survey data from 376 central office and interview data from 86 central office leaders. Findings suggest that district leaders viewed pipelines as critical for school effectiveness and school improvement, providing districts with multiple avenues to identify, hire, develop, and support future leaders. Pipelines not only included pathways for future principals, but assistant principals, teacher leaders, and others. Second, we found that many district leaders noted the importance of using pipelines as a strategy to address equity and diversity, through the recruitment and retention of leaders of color. Third, we found that a range of factors inhibited or supported the development and sustainability of leadership pipelines, such as superintendent support and stability, central office culture and structures, communication and collaboration across departments, and the larger context of a district.

Farrell, C. C., Coburn, C. E., & Chong, S. (2019). Under what conditions do school districts learn from external partners? The role of absorptive capacity. American Educational Research Journal, 56(3), 955–994. Gates, S. M., Baird, M. D., Master, B. K., & Chavez-Herrerias, E. R. (2019). Principal pipelines: A feasible, affordable, and effective way for districts to improve schools. (RR-2666-WF). ERIC. Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30. Russell, J. L., & Sabina, L. L. (2014). Planning for principal succession: A conceptual framework for research and practice. Journal of School Leadership, 24(4), 599-639.

This paper examines the quality and benefits of a support program for schools offering various interventions and their impact on school leadership, school development and school quality in schools in challenging circumstances. This five-year longitudinal mixed methods study is based on a sample of around 150 schools in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Over a period of three years, half of the schools experienced further measures to professionalize school leadership (e.g., coaching of school leaders, continuous professional development program) and support school development (additional financial resources, school development consultancy). The analyses are built on two different surveys of staff and school leaders on the work situation and on the interventions assessed each program year. In addition to a descriptive evaluation of the quality assessments of staff and school leaders, regression analyses are conducted to examine the impact of specific program components on selected school quality characteristics during the program period. Since the program was implemented at the school level, the analyses were conducted accordingly. Using a comparison group design, it is possible to compare the changes in project schools and comparison schools and relate them to the program components. To capture changes in schools based on questionnaire data, the effect size Cohen's d (Cohen, 1988) was calculated, which relates to the practical relevance of the results. The results of the study show the very positive assessment of the program’s quality and benefits and its positive consequences on the organization’s quality. The regression analyses demonstrate that positively perceived outcome qualities of the interventions are associated with improvements in numerous dimensions of school quality, such as cooperative leadership. For example: The school members’ positive perception of the benefits (β = .26**) and achieved goals (β = .28**) as well as their perception of an increase in competence development (β = .25**), behavioral (β = .27**) and organizational (β = .15*) change through the school’s work with a process consultancy for school development is associated with an improved coordination of action of the steering group as perceived by the employees. Furthermore, the effect sizes indicate that most schools involved in the program showed better development over time than the comparison schools. Overall, the findings provide evidence for the effectiveness of school development programs on school leadership and school improvement. Based on these results, the interventions will be discussed in terms of their effects and the necessary conditions for successful implementation, along with their practical implications.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587

The world is replete with racism, xenophobia, divisions, tensions, and hate as evidence by the wars being waged in many countries over power, land, riches, as well as religious and ethnic rights. Moreover, the world of education is not immune, but reflects the strains and pressure of our wider societies. In the United States, three Muslim students on their way to dinner were shot by a stranger because they were wearing a traditional shawl or keffiyeh. In the last three months of 2023, approximately 75% of Jewish students reported incidents of anti-semitism; Black and brown students consistently report excessive and harsher disciplinary measures than their white peers. Educational leaders need to understand the persistence of these and similar incidents as well as how to address them.

In 1991, examining what they call the “period of confusion” of education, Quantz et al., argued that “traditional leadership theories are inadequate for meeting the challenge” and indicated that “only the concept of transformative leadership appears to provide an appropriate direction” (p. 96). Although transformative leadership comprises two major principles and eight tenets, it is the second tenet that seems relevant here, as it asserts the need to “deconstruct knowledge frameworks that perpetuate inequity and to reconstruct them in equitable ways” (Shields, 2018). And this is true whether the frameworks relate to ethnicity, sexuality, religions, ability, gender and so on. Johnson (2008) found that “what separates successful leaders from unsuccessful ones is their mental models or meaning structures, not their knowledge, information, training, or experience per se” (p. 85). In other words, the knowledge frameworks of leaders as well as of society will need to be addressed in order to create schools that are able to ensure inclusive and equitable education for all students.

