Conference Agenda

ECER, 2024, will be organized in Cyprus and the Cyprus Educational Administration Society (founded in 1977) as a dynamic and forward-thinking organization dedicated to advancing the field of educational leadership in Cyprus and as part of its commitment to knowledge exchange among different contexts, along with fostering international collaboration, is organizing a symposium titled “Exploring the Evolving Landscape of School Leadership: Insight Stories from the Field”. Since, modern societies, are increasingly dealing with "unknown unknowns" (Ansell & Boin, 2019), school organizations must deal with "unknown unknowns" caused by conflicts, abrupt changes, unexpected crises, and a range of other evolving challenges. Within, this perspective, the symposium will feature participating countries, including Cyprus, Austria, and Greece, fostering a cross-cultural exchange of stories within the evolving landscape of school leadership. This approach aims to provide tangible perspectives for participants, fostering a collaborative and enriching environment. In particular, within the dynamic area of education, the role of school leadership is undergoing a transformative journey, marked by the integration of cutting-edge technologies (AI, ChatGTP), the importance of innovative marketing strategies, a heightened emphasis on monitoring educational leadership practices in general and the sustainable educational future of school organizations. Therefore, from Cyprus, the 1^st paper informs how AI and other emerging technological tools are influencing school leadership by arguing on the important topic of AI and school leadership and presenting the questions that will guide the future plan of integration and utilization of AI within the school leadership domain. The 2^nd paper from Greece will examine the changing dynamics of school leadership in Greece towards a more sustainable educational future. Also, the 3^rd paper from Cyprus, based on empirical research conducted in Cyprus, presents how educational marketing in public secondary schools could affect school leaders’ leadership roles. Finally, the 4^th paper from Austria, sheds light on the question of why it makes sense to place school leaders at the centre of educational monitoring studies without even addressing performance indicators in German-speaking countries. In general, by combining these evolving themes from various countries in Europe, the Cyprus Educational Administration Society is dedicated to facilitating an inclusive and engaging symposium that contributes to the ongoing dialogue on evolving school leadership practices in an ever-evolving educational landscape.

Current crises and changes have catalyzed significant transformations in the educational sector, shifting from traditional formal education to an increased reliance on informal learning facilitated by virtual teaching and learning technologies (Steinbauer et al., 2021). From the perspective of informal education, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a potential tool to enhance the teaching process for educators. Recent scoping reviews by Chen et al. (2020) and Feng & Law (2021) underscore the growing acceptance and utilization of AI in education, evolving from computer-based technologies to web-based intelligent education systems. In addition, the emergence of OpenAI and GenAI, particularly the ChatGPT tool, is poised to significantly impact the educational community. Yet, in the broader context of educational leadership, the literature is scarce on the intersection of AI and leadership roles (Wang, 2021). Also, the potential impact of AI and ChatGPT on the future of educational leadership remains uncertain, as emphasized by Fullan et al. (2023) and Karakose et al. (2023). Having said that, there exist a multitude of questions that necessitate the collective engagement of the research community to address or, more broadly, to reflect upon. In fact, the intersection of AI and school leadership requires a nuanced understanding of benefits, challenges, ethical considerations, and the necessary competencies for effective implementation. Therefore, in this paper, the important topic of AI and school leadership will be highlighted by addressing the questions that will guide the future plan of integration and utilization of AI.

Chen, L., Chen, P. & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264-75278. Feng, S. & Law, N. (2021). Mapping Artificial Intelligence in Education Research: a Network‐based Keyword Analysis. Int J Artif Intell Educ 31, 277–303. Fullan, M., Azorín, C., Harris, A., Jones, M. (2023). Artificial intelligence and school leadership: challenges, opportunities and implications. School Leadership & Management, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2023.2246856 Karakose T., Demirkol M., Yirci R., Polat H., Ozdemir TY. & Tülübaş T. A. (2023). Conversation with ChatGPT about Digital Leadership and Technology Integration: Comparative Analysis Based on Human–AI Collaboration. Administrative Sciences, 13(7).157. Steinbauer, G., Kandlhofer, M., Chklovski, T., Heintz, F. & Koenig, S. (2021). A Differentiated Discussion About AI Education K‑12. Künstliche Intelligenz, 35, 131–137. Wang, Y. (2021). Artificial intelligence in educational leadership: a symbiotic role of human-artificial intelligence decision-making. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(3), 256-270.

