Conference Agenda

There is a widespread knowledge that professional learning communities for teachers, has the potential to improve the learning of students and pupils (see for example Stoll et. al. 2006; Ventista & Brown, 2023). Our ambition is to contribute to the growing body of literature on professional learning for school leaders (see for example Cranston, 2009; Strand & Emstad, 2020). Previous research has shown that principals that are engaged in professional learning develop vital leadership skills, and make use of aquired knowledge and experience when they themselves organise and lead professional learning for teachers (Miller 2012; Gaudioso, 2017). Few studies have examined professional learning communities for principals over time (Strand & Emstad, 2020), which we intend to do. This study is part of a research-development collaboration which will be presented below. The aim of this paper is to explore if and how the theories of action of school leaders change when they are engaged in professional learning with fellows. The ambition of the research-development project is among other things, to explore the professional learning of a group of school leaders over a two-year period, to see whether their leadership practice undergo change (theories in use). In this paper however, we are only focusing on the school leaders’ espoused theories of action which show in verbal and written reflections and statements.

The theoretical model that we build the research-development programme on is developed by Timperley et. al. (2020). The model illustrates a complex system of a professional learning culture, and it emphasizes that not only students and teachers, but also school leaders and principals should engage in learning processes, motivated by and directed towards student learning. The model emphasizes that these processes should be inter-linked and supported by both internal and external expertise and knowledge. We as researchers and teachers from a university, are taking on the latter role. Leaders who lead or have the responsibility for the professional development and learning of others, need to be learners themselves. Therefore, both the partaking school leaders and we ourselves, are engaging in reflective practice and inquiry of our respective practices and our common practice, based on relevant data.

We understand learning as a permanent change in thinking and practice (Katz & Ain Dack, 2013), more specifically in relation to leaders’ leadership practice. We rely on the work by Argyris and Schön (1974; 1978) on organisational learning as theory of action. According to this, the result of work in organisations can be linked to strategies of action. Strategies are in turn, based on individual and organisational assumptions and values. Single loop learning occurs when strategies and actions are corrected and/or adjusted with no reference to underlying assumptions or values. Double loop learning – which is rare – occurs when deep rooted beliefs and assumptions are disputed. Central to the theory is the difference between the espoused theory – what actors say and think they do – and theory in use – actual behaviour. We anticipate that knowing what and how precedes behavioural change and thus, it is relevant to explore if and how school leaders espoused theory change as result of engaging in professional learning.

When asked about leadership ways of knowing, being, and leading in today’s schools amidst contemporary influences and complexities (e.g., political debates about race and history, digitalization, and accountability), “walking in beauty”--Hózhó in Navajo-- may not be the first image that comes to mind. Yet Hózhó, the Navajo philosophy characterized by living and being with balance, equanimity, and self-determination, is at the heart of a Navajo principal’s leadership. We present a Navajo school principal’s way of leading his successful school as part of the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) with a tribal culturally responsive mindset and pedagogy amidst multiple layers of influences, complexities, and historical traumas.

The United States has a history of colonization of Native people and land. Ongoing assimilation through, for example, boarding schools for Indigenous children, has resulted in trauma over centuries through the contemporary situation. Scholars (e.g., Brayboy, 2014) have documented the loss of Indigenous languages and cultures as part of historical trauma. Schools located in reservation communities that serve Indigenous children also face pressures from tribal, state, and national policies for accountability to curriculum standards. In other words, U.S. schools that serve Indigenous students are culturally and historically situated within a complex interplay among federal, state, and tribal policies, schools, and districts, and historical legacies of colonialism. The overall purpose of this paper is to present a Navajo principal’s ways of knowing, being, and leading a school to success amidst multiple layers of complex influence (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), culturally and historically situated and grounded in Hózhó.

