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).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
26 SES 08 D: Curriculum & Instructional Leadership
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
26. Educational Leadership
Paper ***WITHDRAWN*** Instructional Leadership in the UAE: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis 1: Sharjah Education Academy; 2: United Arab Emirates University Presenting Author:Across Europe and internationally, instructional leadership is widely recognised as a key driver of school improvement, operating largely through indirect pathways such as school climate, teacher commitment, and pedagogical innovation. While extensive evidence from European systems (e.g., Finland, the Netherlands, England) demonstrates the effectiveness of distributed, relational, and learning-centred leadership models, less is known about how these internationally endorsed approaches function within rapidly reforming, highly centralised, and culturally diverse education systems outside Europe. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) represents a strategically significant case for international comparison. Its education system combines global reform agendas, strong accountability mechanisms, high teacher mobility, and multicultural school communities. Existing studies in the UAE remain fragmented and largely descriptive, offering limited theoretical integration with international leadership models. This research responds to a clear gap by systematically examining instructional leadership in the UAE through a comparative, internationally informed theoretical lens, enabling dialogue between European research traditions and Gulf-region practice. How does instructional leadership influence school climate, teacher commitment, and pedagogical innovation in UAE schools, and how do these relationships align with, or diverge from, internationally established (particularly European) leadership models? Sub-questions
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a systematic review and thematic synthesis design to examine how instructional leadership influences school climate, teacher commitment, and pedagogical innovation in the UAE, while benchmarking findings against established European and international leadership models. A systematic review is particularly appropriate given the fragmented and emerging nature of instructional leadership research in reform-oriented education systems. This approach is widely used in European educational leadership research to generate robust, transparent, and transferable insights. The review follows the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, ensuring methodological transparency, replicability, and international comparability. PRISMA is internationally recognised as the gold standard for systematic evidence synthesis in education and the social sciences and is extensively adopted across European research communities. Data Sources Peer-reviewed empirical studies were identified through internationally recognised academic databases commonly used in European research, including Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and EBSCO/Education Source. To enhance contextual accuracy, UAE-specific academic repositories were also consulted. Only peer-reviewed journal articles were included to ensure methodological rigour and alignment with international quality standards. Eligibility Criteria Studies were included if they: focused on instructional leadership or leadership for learning in K–12 school settings; addressed at least one of the following outcomes: school climate, teacher commitment, or pedagogical innovation; were published between 2000 and 2024, capturing two decades of global leadership reform; and employed quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods designs. Grey literature, dissertations, and higher education studies were excluded to maintain consistency with European systematic review conventions and peer-review standards. Data Collection and Screening Search terms combined leadership constructs and contextual identifiers (e.g., instructional leadership, leadership for learning, school climate, teacher commitment, innovation, UAE), using Boolean operators to refine results. Screening was conducted in three stages: title screening, abstract screening, and full-text review. Eligibility decisions were guided strictly by predefined inclusion criteria, with ambiguities resolved through reference to international leadership frameworks. Research Instruments and Analytical Framework The primary analytical instrument was thematic synthesis, following Thomas and Harden’s three-step model: (1) line-by-line coding of empirical findings, (2) development of descriptive themes, and (3) generation of higher-order analytical themes. To strengthen international comparability, themes were mapped onto Hallinger and Murphy’s instructional leadership model, Leithwood’s transformational leadership theory, and the OECD Learning Leadership Framework (2030). Quality Appraisal Methodological quality was assessed using JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists for quantitative studies and the CASP Qualitative Checklist for qualitative research. All included studies met high-quality thresholds, ensuring the reliability and credibility of the synthesis. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study is expected to generate theoretically informed and internationally relevant conclusions regarding the role of instructional leadership in shaping school improvement processes in the UAE, while contributing to wider European and global debates on leadership effectiveness, governance, and reform. 1. The findings are expected to confirm that instructional leadership operates primarily through indirect pathways. Rather than exerting direct effects, leadership influences outcomes through mediating organisational conditions, particularly school climate and teacher commitment. Practices centred on shared vision, instructional coherence, and relational trust are likely to be associated with more positive learning environments and stronger professional engagement, reflecting robust evidence from European and international leadership research. 