The purpose of the study referenced in this presentation is to identify and describe local school responses to principal turnover. The rationale for examining this phenomenon rests on general knowledge about the importance of school leadership (e.g. Bush, 2020; Louis, 2015; Nihlfors & Johansson, 2013; Ärlestig et al., 2016), and previous (mainly international) research on school-level effects of principal turnover. The latter typically relates to declining student achievement (Bartanen et al., 2019; Béteille et al., 2012; Miller, 2013), disrupted teaching and school developmental processes (Pietsch et al., 2020; Wills, 2016), and excess expenditure due to the high cost of replacing the departing incumbent (Superville, 2014). The recruiting process may, in turn, add stress to the organisation and thus contribute to the decline in student achievement.

However, many of the reported negative consequences are “downstream effects”, i.e. they occur due to a previous event, or series of previous events. What these events are, and how they are shaped by and shape various practices, and practice conditioning arrangements within the local school organisation are less clear, since the practices that produce these effects have not received significant attention in previous research. Subsequently, knowledge about the complexity of practices and practice arrangements that link the incident of principal turnover to the stipulated consequences remains weak (Thelin & Lund, 2023). This lack of knowledge is problematic, since ‘it is not principal turnover per se that is the problem’ (Fullan, 2004, p. 31), but rather the discontinuity it creates in the organisation, and how that, in turn, affects the various educational practices on which schools are dependent for their performance. Therefore, in the presented study in this paper, attention is directed towards the discontinuity that arises when there is a shift in the principal leadership position. The research is fuelled by the following overarching questions: What happens in schools when there is a shift in the principal leadership position? When and for whom is it a problem or an opportunity? In our search for answers to these questions, the focus will be placed on qualitative changes in educational practice and practice conditioning arrangements (Kemmis et al., 2014).

The analysis of the data, which comprised 497 unique free-text answers drawn from a survey targeting staff and parents/guardians with experience of principal turnover, suggests that principal turnover is a ‘critical incident’ (Cook & Tripp, 1994) and a practice-changing event in the local school organisation.  The preliminary findings of the study suggest that principal turnover is critical to local school organisations. It disrupts the ‘the flow of practice’ (Lok & de Rond, 2013, p. 186; cf. Yanow & Tsoukas, 2009), and changes practices as well as practice conditioning arrangements and practice architectures (Kemmis et al., 2014).

In this study we seek to illuminate the ‘happeningness’ (Schatzki, 2002) of local school organisations during times of principal turnover, and thereby provide knowledge that is of importance for the development of more robust and sustainable school organisations; in this case, schools that are less sensitive to principal turnover, e.g. better suited to prevent and deal with its negative consequences and make use of its possibilities. In an age of uncertainty and global change, the need for more robust and sustainable schools is palpable.  

Data was collected through a survey that was distributed among staff and parents/guardians in five municipalities. The survey, which was constructed within the practices of a research circle (Härnsten, 1994) generated 497 unique free-text answers relevant to the issue of concern in this study. From this total count of answers, 183 were provided by staff, and 314 by parents/guardians. A computer software, Nvivo, was used to support the qualitative content analysis, which was carried out in three steps. The first step was to carefully read all the answers and search for evidence of change induced by, or associated with principal turnover. When detected, these changes were coded using concepts drawn from the theory of practice architectures and classified as negative (problematic) or positive (an opportunity). The third step was to locate the detected changes within the educational complex as described in the theory of ecologies of practices (Kemmis et al., 2014). The research circle, in which the survey was constructed, involved seven practitioners (four school principals, two superintendents, and one developmental leader) distributed across six Swedish municipalities, and was led by the undersigned researchers. These circumstances influenced the study in several ways. It affected the sample insofar that participation in the research circle was based on participants’ interest in the issue of concern and ability and willingness to distribute the survey within their local school organisations, rather than strategic selection. Moreover, as a result of their varying opportunities to communicate with and engage different stakeholders, the response rate differs widely between the five municipalities included in the study. Nevertheless, the testimony of 497 respondents provided valuable insights into the area of inquiry.