In Navajo tradition and hence educational philosophy, nothing is static; every aspect of life underlies a basic concept of dynamic change (Benally, 1994). Moreover, the Navajo philosophy is one of balance and sustainability (Benally, 1994; Singh Gill, 2021). Western traditions often emphasize divisions of sacred and profane knowledge, while in the Navajo tradition, no division exists. Holism, as a way of life, as an expression of beauty and interconnection, recognizes that if one part falls out of place, it will affect all the other parts, and therefore the cycle itself becomes dysfunctional (Benally, 1994; Singh Gill, 2021). In the Navajo universe, there is a constant movement inherent in all things. At the core of this view there is a holistic and ordered universe where everything is interrelated, and all the pieces of the universe are enfolded within the whole. At the same time every piece contains the entire universe, creating a network of relationships and processes in constant flux (Begay & Maryboy, 2023). Such perspectives are important to leadership amidst layers of (often conflicting and competing) influences and complexities.

Thus, we also consider Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory from human development psychology as a secondary theoretical framing that explains multiple layers of influence from the closest with families to the broader macro social, political, historical and contemporary influences of time. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory of social development provides us with analytical language to understand multiple layers of influence in systems in the environment as well as with the individual to the environment. In other words, the interaction between person and environment (e.g., school) is considered reciprocal (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

We asked four research questions from ISSPP as described below: (RQ1) How do diverse socioeconomic, cultural, political, and professional contexts influence school operations for valued outcomes, especially in high-need communities? (RQ2) How is school 'success' perceived and measured across countries? (RQ3) What enablers and constraints affect school success in varying contexts? (RQ4) What similarities and differences exist in successful principals' values, beliefs, and behaviors across schools, cultures, and policies?

In contemporary school systems, shifting responsibilities and increasing organizational complexity have made change a pervasive and enduring phenomenon. Across Europe and beyond, schools are increasingly expected to engage in continuous development while navigating complex dynamics of accountability, shared responsibilities, and divergent demands. International research has identified a range of factors influencing schools’ capacity to develop, including the distribution of leadership responsibilities, trust, and contextual conditions such as governance arrangements and accountability frameworks (Harris, 2009; Bryk et al., 2010; Feldhoff & Radisch, 2021). While leadership is increasingly understood as a process unfolding in interaction, comparatively little is known about how meaning construction and modes of participation are intertwined in school development processes and how these interrelations are emerging, reproducing or transforming over time.

The Swiss school system offers a particularly instructive context for examining these dynamics from a European perspective. It is characterized by federalism, comparatively low-stakes accountability, and a historically gradual institutionalization of formal school leadership roles (Hangartner & Svaton, 2022). While the role of school leadership is widely acknowledged as being of particular importance in the context of school development processes, normative expectations of collaborative school development and shared responsibility between principals and teachers have intensified, as reflected in policy making, practice, and research discourse in Switzerland and beyond. Despite the continuous growth and diversification of the body of literature on distributed leadership, empirical insights into the enactment of leadership-related collaboration in practice, and how actors navigate ambiguity, responsibility, and influence across organizational levels remain limited, particularly in the context of German-speaking educational research.

Conceptually, the study draws on a distributed leadership perspective (Spillane & Mertz, 2015), which conceptualizes leadership as process situated at the intersection of leaders, followers, and contextual factors over time. This perspective shifts analytical attention away from formal roles toward patterns of influence, including leadership-related activities carried out by formal as well as informal leaders. Distributed leadership provides a useful framework for analyzing leadership-related collaboration in decentralized systems, where dynamics of school development are shaped by interactions between principals and teachers as well as contextual factors.

This perspective is complemented by sense-making theory (Weick, 2010; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), which focuses on how actors interpret ambiguous situations, negotiate shared understandings, and enact these interpretations in practice. Sense-making theory allows for a fine-grained analysis of how knowing and acting are recursively linked: interpretations guide action, while action simultaneously reshapes interpretations. Together, these frameworks enable an integrated analysis of leadership, meaning, and participation in school development processes.

The present study aims to deepen the understanding of the preconditions, relational dynamics, and brokering practices that shape collaboration across actors and levels in school development processes. By examining how educational actors construct meaning around school development initiatives and how these constructions could shape modes of participation, the study seeks to elucidate the dynamics of school development processes.

Following questions guided the research:

1. What conditions and facilitators influence leadership-related collaboration between teachers and principals in school development processes?
2. How is sense-making manifested in the collaborative engagement of school leaders and teachers in the context of school development?