Moreover, if we wish to deconstruct unacceptable knowledge frameworks, it is essential to identify and then understand them, their history, and their trajectory. This is particularly salient in that this year’s conference theme asserts the need to understand the history of the challenges we are living through in order to address them. And this is particularly relevant for this conference because of the centuries of history represented in Cyprus and because many current challenges have their roots in the European history of the Middle Ages. If one looks to the Crusades, beginning in the 11^th century, one finds that the desire to rid Holy lands of Muslims, often then called “infidels” was the overriding motivation. Later, the Christian Church (first Roman Catholic and then others) sanctioned wars against both Jewish and Muslim rule, as well as the acquisition of lands and the condemnation of their inhabitants to perpetual enslavement in order to convert them to the “use and profit” of the Church. This history is nevertheless not straight forward in that it has been marked by alternate perspectives, tensions and contestation from the outset. Nevertheless, colonization, justified in part by the Doctrines of Discovery, has not only affected Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and US, but many countries in Africa and South America.

Although Pope Francis finally repudiated the Doctrines of Discovery in March 2023, there can be little doubt that centuries of entrenched discrimination in which peoples were villainized, believed to be animals, savage, or sub-human, must be understood in order to be eradicated. Further, this is true whether one is considering societal change or the transformation of our schools to be inclusive of and successful with, all students.

Educational leadership plays a crucial role in the operation and effectiveness of educational institutions. At the core of this approach, educational leaders such as school principals stand out, whose decisions and practices have direct implications on the quality of students' learning and academic success (Day, Gu, & Sammons, 2016; Machado et al., 2022; Pereira et al., 2021). The concept of the principals’ effect has surfaced as a key factor in improving student outcomes. This is particularly linked to perspectives on successful leadership (see, for instance, Leithwood et al., 2006), underscoring the idea that leadership plays a pivotal role (Eberts & Stone, 1988; Hallinger & Huber, 2012) in the development of collaborative organizational learning, structures, cultures and communities in creating a positive school environment and enhancing teaching quality (Hallinger, 2010). The literature in this field reiterates the need to investigate how leadership policies and practices are implemented in schools and their influence on learning and student results (Leithwood et al., 2006; Witziers et al., 2003). A study carried out by Flores (2022) shows that it is difficult to reconcile a culture of leadership oriented towards pedagogical issues and improving student results - which presupposes the assumption of flexibility, diversity and differentiation, both from an organizational, curricular and pedagogical point of view - with structures that are still rigid and uniform, showing the persistence of a school culture with traces of the tradition of bureaucratic centralism. Other studies conclude that in schools where principals' leadership practices are situated in the instructional and transformational perspective, there has been a positive evolution in student results (Day et al., 2011). The results of an international project on successful school principals also point to the importance of leadership values, qualities and strategies in explaining the variation found in student results (Day & Leithwood, 2007; Moos et al., 2012). Thus, this study is part of a larger research project “Assessment in Basic and Secondary Education: teachers´ practices and conceptions of internal and external assessment in Portuguese schools” funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (CEECIND/03157/2018) that has a strong empirical component in order to get to know the teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment in Basic and Secondary Edu­cation and to understand to what extent the external and internal assessment influences the quality of learning and how they relate to each other. In particular, the present study aims to explore school principals' perspectives on both internal and external assessment, to understand how school principals' implement the assessment process in their schools/school clusters and to analyse the principal's perceptions of the impact of educational policies on student outcomes.

Over the last 30 years, educational policies and governance at national levels in Europe have been increasingly influenced by global trends such as neoliberalism and New Public Management (Ball, 2017; Moos, 2017). This shift has led to decentralization of educational systems, introducing accountability systems and marketization. This has influenced governance structures within countries and heightened the educational responsibilities at local levels, particularly at district or municipal levels, necessitating a focus on leadership practices (Fullan & Quinn, 2016).

Research has drawn to attention the significant role of effective local-level leadership in contributing to professional development and student learning at the school level (Leithwood & McCullough, 2021; Louis, 2015). It is suggested that this leadership should adopt a proactive, distributed, and shared approach, centring on supporting principals and schools to enhance student learning and professional competence (Louis et al., 2010; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2020). Research by Leithwood et al. (2008, 2020) and Louis et al. (2010) indicates that municipal leaders must set directions, develop people, and refine organizational structures. The effectiveness of such leadership is often linked to its ability to foster a supportive environment for principals and teachers (Louis et al., 2010). Conversely, a lack of leadership capacity and understanding at the municipal level has been associated with challenges in sustaining improvements at the school level (Lambert et al., 2016; Louis et al., 2010).