In the case of the investigated school settings, changes were found in teaching practices, teaching practice arrangements (e.g. new instructional orientations), developmental practices, and related leading practices (e.g. new directions or school visions, or vision-related work, and leader-staff relationships). Changes were also found in the arrangements supporting student learning, particularly in those relevant for students in need of special support, (e.g. pupils with diagnoses that require extra resources or an adapted learning environment), and newly arrived immigrant students; indicating that these groups of students are particularly vulnerable to principal turnover. While the current research discourse highlights the problems associated with principal turnover, the data drawn upon in this study provide a less biased account. This is particularly apparent in the answers of parents/guardians to children with difficulties. Based on the findings it is concluded that principal turnover is a practice-changing event. How it matters is highly dependent on specific decisions made by the individual principal and how these were perceived by different target groups. The significance of principal turnover is also highly dependent on the individual principal’s interests, competencies, and ways of ‘relating’ (Kemmis et al., 2014) to different target groups and practices within the organisation. Concerning leading, the social-political dimension stands out as particularly important for the ‘happeningness’ (Schatzki, 2002) of local school organisations during times of principal turnover. In all, the findings contribute to the understanding of principal turnover as a ‘critical incident’ (Cook & Tripp, 1994) in the local school organisation. They confirm previous research findings on the negative impact of principal turnover on disrupted teaching and school developmental processes (e.g. Pietsch et al., 2020; Wills, 2016, and add nuances to previous conceptions of the relationship between principal leadership and student learning practices.

Bartanen, B., Grissom, J. A., & Rogers, L. K. (2019). The Impacts of Principal Turnover. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(3), 350–374. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719855044 Béteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2012). Stepping stones: Principal career paths and school outcomes. Social Science Research, 41(4), 904–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.003 Bush, T. (2020). Theories of educational leadership and management. (Fifth edition) Sage. Cook, L. A., & Tripp, D. (1994). Critical Incidents in Teaching: Developing Professional Judgement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 42(4), 407–409. https://doi.org/10.2307/3121683 Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership & Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action. Corwin Press, A SAGE Publications Company. Härnsten, G. (1994). The Research Circle Building Knowledge on Equal Terms. The Swedish Trade Union Confederation. Kemmis, S., Bristol, L., Edwards-Groves, C., Grootenboer, P., Hardy, I., & Wilkinson, J. (2014). Changing Practices, Changing Education (First edition). Singapore: Imprint: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-47-4 Lok, J., & de Rond, M. (2013). On the Plasticity of Institutions: Containing and Restoring Practice Breakdowns at the Cambridge University Boat Club. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0688 Louis, K.S. (2015). Linking leadership to learning: State, district and local effects. NordSTEP 2015(3), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.30321 Nihlfors, E., & Johansson, O. (2013). Rektor en stark länk i styrningen av skolan [The principal a strong link in school governance]. SNS Förlag. Miller, A. (2013). Principal turnover and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 36, 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.05.004 Pietsch, M., Tulowitzki, P., & Hartig, J. (2020). Examining the effect of principal turnover on teaching quality: A study on organizational change with repeated classroom observations. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(3), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2019.1672759 Schatzki T. R. (2002). The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Superville, D. R. (2014). Churn: The high cost of principal turnover. Education Week, 34(12), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918772629 Wills, G. (2016). Principal leadership changes and their consequences for school performance in South Africa. International Journal of Educational Development, 51, 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.08.005 Yanow, D. & Tsoukas, H. (2009). What is Reflection-In-Action? A Phenomenological Account. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8) 1339-1364. Ärlestig, H., Johansson, O., & Nihlfors, E. (2016). Sweden: Swedish School Leadership Research – An Important but Neglected Area. In H. Ärlestig, C. Day & O. Johansson (Eds.), A Decade of Research on School Principals Cases from 24 Countries (pp. 103–124). Springer.