The role of school leadership in Greece has undergone significant changes over the years. These changes have been driven by various factors, including the need to improve educational performance, adapt to a rapidly changing environment, and address the challenges posed by the country's multifaceted crisis (Lazaridou & Antoniou, 2017; Christopoulou, 2014). School principals are expected to play a central role in driving these changes and creating a conducive environment for learning and growth striving for a more sustainable future for the country’s schools. Unfortunately, the operational framework of the Greek educational system stands as an obstacle to sustainable school leadership with its limited capacity of intervention for school principals and teachers, its lack of communication and collaboration within Greek schools, its formalism and bureaucracy, and its inadequate evaluation of school units and principals. Despite these challenges, there are opportunities for school leaders in Greece to embrace sustainable practices and drive positive change. Model and experimental schools are such an example and can play a crucial role in promoting sustainable education (Tsouris, 2016). These schools serve as innovative platforms for testing and implementing new approaches, strategies, and curriculum that integrate sustainability principles into the learning environment. By adopting a holistic and forward-thinking approach, model and experimental schools contribute to the development of sustainable practices and mindsets among students, educators, and the wider community. In the Greek educational system, historically, model and experimental schools have been associated with schools of education and they have served as training schools to future teachers (Tsouris, 2016). In an effort to promote excellence and innovation in education, recently, the Ministry of Education has issued a mandate for schools to voluntarily align their orientations with the goals of normal and experimental schools. Currently, 112 model and experimental schools operate in Greece. In this paper, I will explore the role of school leadership in model and experimental schools in three sustainable pillars: a) curriculum development, b) student engagement, and c) community involvement. I will focus on two cases, a model school and an experimental school to show how, by providing innovative and experiential learning opportunities, these schools can contribute to the development of sustainable practices and mindsets that are essential for creating a more sustainable future.

Bamber, P., Sullivan, A., Glover, A., King, B. and McCann, G. (2016). A comparative review of policy and practice for education for sustainable development/ education for global citizenship (ESD/GC) in teacher education across the four nations of the UK. Management in Education, 30(3), 112–120. Christopoulou, S. P. (2014). Model Pilot Schools: Designing the Schools of the 21st Century. Schools of skills and innovation. In: S. Bouzakis (Ed.), 7th Scientific Conference on the History of Education with International Participation. Topic: Model Experimental Schools. Which knowledge has the greatest value? Historical-comparative approaches, June 27-29, 2014 (pp. 46-53). Athens: Gutenberg. Lazaridou, A., and Antoniou, Z. (2017). Margins of autonomy of secondary schools in the exercise of internal educational policy: teachers’ views. Step Soc. Sci. 17:68. in Greek, Tsouris, N. (2016). The New Model of Experimental Schools: Reform or Distortion? In: G. Alexandratos, A. Tsivas & T. Arvaniti-Papadopoulou (Eds.), 2nd Panhellenic Conference of the Panhellenic Association of School Counselors. Educational Policies for the 21st Century School, March 27-29, 2015, vol. A. (pp. 483-491). Athens: Panhellenic Association of School Counselors.

Pardey (1991, as cited in Oplatka & Hemsley-Brown, 2012) defines Educational Marketing (EM) as the processes through which the needs of customers of the educational organization are identified and satisfied, ensuring the achievement of its goals. In the educational context, customers are not only students and their parents but also all external factors that collaborate with the school or are affected by its activities. Given that EM aims to satisfy the needs of the customers of the educational organization, Oplatka & Hemsley-Brown (2012) emphasize that it has become an essential function of educational administration. Without it, a school cannot survive in today's competitive environment. Indeed, the environment in which schools operate today, reflecting contemporary societies, is highly competitive due to daily and intense changes. Therefore, EM is tasked with bridging the gap between the school, which is essentially a static entity resistant to changes and modernizations, and a constantly changing society. Operating in a competitive environment with limited resources and unattainable goals requires the establishment of marketing relationships with various partners, as emphasized by Morgan and Hunt (1994). Recent research conducted in public secondary education in Cyprus has yielded two intriguing conclusions. Employing a Mixed Methodology approach, the study utilized questionnaires, documentations of learning outcomes, and interviews with school administrators. The findings revealed the pivotal role of the school leader in implementing and adopting entrepreneurial relationships with external factors affecting the school. This aligns with the outcomes of international research by Brauckmann and Pashiardis (2011∙ 2016) and Pashiardis and Brauckmann (2019), who observe that a contemporary and successful school leader combines two leadership styles, the Pedagogical and the Entrepreneurial, characterizing this combination as the Edupreneurial Leadership Style. Furthermore, the research concluded that in Cyprus, the number of partnerships developed by public schools is limited, whereas in other countries, as mentioned by Yang and Robson (2012), this number is considerably higher. The reason for this is that schools seek to establish partnerships with external collaborators who could primarily reinforce them financially. Thus, through these financial resources, they can implement their educational programs. On the other hand, abroad, public schools aim to build collaborative relationships with more exogenous factors, thereby having the opportunity to gain additional benefits from them.

Brauckmann, S., & Pashiardis, P. (2011). A validation study of the leadership styles of a holistic leadership theoretical framework. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 11-32. Brauckmann, S., & Pashiardis, P. (2016). Practicing successful and effective school leadership: European perspectives. In Successful school leadership: International perspectives (pp. 179-192). Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The journal of marketing, 58, pp. 20-38. Oplatka, I., & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2012). Research on School Marketing, current issues and future directions, an updated version. In J. Hemsley-Brown, & I. Oplatka (Eds.), The Management and Leadership of Educational Marketing (pp. 1-47). Emerald Group Publishing. Pashiardis, P., & Brauckmann, S. (2019). New public management in education: A call for the edupreneurial leader? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18(3), 485-499. Yang, H., & Robson, J. (2012). A Conceptual Framework for Classifying and Understanding Relationship Marketing Within Schools. In H. Yang, & J. Robson, The Management and Leadership of Educational Marketing: Research, Practice and Applications (pp. 185-205). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

The so-called “Schulleitungsmonitor” (Educational Leadership Monitor = ELM) has been introduced in Germany in 2019 (Cramer et al., 2021), in Switzerland in 2021 (Tulowitzki et al., 2022) and more recently in Austria in 2022 (Groß Ophoff et al., eingereicht). In all three German-speaking countries, there was a broad media response to the country-specific implementation of the project, and the educational authorities are very interested in the results of the study, too, which is why it is to be repeated prospectively at regular intervals in all three countries. Our presentation aims at shedding light on the question of why it makes sense to place school leaders at the centre of educational monitoring studies without even addressing performance indicators? Instead, constructs such as professional values, professional self-image, job satisfaction, career prospects and leadership styles are investigated (Groß Ophoff et al., submitted). One reason for this is that school leaders are viewed as key drivers of change and innovation in schools (Brown et al., 2021; Bryk, 2010; Fullan, 1993). Beyond traditional administrative and pedagogical tasks, today’s school leaders are responsible for instructional, staff and organizational development at their own school (Pietsch et al., 2022), and are required to being able to deal with periods of high stress in view of their wide-ranging task profile (Kemethofer, 2022; Pont et al., 2008). Against this backdrop, the implementation of the ELM in each of the three German-speaking countries will be presented (Germany 2019: N = ; Switzerland 2020: N = ; Austria 2022: N = ) and some insights into the specifics of the study implementation will be given. The comparison of the survey results makes it particularly clear that there are significant differences between the three countries. On the one hand, school leaders everywhere are particularly interested in informal learning. On the other hand, there are significant differences between the three countries regarding the availability and organization of such qualification programs. The conception and concrete implementation of ELM have the side effect that the focus of the public discussion is primarily on development rather than accountability, especially as there are no binding standards for school leadership in Germany or Switzerland available to date, which is why no summative evaluation based on performance measures is possible. In conclusion, an outlook is given on how this project will continue and which topics should be addressed in future.

Brown, C., White, R., & Kelly, A. (2021). Teachers as educational change agents: What do we currently know? Findings from a systematic review. Emerald Open Research, 3, 26. Bryk, A. S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 23–30. Cramer, C., Groß Ophoff, J., Pietsch, M., & Tulowitzki, P. (2021). Schulleitung in Deutschland. Repräsentative Befunde zur Attraktivität, zu Karrieremotiven und zu Arbeitsplatzwechselabsichten. Die Deutsche Schule, 113(2), 132–148. Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational leadership, 50, 12–12. Groß Ophoff, J., Pfurtscheller, J., Brauchle, G., Tulowitzki, P., Pietsch, M., & Cramer, C. (eingereicht). Schulleitungen in Österreich. Aktuelle Herausforderungen zwischen Pädagogik und Verwaltung. Schulverwaltung aktuell Österreich. Kemethofer, D. (2022). Der Alltag von Schulleitungen: Empirische Befunde zu Tätigkeitsprofilen und Führungsansätzen. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organization. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organizationspsychologie (GIO), 53(4), 427–436. Pietsch, M., Tulowitzki, P., & Cramer, C. (2022). Principals between exploitation and exploration: Results of a nationwide study on ambidexterity of school leaders. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(4), 574–592. Pont, B., Moorman, H., & Nusche, D. (2008). Improving school leadership (Bd. 1). OECD Paris. Tulowitzki, P., Pietsch, M., Grigoleit, E., & Sposato, G. (2022). Schulleitungsmonitor Schweiz 2021-Befunde zu Werdegängen, Karrieremotiven, beruflicher Zufriedenheit und Führungsweisen.