Introduction:

Educators work in complex situations when it comes to culture, relationships, and decision- making processes including navigating the system while dealing with constant changes and challenges both in school and system levels (Clarke & Dempster, 2020; Tintoré et al., 2020). No one expected the level of educational disruption and turbulence caused by COVID-19 which goes far beyond previous challenges circumstances, emergencies and crises (Arar, 2020; Macklin, 2019; Mutch, 2015; Tipler et al., 2018). However, schools and higher education were affected deeply by COVID-19 pandemic, many voices requested educational leaders to develop plans to continue education/ schooling during the period of necessary physical isolation and system disruption. Governments’ responses varied from closing schools, to selecting online teaching, and reaching to blended learning (Alhouti, 2020; Anderson & Hira, 2020; Netolicky, 2020; Pollock, 2020). The current pandemic era caused a huge pressure to use technological means not only for teaching and delivery, but also for leading and managing schools virtually.

Researchers examined leading schools during disruptive education to include constant changes, challenges and mechanism of adaptation in general (Arar, 2020; Beabout, 2012) and in the COVID-19 era in particular (Harris, 2020; Netolicky, 2020; Stone-Johnson & Miles Weiner, 2020). Many researchers use Turbulence to describe external and internal pressure (Beabout, 2012; Gross, 2020; Myers, 2014; Schumacher & Mayer, 2018). Gorss’s understanding of planes in flight conceived the idea of Turbulence Theory (2004) to describe level of disturbance in order to compare different degrees of challenges as pilots are trained to deal with 4 levels of turbulence.

Flight turbulence is usually expressed on four levels, which the theory applies to instability within educational organizations: 1) Light: little or no movement of the craft, translated into ongoing operations, with little or no interruption or disturbance to regular work, and minor signs of stress. 2) Moderate: noticeable waves indicate widespread awareness. 3) Severe refers to strong gusts that threaten the control of the craft might be seen as fear and sense of crises with no expectations. 4) And extreme: forces so great that control is lost and structural damage to the craft occurs, this is expressed as structural damage to the functions of the organization and expecting the worst. Researchers indicate that light or moderate levels of turbulence allow for developing plans to work through the problems while severe or extreme turbulence do not allow that (Arar, 2020; Gross, 2020). Therefore, school leaders’ effective responses play a key role as their reactions might cause schools to thrive or survive. This could be due to the school leaders’ skills and dispositions, and their understanding of the context and the circumstances they face.

The significance of a comparative study lies in its potential for initiating cross-cultural discourse.  As responses to the educational disruption varied both within and across countries, the current study sheds light on the similarities and differences in school leaders’ experiences, and responses, as well as the factors that influenced their system navigation and practices. they maneuvered multiple challenges throughout the pandemic. Cooperation can assist education leaders in devising effective education responses, and that the first and simplest form of cooperation is to exchange knowledge about what schools, communities and countries are currently doing to protect educational opportunities during the pandemic. Therefore, the current study is guided by the following research questions: (1) What steps did school leaders take during crises? (2) What similarities and differences between school leaders’ practices in the five countries? and (3) What are the factors supporting or hindering school leaders’ practices across the five countries during the pandemic turbulent era through ecological lens?

Methods/methodology In the present study, a multiple-case study approach (Yin, 2003) is used to examine responses in five countries, allowing for similarities and differences within and between the cases to be explored. By comparing the experiences of multiple interviewees (Miles & Huberman, 1994) within each country, it will be possible to build a narrative of how school leaders dealt with the pandemic and what are learned lessons, while also enabling participants to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the response from their perspective. As comparisons will be made between cases, it is important that each case is chosen and analyzed carefully, potentially allowing the findings to be generalized with contextualized cautious. Participants Researchers employ in-depth semi-structure interview technique to interview public and private primary school leaders from Palestine, Lebanon, Qatar, Kuwait, and Morocco (n=30). Data were collected in 2020 by the researchers in Arabic via Zoom or telephone, each interview lasted between 40-60 minutes. All interviews were recorded (upon the interviewee’s approval) and transcribed. Researchers read all transcripts and agreed on the main themes based on Turbulence Theory through ecological lens. Although to increase credibility and authenticity member-checks, and comparison during the analysis face fully adopted.

