Social mobility refers to “the ability to move between different levels in society or in employment, especially from a lower social position to a higher one” (Iversen et al., 2019: pp. 239–240). No consensus has been reached on the different components of social mobility, but there is a broad agreement that a just society should create equal opportunities for diverse citizens to succeed in society, regardless of the economic status of their families (Iversen et al., 2019).

Studies addressing the role of a school principal as an agent of social change employ key theories that explore the dynamic interplay between leadership and cultural contexts, such as culturally responsive leadership model (Khalifa et al., 2016) or culturally relevant leadership (Horsford et al., 2011). At the same time, researchers have also studied the role of the school principal in contexts such as ensuring social justice (Arar et al., 2017; Lai, 2015; Wang, 2018), empowering students (Kirk et al., 2017), and fostering achievements and abilities (Greaves et al., 2014). Each of these models and areas is based on different concepts and theoretical notions about how school leadership is related to social mobility; nevertheless, the broad agreement is that school principals are in a key position to influence students’ social mobility and integration (Bloomberg, 2023).

Based on these theoretical concepts, school principals implement various practices to promote social mobility among their students. For example, principals design and maintain respectful relationships, allow the expression of different voices around the school community, and demonstrate social justice within schools (Lai, 2015). Regarding students’ empowerment, principals can create positive traditions, support student leadership, accept cultural diversity, or encourage teachers to believe in their students (Kirk et al., 2017). Other important practices deal with the improvement in students’ grades, especially for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics subjects (Hoskins and Barker, 2020).

Nevertheless, most of the literature about educational school leadership and social mobility deals with schools that have ethnic and cultural diversity, where the role of the principal is to ensure social justice within the school borders (Arar et al., 2017). The role of the school principal in empowering students in the context of schools that are within a minority group and are not ethnically diverse has not been sufficiently explored. Moreover, previous studies on the role of the school principal in promoting social mobility have focused on principals in poverty-stricken areas and not on those in ethnic minority areas (Greaves et al., 2014; Mowat, 2019).

The purpose of the current study is to address this research gap by focusing on the perceptions and practices of principals regarding students’ social mobility within a minority group. Building on the social-ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), which emphasizes the interconnectedness among various subsystems within the educational landscape and the impact of contextual factors on students’ outcomes, the study aims to explore this topic through a holistic approach that examines how different members of the educational realm perceive the role of school principals regarding the social mobility of students from a minority group. For this purpose, two research questions were formulated:

1. How do principals and other school/community members within a minority group perceive the role principals play in promoting social mobility among students?
2. What practices do principals employ to promote social mobility among students?

Research Design This is a qualitative multiple-case study that addresses the phenomenon from a holistic point of view. The principals’ perceptions and practices are examined from multiple perspectives – of the principals themselves and other school/community members. Participants The study was conducted in four middle and secondary schools that operate under the Arab education system in Israel. Each school consists of 700–900 students in 24–31 classes, within various urban or rural settings and diverse socio-economic backgrounds. Fifteen interviewees from each school participated in the study, making for a total of 60 interviewees. The subjects from each school were the two principals of the school (middle school and secondary school), the regional supervisor of the Ministry of Education, four teachers, four parents, and four students. Data collection Two research methods were used in the study: interviews and observations. This combination facilitated a deeper understanding of the participants’ voices and the exposure to multiple perspectives. The interviews were conducted over five months, from February 2022 to June 2022. They were semi-structured, in-depth interviews and adapted to the participants, meaning that slightly different questions were formulated for the respective participants. For instance, the principals were asked: “What is the role of the school principal when it comes to students’ ability to advance in society as they mature?” The teachers, on the other hand, were asked: “What does your school do to promote the social mobility of students?” Moreover, two full-day “semi-open” observations (Karniely, 2010) were conducted in the schools, focusing on the principals within their domain and their interactions with other members of the school and society, such as teachers, students, and parents. Data analysis The data were analyzed through a categorical content analysis perspective. The identification and analysis of the themes were made based on the content of the interviewees. The analysis was conducted in a three-stage process: condensing, coding, and categorizing. This process was carried out for each school separately, and then, a comparison was made between the cases (Krippendorff, 2018). Trustworthiness The researchers of this study come from different backgrounds: the first author has extensive teaching experience in the Arab education sector and is currently an educational leadership researcher, and the other has an extensive educational leadership research experience in the Jewish education sector. The researchers’ joint work has made them more aware of the conceptual and methodological issues pertaining to the current research.

When the four case studies and the themes that emerged from each case were compared, six shared categories were found regarding the principals’ perceptions and practices of promoting social mobility among their students: Grades and achievements – Academic achievements are important, but they should co-exist with the promotion of other aspects among students; Emotional and social aspects – Emotional and social support play a significant role in promoting students’ future social mobility; Social justice – Promoting social justice principles and perceptions is important for students’ motivation for social mobility; Leadership and empowerment – Empowerment and leadership processes among students are important for their future social mobility; Skills and abilities – Developing different and diverse skills among students is important; 21st century and technology skills – Students should be taught about technological and 21st-century skills. Within each of these categories, the principals employed various practices to promote students’ social mobility and perceived these practices as efficient in achieving their intended goals, equipping students with future social mobility tools, and helping them integrate into the broader society. The conclusions focus on the holistic approach the educational leadership employed in the entire educational process. It can be derived that the promotion of academic achievements and grades should be carried out within a broad framework of promoting students’ general abilities and skills. The findings emphasize the importance of a principal in leading students to activism and social involvement, which can also affect the students’ future, social mobility, and integration. The study highlights the instrumental leadership role as a means of promoting social mobility among students from minority groups.

Arar K, Beycioglu K and Oplatka I (2017) A cross-cultural analysis of educational leadership for social justice in Israel and Turkey: Meanings, actions and contexts. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 47(2): 192–206.‏ Bronfenbrenner U (1979) The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, London, UK. Greaves E, Macmillan L and Sibieta L (2014) Lessons from London schools for attainment gaps and social mobility. Report, Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, London, UK. Hoskins K and Barker B (2020). STEM, social mobility and equality: Avenues for widening access. Springer Nature.‏ Horsford S, Grosland T and Gunn K (2011) Pedagogy of the personal and professional: Toward a framework for culturally relevant leadership. Journal of School Leadership 21: 582–606. Iversen V, Krishna A and Sen K (2019) Beyond poverty escapes – Social mobility in developing countries: A review article. The Word Bank Research Observer 34: 239–273. Karniely M (2010) Curiosity and inquisitiveness are the cornerstones of teacher empowerment. Tel Aviv: Ramot. Khalifa MA, Gooden MA and Davis JE (2016) Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research 86(4): 1272–1311. Kirk CM, Lewis RK, Brown K et al. (2017) The empowering schools project: Identifying the classroom and school characteristics that lead to student empowerment. Youth and Society 49(6): 827–847.‏ Krippendorff K (2018) Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.‏ Lai E (2015) Enacting principal leadership: Exploiting situated possibilities to build school capacity for change. Research Papers in Education 30(1): 70–94.‏ Mowat JG (2019) ‘Closing the gap’: systems leadership is no leadership at all without a moral compass–a Scottish perspective. School Leadership & Management 39(1): 48-75.‏ Wang F (2018) Social justice leadership—Theory and practice: A case of Ontario. Educational Administration Quarterly 54(3): 470–498.‏