In the context of global decentralization trends, Iceland’s transfer of compulsory schooling from state to municipal control in 1996 presents a unique case. This shift resulted in municipalities undertaking new responsibilities, such as setting educational policies and providing school support services, often without substantial state-level guidance (Sigurðardóttir et al., 2020). It has been documented that these changes significantly transformed the roles of municipal councils, school governing boards, and principals (Ásmundsson et al., 2008; Hansen & Lárusdóttir, 2018; Hansen & Jóhannsson, 2010). While the broader impacts of such decentralization shifts and the changing role of the local level have been documented in various European and global contexts (Moos et al., 2016; Leithwood & McCullough, 2021), the specific ramifications for Iceland remained less explored, especially in terms of leadership.

This paper seeks to understand how municipalities in Iceland have navigated their educational leadership responsibilities post-decentralization. The primary research question it addresses is: What implications has the decentralization of Iceland's educational system had for municipal educational leadership? Furthermore, what are the features of this leadership and its implication for school practice?

The publication of PISA results in 2022 revealed that students in Kosovo scored below a baseline level of performance. These results came despite the fact that Kosovo education has gone through several changes in the last two decades. Given that most of these changes were second-order or deep changes, they require an exploration of the underlying values, norms, assumptions, structures, process and culture of its institutions. Cultural theories suggest that understanding organizational culture is essential to identifying the relevant approaches when initiating, shaping and implementing changes in education. In this regard, school leaders play the key role in supporting the organisation to shape its culture and adapt it to its planned change. Therefore, the objective of this research is to identify the dominant organisational culture types in schools and understand how they are they aligned with the planned changes. The two main research questions that will guide the study are what are the dominant organizational culture types in schools and how do the school leaders align dominant organizational culture with the planned changes.

School improvement efforts often do not result in sustained change in schools and improvement in equity in outcomes. The implementation and sustained effects of school improvement remain under-researched. This research focuses specifically on school improvement using improvement science approaches. Improvement science has seen a wide uptake in business and public health (e.g., Gawande, 2011; Langley et al., 2009) but also in the education sector (e.g., Bryk et al., 2015; Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2017). An improvement cycle is a systematic approach to achieving continual improvement, emphasising the identification of problem causes, setting goals, and measuring and closely monitoring progress towards goals. Previous studies have documented the initial implementation of improvement science approaches (e.g., Meyers & Hitt, 2018; Tichnor-Wagner et al., 2017). However, studies on sustained implementation and improvement are lacking. Further, some case study research points to general practices supporting improvement efforts using improvement science approaches (e.g., Peterson & Carlile, 2021). However, the specific practices, conditions, and enablers of sustained school improvement remain under-researched. Finally, implementation in schools is often supported through research-practice partnerships, which are time- and cost-intensive. There is no known research examining an online learning approach to support schools.

Addressing these gaps, the current study asked school leaders to reflect on three years in which they engaged in an online professional learning programme (PLD) supporting them in their implementation of a school improvement science approach, namely the School Improvement Cycle (SIC). It had three aims: 1) to investigate whether a new improvement science model results in sustained change and improvement; 2) to examine the specific practices, conditions, and enablers of sustained school improvement in schools; and 3) to test an innovative approach to engage with whole school leadership teams via online learning.

The PLD served a cluster of ten primary and two secondary schools, and about ten professional staff in South Australia. Data collected included interviews with five principals, seven middle leaders, two professional staff, and the school achievement data. Interviews gathered in-depth data on the implementation and effectiveness of the SIC and PLD. Following a theory of action framework, we investigated changes in leaders’ beliefs, how those translated into changed leadership behaviours, and the impact these changes had on school culture, which means on leaders’ and teachers’ ways of working and student learning. We also inquired into the level of implementation, the transferability of the acquired learning to other areas, and the challenges encountered. Finally, we explored leaders’ views on the delivery and impact of the PLD.

Leaders noted a range of changes in their leadership beliefs. They reported greater confidence in leading improvement as they had a clear and rigorous process to follow. This pushed them to formulate and test their theory of improvement, rather than jumping to solutions. They changed their focus changed from a teacher- to a student-centred one. Finally, the roles and responsibilities of middle and senior leaders became clearer, and leadership became more genuinely distributed.

Leaders reported changes in their leadership behaviour. They engaged in more data-driven practice, focussed on creating transparency in decisions and processes, and changed the use of meetings to enable more focused work and create more touch points between leaders and between leaders and teachers. This work led to changes in school culture. Leaders saw strong teacher buy-in, a strong sense of accountability and cohesion, more focussed in-school PLD, and a positive impact on student learning and results.

Finally, leaders reported positively on the content, structure, and online nature of the PLD. The online nature meant reduced travel time while still sharing learning with schools across the region, and time flexibility in booking follow-up meetings.

In a time of uncertainty and tension, a leadership for norms and values about equality and value-based leadership seems more important than ever. At the same time, fear and various expressions of resistance seem to hinder leadership for everyone's equal value.

The purpose is to examine principals' narratives about their leadership for gender equality, especially with regards to emotions and resistance, which seems to play a big role. What kind of leadership is needed to support willingness to learn and develop active norms that support values about equality?

Schools are here seen as organizations, especially connected to the “doing gender-perspective” with its first references to West and Zimmerman (1987). It includes an understanding that gender is created and meaning of gender is formed in different relational activities in an organization.

Previous studies have problematized how gender equality should be understood and what it "is" (Magnusson et al. 2008). Resistance in organizations to gender equality work is common, and expressions of resistance are numerous, as shown by various research studies. However, there is a lack of knowledge about different expressions of resistance in schools from a principal's perspective in the role of responsibility. From one perspective, gender equality work is in many ways similar to any change initiative, as changes within organizations often create tensions and expose power dynamics within them. Change can be perceived as encountering unwillingness, resistance to change, and difficulties in altering established routines and work methods. However, many researchers have argued that gender equality work is a particularly complex development effort that involves conflicts, dilemmas, and various difficulties requiring attention to power, interests, and spaces for action (Cockburn 1991, Pincus 1997, Wahl m.fl. 2011, Linghag et al 2016, Amundsdotter et al 2016,).

Several studies stresses the importance of active support from managers and leadership for increased gender equality is emphasized (Acker 2000, Pincus 1997).

Joan Ackers (1992) model for processes where gender plays a role and is integrated in other organizational processes, has served as an important contribution to different research and development projects, that aim to work with understanding how gender is affecting people in an organization and how one can work with change processes. The model points out how gender is intertwined with other processes in divisions, symbols, interaction and internal identity work (ibid).

This proposal draws upon findings from a doctoral research study that explores the ways in which leaders within second level education in Ireland are experiencing mentoring and coaching and in how far (and in what ways) it impacts their leadership identities and leadership practice. This research focuses on the increasing complexity of needs as identified by both newly appointed and experienced school principals, the response from national public authorities in providing support and training for principals in Ireland and the opportunities for developing supportive frameworks that include the potential for reimagining school leadership roles and responsibilities.

The growing global concern about the recruitment and retention of school leaders with notably fewer people applying for leadership roles (Hancock et al., 2019) have led to an acknowledgment that a crisis exists within education. While leadership training exists for all principal teachers in Ireland ongoing provisions that assist principals by incorporating the necessary practical supports and supportive frameworks in developing fundamental leadership ideologies within their school are frequently lacking (CSL Report, 2015) and often been regarded as ad-hoc, disjointed and lacking any system-wide framework. In an attempt to respond to the current leadership crisis, programmes for the induction of newly appointed principals and a developmental programme for school leadership teams are provided for principals which integrate previous professional learning support services into one body since September 2023. In spite of these developments principals are calling for more diverse supports undoubtedly compounded by the pace of change for school leaders and challenges that include the aftermath of a global pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis, restrained leadership roles, positions and resources, school accountability and self-evaluation, curricular reform, addressing disadvantage, diversity within school communities and child wellbeing and welfare.

A growing need for providing educational organisations with a clear progressive educational leadership pathway has, in more recent times, become central in the practical preparation and development of individuals in leadership roles. Findings from this study explore in depth the impact that formal supports such as mentoring and coaching have on bridging the gap for newly appointed school leaders in Ireland to support them in dealing with the complexity and extensive nature of the expectations of their leadership roles. Furthermore, this study seeks to provide insights into the lived experiences of established school principals who have engaged with formal supportive networks and the ways in which these supports have impacted on their professional development while working in the role of principal.