In reflecting on the scale of changes that these leaders faced, the respondents shared valuable thoughts about their challenges of leading learning currently, the future leading in the post-COVID times. The results show some variation in how school principals adopted to the pandemic in each country and across countries, e.g., variations in instructional leadership dimensions between private and public-school leaders. The main factors were related to the degree of autonomy for instructional activities, conditions of facilities and finance for instructional activities, and school leaders’ awareness about leading teaching activities. School leaders in some countries failed to display agility at the level of communication, commitment and collaboration, especially during the first phases of the crisis. Decisions to close schools were centralized at the MOE level and communicated in a way that increased uncertainty and constant changes. With exception of some private schools, most schools were left to fend for themselves and most principles both in public and private schools did not have a clear idea of what to do or how to proceed. Although stakeholders' reactions and cooperation will be fully discussed through ecological system wide understanding including further implications of lessons learned for instructional leadership navigating schools in emergencies and through digital literacy. In the face of increased demanding innovations in learning tools, knowledge technologies, transcending place and time of learning, it is highly likely that leaders may have to adapt to systemic changes and so will need to display an open mindset through facilitative leadership, encouraging participation from others, allowing for continuous operation, recognizing different values, releasing unlimited potential of learning, and mobilizing collaboratively, both inside and outside the education entity. There is a need for future instructional leaders to acquire competence of Information Computer Technology innovation while improving learning through both mentoring and professional communities.

Alhouti, I. (2020). Education during the pandemic: the case of Kuwait. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 5(3–4), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2020-0050 Anderson, E., & Hira, A. (2020). Loss of brick-and-mortar schooling: how elementary educators respond. Information and Learning Science, 121(5–6), 401–408. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0085 Arar, K. (2020). Understanding The Educational Administrator’s Role in a Turbulent Ethnic Education System. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 00(00), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1757723 Beabout, B. R. (2012). Turbulence, Perturbance, and Educational Change. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 9(2), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct17984 Clarke, S., & Dempster, N. (2020). Leadership learning: the pessimism of complexity and the optimism of personal agency. Professional Development in Education, 00(00), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1787196 Gross, S. J. (2020). Applying turbulence theory to educational leadership in challenging times. Routledge Harris, A. (2020). COVID-19 – school leadership in crisis? Journal of Professional Capital and Community. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2020-0045 Macklin, J. (2019). Turbulence , dilemmas and leadership : A case study of an English School after academisation. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mutch, C. (2015). Leadership in times of crisis: Dispositional, relational and contextual factors influencing school principals’ actions. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14(September 2010), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.06.005 Netolicky, D. M. (2020). School leadership during a pandemic: navigating tensions. Journal of Professional Capital and Community. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-05-2020-0017 Oh, S. P., & Chua, Y. P. (2018). An Explorative Review of E-Leadership Studies. International Online Journal of Educational Leadership, 2(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.22452/iojel.vol2no1.2 Pollock, K. (2020). School Leaders ’ Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic : A Two-Pronged Approach. ISEA, 48(3), 38–45. Schumacher, T., & Mayer, S. (2018). Preparing Managers for Turbulent Contexts: Teaching the Principles of Design Thinking. Journal of Management Education, 42(4), 496–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562917754235 Stone-Johnson, C., & Miles Weiner, J. (2020). Principal professionalism in the time of COVID-19. Journal of Professional Capital and Community. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-05-2020-0020 Tintoré, M., Cunha, R. S., Cabral, I., & Alves, J. J. M. (2020). A scoping review of problems and challenges faced by school leaders (2003–2019). Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220942527 Tipler, K., Tarrant, R., Tuffin, K., & Johnston, D. (2018). Learning from experience: emergency response in schools. Natural Hazards, 90(3), 1237–1257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3094-x Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks