Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:29:12 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
26 SES 06 D: *** Empty Session, Papers Moved *** Social Justice, Inclusion & Equity Leadership (Part 2)
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
26. Educational Leadership
Paper ***WITHDRAWN*** Diversity Leadership in Action: Finnish Principals' Self-Reported Practices and Development Areas University of Helsinki, Finland Presenting Author:This study examines Finnish principals diversity leadership practices in comprehensive school context. Finland has diversified rapidly during the past two decades, which has created tension between educational diversification, public schooling, and culturally responsive education (Saukkonen, 2014; Klinge, 1997; Kantasalmi & Holm, 2017). This tension and on going changes create new challenges for educators and educational leaders. This study focuses on Finnish principals, who generally have a positive attitude toward the diversity of their school communities, but their perceptions remain superficial (Jantunen, 2025; Jantunen et al., 2022; Jantunen et al., 2021). Based on research on principals' diversity views, it seems that diversity leadership has not been integrated as part of leadership practice. That is, it is not one of the lenses principals use in their work or base their decisions. Diversity leadership is an important part of educational leadership, as it is directly connected to, for example, the wellbeing of the school community and learning outcomes (Farnsworth, Hallam & Hilton, 2019; Eisenschmidt et al., 2021; Fonsén et al., 2022; Lahtero & Laasonen, 2021). Based on prior research on diversity and leadership in education (Khalifa, 2019; Khalifa et al., 2016; Scanlan & Lopez, 2015; Scanlan & Theoharis, 2015; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2021; also Milner, 2010), the survey examines principals' reflective capacity and development as leaders, improving school as organisation and school culture, leading teachers and supporting staff, pedagogical leadership, as well as capabilities and means for collaboration with the entire school community and the communities surrounding the school. The research questions for this study are How do principals view and assess the implementation of different aspects of diversity leadership in their own work? What factors promote or hinder the implementation of diversity leadership in schools? What kinds of development needs related to diversity leadership can be identified? There is relatively little European research on diversity leadership in the school context, while the majority of diversity leadership theories come from the United States and Canada. While these theories can provide a foundation and starting point for research in Europe, the unique characteristics of these different societies benefit from more localised research. There is an identified need for European research, theories, and models for diversity leadership in education in order to respond to current and topical phenomena (e.g. Jantunen, 2025; also Messiou et al., 2022). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This presentation introduces results from the Finnish Principal Barometer 2026 survey, which is a yearly, nationwide survey conducted by the University of Helsinki. This study has focus on a meter concerning principals' diversity leadership practices in basic education. Data will be collected in April 2026, and based on previous years, 600-700 principals are expected to participate in the survey. Collected data consists of 20 Likert-scale items and will be analysed with quantitative methods, mainly factor analysis. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The results provide new knowledge on diversity leadership on Finland, where the demographics have diversified rapidly within the past two decades (Saukkonen, 2014; Kantasalmi & Holm, 2017). The results focus specifically on principals’ (self-reported) diversity leadership practices: The strongest features, where is room for development, and self-reflective data. This information can form the basis for the Nordic diversity leadership in education model, which can be applied to other European contexts, especially with changing demographics, as well. Additionally, the further development requires collaborations with Nordic researchers to develop comparative perspectives on diversity in education while engaging with other European scholars to contextualise Nordic approaches within broader international discussions. References Eisenschmidt, E., Ahtiainen, R., Kondratjev, B. S., & Sillavee, R. (2021). A study of Finnish and Estonian principals' perceptions of strategies that foster teacher involvement in school development. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24(6), 925-948. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.2000033 Farnsworth, S. J., Hallam, P. R., & Hilton, S. C. (2019). Principal learning-centered leadership and faculty trust in the principal. NASSP Bulletin, 103(3), 209-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636519871624 Jantunen, A. (2025). Principals’ Views about Diversity in Finnish Schools. [Väitöskirja, Koulun, kasvatuksen, yhteiskunnan ja kulttuurin tohtoriohjelma]. Helsingin yliopisto. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/595131 Kantasalmi, K., & Holm, G. (Eds.). (2017). The state, schooling and identity: Diversifying education in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan. Khalifa, M. (2019). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education Press. Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272-1311. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383 Messiou, K., Bui, L. T., Ainscow, M., Gasteiger-Klicpera, B., Bešić, E., Paleczek, L., Hedegaard-Sørensen, L., Ulvseth, H., Vitorino, T., Santos, J., Simon, C., Sandoval, M., & Echeita, G. (2020). Student diversity and student voice conceptualisations in five European countries: Implications for including all students in schools. European Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 355-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904120953241 (Original work published 2022) Milner, H. R. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347670 Saukkonen, P. (2014). Kulttuuriperintökasvatus kotoutumisen tukena [Cultural heritage education supporting integration]. In M. Laine (Ed.), Kulttuuri-identiteetti & kasvatus – Kulttuuriperintökasvatus kotoutumisen tukena [Cultural identity & education – Cultural heritage education supporting integration] (pp. 112-139). Finnish Society for Cultural Heritage Education. Scanlan, M., & Lopéz, F. A. (2015). Leadership for culturally and linguistically responsive schools. Routledge. Scanlan, M., & Theoharis, G. (2015). Introduction: Intersectionality in educational leadership. In G. Theoharis & M. Scanlan (Eds.), Leadership for increasingly diverse schools (pp. 1-11). Routledge. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper ***WITHDRAWN*** Principals’ Responsibility to Create a Safe and Inclusive School Environment in a Polarizing Time NLA University College, Norway Presenting Author:Introduction: Fostering a safe and inclusive school environment is more critical than ever. Students face a myriad of challenges—from mental health issues to cyberbullying—that demand proactive strategies. Creating a culture of safety transcends implementing rules and procedures; it’s about ensuring that every member of the school community feels secure, respected, and included. School principals play an active role in ensuring a safe school environment to protect teachers and learners (Ahlström, 2009; Ertesvåg & Roland, 2015) and are responsible for implementing an inclusive school (Øen & Krumsvik, 2021). This study explores how key strategies developed in a high-stake accountability context fit into a soft accountability context (Maroy & Pons, 2019, p. 60) in school leaders work to cultivate and maintain a culture of safety and inclusion, and engaging all stakeholders in the process. Background for the study: In Norway, the word inclusion has been implemented into the Education Act in 2024 connected to school leaders’ responsibility for a safe and good school environment “to promote health, inclusion, well-being and learning” (Education Act, 2024, § 12-2). This happened at the time when the Education Act also introduced “zero tolerance for degrading treatment such as bullying, violence, discrimination and harassment” (§12-3). School staff were also given several detailed duties they must fulfil to restore a safe and good school environment for those students who have experienced any sort of degrading treatment. The amendment led to a tenfold increase in complaints to the county governor, who was given the role of assessing how the school had fulfilled the students' legal rights. During the same period, schools experienced a large increase of students with challenging behaviour after Covid. To prevent students from being violated and complaints from parents sent to the county governor, students with challenging behaviour were isolated in group-rooms and were given their own areas during recess (Skutlaberg, 2024). This happens in a time where there is increased individualization in society and more polarization between parents who have strong, but different opinions about the school’s actions. Purpose and research question: The purpose of this study is to gain insight into what school leaders do in schools where few students have reported degrading treatment, and how they promote inclusive practices despite increased legalization, individualization and polarization in the society. The research question is formulated as follows: How do school leaders legitimize their responsibility to promote inclusive practices with a safe and good school environment in a polarized time, and what are they doing to achieve this goal? The theoretical framework is built on Stark’s (2023) strategies for school leaders to promote and maintain a positive culture and climate, interpreted from Almy and Tooley (2012). The strategies are 1) establishing a clear and shared vision, 2) implementing positive behaviour support systems, 3) cultivating relationships and communication, 4) celebrating diversity and inclusion, 5) investing in professional development and support for staff, and 6) promoting student voice and engagement. The theoretical framework summarizes previous research on the role of principal in promoting a safe and good school environment (e.g. Ahlström, 2009; Ertesvåg & Roland, 2015) and how to work for an inclusive school (Øen & Krumsvik, 2021). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Based on individual in-depth interviews with 10 principals in Norwegian compulsory schools (grades 1-10), the study examines how their understanding of an inclusive practice is translated into school practices, how principals construct and legitimise their work, and what kind of dilemmas and tensions they experience. The analysis is based on school leaders’stories of their experiences with work related to the Education Act chapter 12, and how local practices in terms of the interactions among school staff, students, and parents emerge and are constituted within organisational and professional work contexts. The schools are in 5 different counties and 10 different municipalities. The selection of principals was purposive: the principals invited to participate had all received different kinds of attention because of their good work in “whole school staff” approaches. To ensure diversity in context and background I invited schools from different geographical regions (east, west and south in Norway), different school sizes, including schools from both urban and rural areas, and principals of different ages. I used a semi-structured interview guide and conducted and audio-recorded all individual interviews in locations chosen by the informants. Most interviews lasted approximately 90 minutes. I had my interviews transcribed, and independently analysed the transcripts aiming to identify emergent themes. I used NVivo software as a tool in this process. The procedure enabled me to combine inductive and deductive approaches for the data analysis (Eisner, 1991). First, I performed an inductive analysis, in which I identified chunks of data where the principals talked about measures to build the psychosocial environment and organised the data according to emergent categories. In the second step, I identified the principals’ interpretations of the responsibility to build an inclusive school. This helped me to explore the discretionary space within which professional practice was enacted. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study is in an early phase, and only 4 interviews have been conducted and transcribed, but will be completed and analysed in June 2026. However, some preliminary findings can be mentioned: - The principals' clear prioritization of what they spend their time on and what development work they allow into the organization. - Their strong belief in the possibility of creating an inclusive practice where everyone takes responsibility for themselves and others, both among the staff and among the students - Their pedagogical anchoring and wisdom in obtaining professional replenishment and guidance for the staff. When all the interviews have been transcribed, the analysis of the findings will be compared with the theoretical framework, identifying similarities and differences between soft-accountability countries (such as Norway) and more high-stakes accountability countries (e.g. the UK) (Maroy & Pons, 2019). References Ahlström, B. (2009). Bullying and Social Objectives: A study and Prerequisites for Success in Swedish Schools. [Doktorgradsavhandling, Umeå Universitet]. DiVA portal. http://umu.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:266327/FULLTEXT02.pdf Almy, S., & Tooley, M. (2012). Building and sustaining talent: Creating conditions in high-poverty schools that support effective teaching and learning. Education Trust. Ertesvåg, S. & Roland, E. (2015). Professional cultures and rates of bullying. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 26(2), 195-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.944547 Maroy, C. & Pons, X. Eds. (2019). Accountability Policies in Education. A comparative and Multilevel Analysis in France and Quebec. Springer. Skutlaberg, K. B. (2024). Å være rektor i langvarige saker knyttet til elevers psykososiale skolemiljø – mellom pedagogikk, etikk og juss [Doktorgradsavhandling]. Universitetet i Oslo. https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/109965 Starkey, J. (2023). Effective strategies for building and sustaining a positive school culture and climate. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 27(S2), 1-3. Øen, K. & Krumsvik, R. J. (2021). Teachers’ attitudes to inclusion regarding challenging behaviour. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 37(3), 417-431. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1885178 | ||