2. School climate is anticipated to emerge as a critical mediating mechanism. Leadership approaches that promote trust, collaboration, psychological safety, and professional respect are expected to foster climates conducive to teacher wellbeing and pedagogical innovation. However, centralised governance arrangements and inspection-driven accountability are likely to weaken these effects by constraining school-level autonomy—an issue similarly identified in several European systems characterised by strong performativity cultures. Third, the review is expected to show that teacher commitment in the UAE is shaped by both individual and organisational factors. Instructional leadership practices that value teacher voice, provide professional support, and reduce non-instructional workload demands are likely to enhance commitment. Conversely, heavy workloads, limited participation in decision-making, and restricted professional agency are expected to undermine organisational loyalty, echoing international findings on teacher motivation and retention. References This study adopts a systematic review and thematic synthesis design to examine how instructional leadership influences school climate, teacher commitment, and pedagogical innovation in the UAE, while benchmarking findings against established European and international leadership models. A systematic review is particularly appropriate given the fragmented and emerging nature of instructional leadership research in reform-oriented education systems. This approach is widely used in European educational leadership research to generate robust, transparent, and transferable insights. The review follows the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, ensuring methodological transparency, replicability, and international comparability. PRISMA is internationally recognised as the gold standard for systematic evidence synthesis in education and the social sciences and is extensively adopted across European research communities. Data Sources Peer-reviewed empirical studies were identified through internationally recognised academic databases commonly used in European research, including Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and EBSCO/Education Source. To enhance contextual accuracy, UAE-specific academic repositories were also consulted. Only peer-reviewed journal articles were included to ensure methodological rigour and alignment with international quality standards. Eligibility Criteria Studies were included if they: focused on instructional leadership or leadership for learning in K–12 school settings; addressed at least one of the following outcomes: school climate, teacher commitment, or pedagogical innovation; were published between 2000 and 2024, capturing two decades of global leadership reform; and employed quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods designs. Grey literature, dissertations, and higher education studies were excluded to maintain consistency with European systematic review conventions and peer-review standards. Data Collection and Screening Search terms combined leadership constructs and contextual identifiers (e.g., instructional leadership, leadership for learning, school climate, teacher commitment, innovation, UAE), using Boolean operators to refine results. Screening was conducted in three stages: title screening, abstract screening, and full-text review. Eligibility decisions were guided strictly by predefined inclusion criteria, with ambiguities resolved through reference to international leadership frameworks. Research Instruments and Analytical Framework The primary analytical instrument was thematic synthesis, following Thomas and Harden’s three-step model: (1) line-by-line coding of empirical findings, (2) development of descriptive themes, and (3) generation of higher-order analytical themes. To strengthen international comparability, themes were mapped onto Hallinger and Murphy’s instructional leadership model, Leithwood’s transformational leadership theory, and the OECD Learning Leadership Framework (2030). Quality Appraisal Methodological quality was assessed using JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists for quantitative studies and the CASP Qualitative Checklist for qualitative research. All included studies met high-quality thresholds, ensuring the reliability and credibility of the synthesis. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper “Social Justice in Education Exists When Everyone Gets What They Need” – School Leaders' Perspectives on Social Justice in Education University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Switzerland Presenting Author:Social justice in education is a term frequently used in debates on education policy and academic discourse, but at least in German-speaking countries, its definition varies (Kamm, 2019). Discussions on education policy are dominated by the perspective of distributive justice, according to which a fair education system means distributing resources for the educational process, educational qualifications and career opportunities according to the performance of schoolchildren (Stojanov, 2020). This meritocratic understanding of social justice in education is criticised for attributing sole responsibility for performance to pupils and for legitimizing social inequalities on a structural and individual level (Stojanov, 2020). Concepts such as recognition justice, which focuses on the quality of pedagogical relationships and the individual autonomy of pupils (Stojanov, 2020), and the capability approach, according to which students must be supported in developing the capabilities they need for a good life (Nussbaum, 2011), offer alternative ways of understanding education and social justice in education.
School leaders can be considered relevant actors in the context of social justice in education. They influence the culture, capacity and motivation of teachers and other professionals (Day & Sammons, 2013) and can also impact the use of resources and influence structures to a limited extent. They also have an indirect influence on pupils' performance (Leithwood et al., 2006). While research on inclusive school leadership practices exists in the German-speaking research context, studies on school leaders' – and teachers’ – conceptions of justice and the associated options for action are sparse. Existing research indicates that perceived possibilities for action with regard to promoting social justice in education are linked to educational stakeholders’ understandings of justice (e.g. Graalmann, 2024).
International research findings, however, point to numerous studies that examine school leaders understanding of justice and justice-related courses of action (e.g. Ayanoğlu & Arastaman, 2023; Morrison et al., 2019; Wang, 2015). Studies originate in particular from the paradigms of ‘social justice in education’ and ‘social justice leadership’. The latter paradigm focuses in particular on school administrators' conceptions of social justice in education, but increasingly also includes their justice-related practices (Karakose et al., 2023). The fundamental influence of school leaders in this context has been identified in various meta-studies (Chaaban et al., 2025; Shaked, 2019). However, Wang (2015) and Morrison et al. (2019) point to a lack of a widespread definition of social justice and argue on this basis that school leaders base their understanding of social justice on their individual beliefs, attitudes, perceptions and experiences.
Due to the inconsistent use of the term social justice in the German-speaking research context, it seems important to clarify how the term is understood at the level of school action units (Kamm, 2021). School leaders’ perspectives appear relevant, as they can influence the agenda setting, school culture and teachers' values (Chaaban et al., 2025). This research gap is the starting point for the present study. The focus is on the following questions:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The data stems from an online survey conducted in 2024 among Swiss primary school principals. Participants were asked about various aspects of their job satisfaction, professional identity and dealing with diversity. Participants also had the opportunity to share their views on social justice in eduaction. Three open-ended questions were asked on this topic. Of the 4,618 principals invited to participate, 1,092 respondents from German-speaking Switzerland answered at least one of the questions in a text field: Question 1: What do you personally understand by ‘social justice in education’? Question 2: Imagine that in the not-too-distant future, social justice has been achieved in the Swiss school system. How do you imagine school would be then? Question 3: Please now think about what you, as a school principal, could do to make this future a reality: What specific measures could you take? Only responses that answered at least one of the three questions in at least two sentences related to the question were included in the evaluation. After applying these criteria, from a total of 649 people, 415 statements remained for the first question, 364 for the second and 369 for the third. The statements were evaluated along the three questions using a structured qualitative content analysis according to Mayring[PT1.1] (2023) in MAXQDA (version 24.5). In a first step, the main categories were deduced from the three questions. In a second step, subcategories were determined by having one person inductively code some of the statements and a second person use MAXQDA AI Assist to suggest subcategories for the same statements and main categories, which they then checked for suitability. Subsequently, the category systems and codes of the two individuals were compared, adjusted and merged into a single category system. In a third step, the fit of the integrated category system to the data material was checked again by having a third person evaluate 25% of the data material based on the integrated category system. Final revisions were made to the category system by adjusting the main categories and adding subcategories. In a fourth and final step, the rest of the data was coded using the category system. The following coding rules were applied: a coding unit must contain at least four words; a statement can contain several coding units; each coding unit is assigned to a category (no double coding). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The results contain references to all three concepts: distributive justice, recognition justice and the capability approach. In many cases, however, the views expressed are either too complex or too vague to be clearly assigned to one of the three concepts of justice mentioned above. Individual support is often mentioned as an understanding of social justice or a means of achieving social justice in education, as are aspects of school development, such as the dismantling of obstructive structures or the shift towards project-based and mixed-age learning. Many school leaders cite the professionalisation of school management and teaching staff as possible measures to foster social justice in education, e.g. by raising awareness and educating themselves and teachers about social justice. It is also striking that many school leaders use ‘equal opportunities’ and ‘social justice’ synonymously, although the terms differ conceptually. Furthermore, the coded responses to the question about possible actions for designing a more socially just school system did not always make it clear which actions school leaders are already taking and which they see as a possibility but are not (yet) taking themselves. The results suggest that there is a lack of conscious, targeted engagement with social justice in education among Swiss school leaders. Currently, neither social justice, educational equity nor equal opportunities are included in the Swiss Confederation of Education's (EDK) qualification requirements for school leaders (cf. EDK, 2009). This situation appears to be similar in various European countries, for example Germany (KMK, 2024) and the UK (Department for Education, 2020). This limits opportunities for in-depth engagement with these issues. References Ayanoğlu, Ç., & Arastaman, G. (2023). Social Justice Leadership in Education: What Do School Principals Do for Social Justice? Participatory Educational Research, 10(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.94.10.6 Chaaban, Y., Badwan, K., & Arar, K. (2025). Educational leadership for social justice: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Review of Education, 13(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70077 Day, C., & Sammons, P. (2013). Successful Leadership: A Review of the International Literature. CfBT Education Trust. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED546806 Department for Education. (2020, October). National Professional Qualification (NPQ): Headship Framework. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925507/NPQ_Headship.pdf EDK. (2009, Oktober 29). Profil für Zusatzausbildungen Schulleitung. http://edudoc.ch/record/35587/files/Prof_Zus_Schulleitung_d.pdf Graalmann, K. (2024). Rekonstruktionen Von Bildungs(un-)gerechtigkeit: Begriffliche und Berufspraktische Aushandlungen Von Gesamtschul- und Gymnasiallehrerinnen (Bd. 46). Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-43726-8 Kamm, C. (2019). Konzeptionen von Bildungsgerechtigkeit und deren Bearbeitung in der Organisation Schule. In Konzeptionen von Förderung, Selektion und Gerechtigkeit: Eine rekonstruktive Studie an Primarschulen in herausfordernden Lagen (S. 17–37). Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25782-8_3 Kamm, C. (2021). Vorstellungen von Bildungsgerechtigkeit als kollektive Orientierung? Eine rekonstruktive Studie in Primarschulen in benachteiligten Lagen. In E. Zala-Mezö, J. Häbig, & N. Bremm (Hrsg.), Dokumentarische Methode in der Schulentwicklungsforschung (S. 59–75). Waxmann. https://dx.doi.org/10.31244/9783830994237 Karakose, T., Tülübaş, T., & Papadakis, S. (2023). The scientific evolution of social justice leadership in education: Structural and longitudinal analysis of the existing knowledge base, 2003–2022. Frontiers in Education, 8:1139648. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1139648 KMK. (2024). Orientierungsrahmen zur Qualifizierung von Schulleitungen. Kultusministerkonferenz. https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2024/2024_12_13-Orientierungsrahmen-Schulleitungen.pdf Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school leader-ship: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. DfES Publications. Mayring, P. A. E. (2023). Qualitative content analysis. In R. J. Tierney, F. Rizvi, & K. Ercikan (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (4th ed., pp. 314–322). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.11031-0 Morrison, M., McNae, R., & Branson, C. M. (2019). Multiple hues: New Zealand school leaders’ perceptions of social justice. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 30(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.21307/jelpp-2015-002 Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt2jbt31 Shaked, H. (2019). School Leaders’ Contribution to Social Justice: A Review. International Journal of Educational Reform, 28(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056787919857259 Stojanov, K. (2020). Educational Inequalities and Educational Justice. In P. Iyer (Ed.), Knowledge, Politics, and Education: Vol. II (pp. 76–96). Azim Premji University. Wang, F. (2015). Conceptualizing social justice: Interviews with principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(5), 667–681. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2014-0080 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Conceptualising and Enacting Curriculum Leadership: A Multi-Site Microlevel Case Study Dublin City University, Ireland Presenting Author:Topic While general school leadership models have attracted extensive scholarly attention in recent times (James et al., 2020), curriculum leadership has received remarkably less attention - both theoretical and empirical (Harris et al., 2020). This lack of focus is striking in light of widespread curriculum reforms currently being implemented in many European countries (Gouëdard et al., 2020), including in Ireland (Government of Ireland, 2023). In the limited discourse where it is explicitly addressed, curriculum leadership is often treated with a conceptual blurriness arising from its frequent conflation with instructional leadership (Bush and Glover, 2014), which obscures - or at the very least minimises - its distinct role in curriculum enactment. This study seeks to address the knowledge gap on curriculum leadership by explicitly theorising what it is and identifying how it might be enacted. In doing so, the paper seeks to reorient the general discourse on educational leadership towards the substantive core of schooling - the curriculum - and move beyond the purely organisational or administrative functions of leadership by focusing on purposeful enactment of curriculum to ensure quality teaching and learning. Aim and Research Question The overarching aim of this research is to illuminate the practice of curriculum leadership, as a distinct model of educational leadership in its own right, and to explore how it is experienced at school level. There are two specific objectives:
The core research question is: what role does leadership have in the curriculum enactment process at school-level? Theoretical / Conceptual Framework Curriculum leadership remains theoretically fragmented because the fields of educational leadership and curriculum have developed as distinct disciplines, rarely intersecting to provide a unified conceptual model (Uljens and Ylimaki, 2017). In a rare theoretical synthesis, Uljens (2024, p.180) proposes that while curriculum leadership is ‘narrower’ than other leadership paradigms, it can be enacted by a wider array of actors. Such enactment is categorised across three distinct tiers: the microlevel (school), the mesolevel (district) and the macrolevel (systemic). This study, like others (Mäkiharju and Hilli, 2024), is theoretically situated within that multi-tiered framework but concentrates its inquiry on the microlevel only, to develop a deeper articulation of curriculum leadership’s distinct characteristics at that level and the mechanisms through which it is operationalised there. At the school microlevel, both instructional leadership and teacher leadership, and the intricate intersections between the two, are germane to a holistic conception of microlevel curriculum leadership. Traditionally, instructional leadership has been conflated with principalship (Neumerski, 2013) and focusing on the technical management of teaching (Bush, 2015). However, global shifts toward pedagogical leadership (Bush, 2023; OECD 2017) have recalibrated the discourse on instructional work toward a more distributed approach that emphasises relational influence, thereby including teachers in this leadership sphere. Indeed, since principals often prioritise administrative functions over curriculum coordination (Gomiole et al., 2024), active teacher involvement can serve as the core mechanism through which curriculum leadership is functionally operationalised. This paper proposes a conceptual model for curriculum leadership by mapping the intricate intersections between instructional and teacher leadership, and locating the functions of curriculum leadership within those intersections. In doing so, the proposed model aligns with a contemporary European shift toward teacher-based curriculum enactment, moving beyond principal-centric paradigms (Hallinger et al., 2020) to re-emphasise professional agency as the primary driver of school-level reform. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employed a qualitative methodology that incorporated a multi-site, embedded case study with three special schools (n=3) in Ireland. The study’s location within the special school sector was intentional because these settings serve as an intensified context where the necessity for highly individualised, learner-led provision (Dunkwu et al., 2024) magnifies the visibility of curriculum leadership in action. To explore curriculum leadership dimensions in practice, a single mandatory Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) programme (see MacIntyre and Lawlor, 2016 in the reference section) was utilised as a common methodological probe across all three sites. This provided a common lens to view curriculum leadership actions. Participants’ enactment of the same probe in their own different contexts had the potential to illustrate how curriculum leadership was undertaken and experienced in response to different school stimuli. Using this standardised baseline ensured that variations in leadership actions and experiences could not be attributed to differences in the curriculum itself, but rather to the unique interplay of school and individual factors that influence curriculum leadership in practice. There were four units within each of the three case study schools: (a) Examination of the school’s SPHE curriculum policy (b) Semi-structured interview with school principal (c) Semi-structured interview with curriculum coordinator for SPHE (d) Semi-structured focus group with three/four teachers This selection of units enabled the examination of curriculum leadership over different positional levels and enabled a critical comparison of policy documentation against empirical reality. A two-stage sampling procedure was employed, first to identify the cases and then to identify the units: - Stage 1: Following a national invitation to all special schools (n=133), three sites were selected via sequential, purposive sampling. Selection was based on three exclusionary criteria: (i) a specific ‘special school’ designation; (ii) a required staffing structure comprising a principal, an SPHE curriculum coordinator and at least three teachers with experience of the curriculum probe being utilised; and (iii) geographic diversity. - Stage 2: Following school selection, snowball sampling was used to recruit participants. Principals invited curriculum coordinators and experienced teachers to participate, after which the researcher managed direct recruitment and informed consent. This yielded sixteen participants (n=16) across the three sites (n=3). Preliminary screening of school policies identified leadership themes, informing interview schedules. Empirical data were then coded using NVivo, following Braun and Clarke’s (2021) thematic analysis framework to address the core research question. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings suggest that principals exercise varying degrees of control over curriculum enactment, ranging from explicit to implicit to null. Where explicit control was evident, the principal tended to demand empirical data from teachers to justify proposed changes. In contrast, implicit control was characterised by the principal subtly steering staff toward predetermined decisions by leveraging statements regarding ‘best practice’ as a persuasive tool. Where principal control appeared absent, curricular enactment often lacked consistency, frequently resulting in the loss of a cohesive whole-school approach. Influence was further shaped by two distinct drivers: - Positional Proximity: Those high in the management hierarchy possessed significant influence; while deputy principals emerged as highly influential, assistant principals and curriculum coordinators held notably less sway - Professional Capital: Outside the formal hierarchy, ‘time-in-role’ granted experienced teachers significant informal authority over less experienced colleagues - although this authority was often leveraged inconsistently. While inexperienced teachers also exercised some curriculum leadership, this was primarily limited to the classroom level and was manifested through the direction of paraprofessionals on curriculum matters. These drivers, and the findings of this research more generally, offer a unique contribution by refining how curriculum leadership is conceptualised and enacted through the deduction of two distinct leadership premia: principal proximity and professional experience. At a time when many education systems across Europe are under pressure to reform, leadership remains the critical variable in determining whether curriculum change succeeds or stalls. This paper resonates strongly with the conference theme by illustrating how these premia mediate the transition from knowing the curriculum to leading it in practice, in dynamic school environments. It will appeal to researchers and academics interested in ‘learning leadership’ and how other school-level leadership models can be mobilised towards addressing the ‘pedagogical core’ of the school (OECD, 2017, p.42). References Bush T and Glover D (2014) School leadership models: What do we know? School Leadership & Management 34(5): 553–571. Bush T (2015) Understanding instructional leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(4): 487–489. Bush T (2023) Leadership practices and why they matter: Evolving leadership models. In: Tierney R, Rivzi F and Ercikan K (eds) International Encyclopedia of Education (Fourth Edition). Oxford: Elsevier, 44–52. Dunkwu J, Egbunike O and Alexandrou A (2024) Exploring distributed leadership in special schools (DLSS): Implications for practice and policy. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1080/1034912X.2024.2417302 Gomiole GG, Tarekegn WM and Wodajo AL (2024) The perceived practice of principals’ instructional leadership role in curriculum execution: The case of primary schools in tarcha town, Ethiopia. Leadership and Policy in Schools: 1–14. OnlineFirst. doi:10.1080/15700763.2024.2339879 Gouëdard, P., Pont, B., Hyttinen, S., & Huang, P. (2020). Curriculum reform: A literature review to support effective implementation (OECD Working Papers No. 239). OECD Publishing. Hallinger P, Gümüş S and Bellibaş MŞ (2020) Are principals instructional leaders yet? A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940–2018. Scientometrics 122(3): 1629–1650. Harris A, Jones M and Crick T (2020) Curriculum leadership: A critical contributor to school and system improvement. School Leadership & Management 40(1): 1–4. James C, Connolly M and Hawkins M (2020) Reconceptualising and redefining educational leadership practice. International Journal of Leadership in Education 23(5): 618–635. MacIntyre D and Lawlor M (2016) The Stay Safe Programme (Revised). Dublin: Child Abuse Prevention Programme. Available at: https://www.staysafe.ie/ Mäkiharju A and Hilli C (2024) Curriculum leadership of cross-curricular teaching in lower secondary school – The Finnish principal as a mediator. Journal of Curriculum Studies. DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2024.2323584. Epub ahead of print 3 March 2024. Neumerski C (2013) Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here? Educational Administration Quarterly 49(2): 310–347. OECD. (2017) The OECD Handbook for Innovative Learning Environments. Paris: OECD Publishing. Uljens M (2024) The why, where, how and what of curriculum leadership: A non-affrmative approach. In: Ahtiainen R, Hanhimäki E, Leinonen J, Risku M and Smeds-Nylund AS (eds) Leadership in Educational Contexts in Finland: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Helsinki: Springer, 179–200. Uljens M and Ylimaki R (2017) Bridging Educational Leadership, Curriculum Theory and Didaktik. Switzerland: Springer. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Curricular and Research Preparation in Top-Ranked Educational Leadership Ph.D. Programs: A Review of Best Practices University of Alabama, United States of America Presenting Author:A. Overview / Conceptual or Theoretical Framework A growing international body of research underscores the importance of rigorous doctoral preparation in Educational Leadership for advancing the quality of leadership research, policy analysis, and system improvement across educational contexts. Ph.D. programs in Educational Leadership play a critical role in preparing future scholars who generate evidence on leadership practices, equity, and student learning. Despite this importance, empirical studies examining the curricular and research preparation embedded within high-quality Educational Leadership Ph.D. programs remain scarce. Existing literature suggests that high-quality doctoral programs are characterized by several core features, including strong methodological preparation, interdisciplinary coursework, structured research apprenticeships, and comprehensive assessment systems such as qualifying examinations and dissertation defenses (Hallinger, 2011; Tucker & Uline, 2015; Topolka-Jorissen & Wang, 2015). At the same time, leadership scholarship has increasingly emphasized leadership for learning, equity, and system improvement, calling for doctoral curricula that integrate research rigor with substantive engagement in leadership conceptualization, assessment, policy and economics in diverse contexts (Leithwood et al., 2020; Hitt & Tucker, 2016). To date, however, limited research has systematically examined how these expectations are reflected in the actual curricular designs of top-ranked Educational Leadership Ph.D. programs. Questions remain regarding the extent to which leading programs converge around a shared curricular architecture, how they embed research preparation throughout coursework, and how they balance breadth, depth, and specialization in doctoral training. Responding to these gaps, this study presents a comparative review of top-ranked Educational Leadership Ph.D. programs in the United States. Drawing on publicly available program documents from 21 nationally top-ranked institutions per US News & World Report 2025, the study examines four interrelated program components that have been identified in prior research as central to doctoral quality: (a) curriculum content and structure, (b) research preparation and apprenticeship opportunities, (c) program delivery formats, and (d) assessment and degree-completion requirements. By synthesizing patterns across elite doctoral programs, this study contributes to international conversations on doctoral program design, research capacity building, and leadership scholarship. The findings offer a framework for understanding how high-quality Educational Leadership Ph.D. programs are structured to prepare scholars capable of conducting rigorous research and contributing to evidence-informed leadership practice across diverse educational systems—issues of particular relevance to European and international audiences engaged in doctoral program development and reform. In addition this study seeks to provide conceptual and empirical baselines for comparing and contrasting school leadership preparation programs in other countries and/or regions of the world. Aligned with the ECER 2026 call for proposals, this paper addresses conference themes related to research quality, equity, and system improvement by examining how doctoral program structures shape the production of leadership knowledge and research capacity. By foregrounding comparative and evidence-based perspectives on doctoral preparation, the study contributes to ECER’s broader agenda of advancing international dialogue on educational research, policy, and professional learning. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used B. Methodology / Methods / Data Sources This study is a document analysis of top-ranked Educational Leadership Ph.D. programs in the United States. Program selection was guided by the 2025 U.S. News & World Report rankings in Educational Administration and Leadership, cross-referenced with membership in the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). Highly ranked non-UCEA programs (e.g., Harvard University, Stanford University, University of California–Los Angeles) were also included to ensure representation of elite doctoral models. The final analytic sample comprised 27 Ph.D. programs across 21 institutions, representing the top tier of doctoral programs in Educational Leadership. Data sources included publicly available university websites, graduate handbooks, academic catalogs, and program descriptions. These documents were systematically reviewed and coded using a framework derived from prior literature on doctoral leadership preparation. The analytic framework focused on four dimensions: 1. Curriculum content and required coursework, 2. Research preparation structures, 3. Program delivery formats and structure, and 4. Assessment systems and degree-completion requirements. Coding emphasized identification of shared curricular patterns as well as meaningful variation across programs. Course offerings were grouped into major knowledge domains (e.g., organizational theory, policy and law, economics and finance, instructional leadership, diversity and equity, social sciences). Research preparation was examined through the presence of research methods sequences, research practicums or apprenticeships, and opportunities for dissertation proposal development embedded within coursework. To enhance trustworthiness, program features were cross-validated across multiple sources where available. Findings were synthesized descriptively and comparatively, with attention to emerging trends and areas of convergence among top-ranked programs. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings C. Conclusions / Expected Findings Preliminary findings reveal a shared core architecture among top-ranked Educational Leadership Ph.D. programs, characterized by rigorous research preparation, interdisciplinary curricular breadth, and structured assessment systems. Across programs, doctoral curricula consistently emphasize advanced quantitative and qualitative research methods, often supported by multi-semester research apprenticeships that immerse students in faculty-led research activities. These structures position research preparation as a central and continuous component of doctoral study rather than a discrete phase. The review also indicates that leading programs extend beyond traditional leadership theory to incorporate coursework in educational policy, law, economics, finance, and social sciences, reflecting an interdisciplinary orientation aligned with contemporary leadership challenges. An emerging trend is the increased emphasis on leadership for improving student learning, data-informed & evidence-use leadership, equity, and system-level outcomes, signaling a shift toward learning-centered and equity-oriented leadership frameworks within doctoral preparation. Assessment systems across programs demonstrate substantial consistency, with nearly all requiring qualifying or comprehensive examinations and a traditional research dissertation as the culminating scholarly product. Variation exists, however, in the sequencing and number of assessment checkpoints, as well as in the formalization of research practicum requirements. Collectively, these findings suggest that high-quality Educational Leadership Ph.D. programs balance curricular breadth with research depth while maintaining flexibility to support individualized scholarly trajectories. The study offers implications for doctoral program design, benchmarking, and reform, particularly for institutions seeking to align doctoral preparation with international standards of research excellence and leadership scholarship. The study's findings further provide a conceptual and empirical baseline for future international comparisons of school leadership preparation programs. How are these programs and their effects similar? How do they differ? What accounts for these similarities and differences? References Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–569. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. Topolka-Jorissen, K., & Wang, Y. (2015). Focus and delivery of doctoral programs in educational leadership. International Journal of Educational Reform, 24(3), 212–227. Tucker, P. D., & Uline, C. L. (2015). The role of candidate assessment within educational leadership doctoral programs. International Journal of Educational Reform, 24(3), 248–265. | ||