Conference Agenda

This study focuses on the portrayal of teachers in public discourse, taking three decades of Flemish newspaper coverage as its analytical entry point. Coverage of education, teaching and educational policy is extensive in mainstream news media and resonates strongly with news consumers. This is partly related to the experience of education as something that ‘belongs to us all’, given its concern with the future generation and thus society’s future. Moreover, we all consider ourselves, in one way or another, experts in education, by virtue of having participated in it as pupils or parents (i.e., the authority of experience; Lortie, 1975). Furthermore, media scrutiny increasingly functions as a mechanism for public accountability, also in European democratic systems that have long regarded education as a public good but are now facing growing financial constraints. This scrutiny interacts with persistent concerns about the quality of education and teachers that have been intensified in recent decades by international comparative metrics such as PISA or TIMMS, which have made it easier to globally rank, compare and problematize education systems and teacher performance.

Critical attention to how teachers are (no longer) talked about in the media offers more than a descriptive account of dominant societal understandings of teaching. It also serves as an important proxy for shifting emphases within education policy discourses around teachers and teaching and “the contexts shaping education practice and policy” (Cohen, 2010, p. 109). This focus aligns closely with key interests in Network 23. While an emphasis on media discourse may appear atypical for the Network at first glance, it offers a critical lens on how education policy discourses are mediated, normalised, and rendered common sense in the public sphere, with particular attention to what this means for being and becoming a teacher. Analysing news media portrayal allows for the reconstruction of what policymakers, at a certain point in time, come to construct as the “desired”, the “needed” or the “problematic” teacher.

Theoretically and analytically, this study draws on social-constructionist approaches to language to highlight the performative dimension of news media discourse (a.o. Jørgensen & Phillips 2002; Tanesini, 1994). The notion of discourse signals attention to “language as a form of social practice that actively shapes our understanding of the world and our actions within it” (Vanassche, 2025a, p. 3; see also Foucault, 1977). From this perspective, news media do not simply communicate messages from the public or policymakers about what it means to teach. Rather, they actively construct and reconstruct teacher identities, responsibilities and professionalities. In other words, by analysing media coverage of teachers as discourse, the study foregrounds the politics of media representation: the ways in which particular versions of teaching and teacher professionalism are shaped, legitimized, and problematised (see also Alhamdan et al., 2014; Cohen, 2010; Shapiro, 1988). The explicit use of the term portrayal in the title reflects this critical-analytical stance. Portraying is understood as an act of framing in a particular way and thus an active process of production and reproduction. This critical analysis allows for a focus on what has become common sense understandings of teachers, with a view to make these “fresh’ and strange again” (Vanassche, 2025b, p. 4; see also Foucault, 1978), and reopening space for alternative ways of thinking about teaching and teachers.

Against this background, the study addresses the following research questions: How are teachers portrayed in Flemish newspaper media over a period of three decades? What discursive shifts can be identified over time? In what ways do these shifting portrayals of teachers matter for education policy?

Mentoring is widely recognised as a critical lever for improving teaching and learning across educational levels, and a robust body of research underscores the need for systematic mentor preparation and organisational support to ensure effective implementation (Aguilar, 2019; Ambrosetti, 2014[GR1] ). Building on this evidence, studies further highlight the importance of sustained professional support beyond initial induction, particularly during teachers’ early and mid‑career stages (Andrews & Quinn, 2005; Bressman et al., 2018).

At the international level, mentoring and instructional consultancy increasingly function as policy tools to strengthen teaching quality and support teacher retention (OECD, 2025). Parallel developments are evident in Iceland. Recent policy initiatives have expanded mentor training, introduced new middle‑leadership roles to support mentoring, and established an association for novice teachers (Icelandic[GR2] [GR3] [GR4] [GR5] Association of Local Authorities, 2019; Ministry of Education and Children, 2025; Ministry of Education Science and Culture, 2019; Regulation No. 1355/2022; University of Iceland, 2019; Icelandic Teachers Union, 2024). Collectively, these reforms intensify expectations for school‑based professional learning and position school leaders as central actors in organising and sustaining mentoring. However, these changes are unfolding within a tradition of soft governance characterised by professional trust, loose regulation, and extensive school and professional autonomy (Jónasson et al., 2021; Ragnarsdóttir, 2023; Steiner‑Khamsi et al., 2024). In such contexts, uneven municipal support, often linked to variation in municipal size, can amplify disparities in schools’ capacity to enact mentoring (Jónasson et al., 2021; Sigurðardóttir et al., 2022).

This governance landscape brings school leadership to the fore. International research emphasises the role of leadership in cultivating sustainable professional learning cultures and strengthening schools’ collective capacity (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Sergiovanni & Green, 2015). Professional learning is no longer viewed as an individual endeavour but as an organisational process that requires purposeful leadership, enabling structures, and long‑term capacity‑building. At the same time, research on educational governance and policy enactment shows that reforms do not move unchanged from policy texts into practice; rather, they are interpreted, negotiated, and reshaped through organisational conditions and leadership practices (Ball et al., 2012; Harðardóttir & Magnúsdóttir, 2018; Ragnarsdóttir, 2018). Put differently, leadership practice becomes the key site where policy intention meets organisational reality.

Yet leaders operate amid increasing workloads, fragmented support, and competing demands, leading to continual redistribution of time, attention, and resources (Gunnulfsen & Leo, 2023; Sigurðardóttir & Ragnarsdóttir, 2023). Against this backdrop, the central issue is not merely whether mentoring and instructional consultancy exist on paper, but how, within everyday leadership practice, professional learning is interpreted, prioritised, protected, and sustained over time.

This study examines how mentoring and instructional consultancy are governed, institutionalised, and enacted across three school levels within Iceland’s layered governance system.

Educational policies and their creation and implementation play a critical role in eliciting and advancing changes in the field of education. They are not only shaping the culture and operation of schools, but also defining how school principals are going about doing their work and carrying out their duties and responsibilities in schools. In this sense, school principals are often in a central position, being both the influencer and the influenced in the context of educational policy. They are often held accountable for policies and their implementation that impact the daily operation of schools and the lives and experiences of students and teachers in schools. Being able to uphold policies and mandates and ensuring their implementation that meets the intended policy goals has been a major part of their work. On the other hand, policies and initiatives are also shaping their leadership and practices and impacting their personal and professional selves. The effect of educational policies can be a double-edged sword at times: they could either constrain or facilitate the work and leadership of school principals.

Today, as equity is gaining increasing central attention in education, principals are often under significant pressure implementing policies and mandates that are intended to create a school environment that is equitable and inclusive for all. This is evident in the literature that is replete with research on equity-oriented leadership and its impact on schools and students performance and success. Despite being in a position of power, school principals often face various inequities, based more frequently on gender, age, race and ethnicity and geographical locations (Avery, 2022; Palmer, 2018; Wang & Pollock, 2020). Among various inequities, racial inequities seem to be the most salient among school principals. However, equity-related research tends to focus more on principals’ equity work for students and teachers, less on equity issues concerning school principals, particularly black school principals. Considering the central role educational policy has in principals’ work, this policy analysis aims to gain insights into equity in educational policies with regard to racialized school principals, in particular, black school principals in the province of British Columbia (BC), Canada. This analysis is guided by the following questions: how is equity conceptualized and understood in educational policies in BC? How are equity issues considered in educational policies with regard to racialized school principals, in particular black school principals? And what implications do they have for their leadership and practice?

Critical policy analysis framework

Chesler and Crowfoot (2000) argue that “our history of racial injustice is maintained through contemporary policies and practices, and is reflected in the dramatic differentials … in opportunity and other outcomes that still exist between people of colour and White persons” (p. 436). Given this view, it becomes important to understand the role of education policy in shaping Black school principals’ lived realities. A critical policy analysis provides a lens that helps expose and ameliorate the ways that educational policies and practices subordinate racial and ethnic minority groups and “counter the policies, structures, practices, and allocation of resources that result in or reinforce racial inequity” (Chase et al., 2012, p. 675). Thus, this policy analysis attempts to situate race and school leadership within critical policy studies. It examines the implications of race on the principal pipeline and the reconfiguration of race within global policy shifts that predominantly include neoliberal market reforms and governmentality. The analysis calls for anti-racist leadership as a counter-narrative to the racial inequities found within the practice of schooling. With its focus on deconstructing power relations, critical policy studies locates Black educators within the hierarchical structure of schooling shaped by larger socio-political and cultural relations.