In recent years, instability has become one of the permanent elements in everyday life, from the global economic crisis in 2008, through the climate crisis and the Arab Spring, which increased emissions and migration to Europe, culminating with the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the consequences of these emergencies was recognition of the advantage of local government over central government in effectively solving problems (Gupta et al., 2021). These events, along with changes of government, demographic shifts, and economic changes, are reflected in the characteristics of educational reform (Cohen, Spillane, & Peurach, 2018). Educational reforms usually seek to establish a new policy that will change teaching and learning patterns for the benefit of the schools and society (Sahlberg, 2016). As such, educational reform usually challenges the school principals’ basic concepts and assumptions, and can affect their professional skills. This study seeks to explore how a top-down reform affects principals’ professional skills.

The reform explored in this study is called “Gefen” (PAF – Pedagogical-Administrative Flexibility), designed by Ministry of Education policymakers, to be implemented by school principals. This reform reflects the growing accountability and crisis management trend at local leadership level. By means of a digital platform, this reform enables management of school budgets by selecting administrative and pedagogical alternatives, such as educational programs, consultancy and training, technological tools, etc. Choosing solutions requires principals to use professional skills to diagnose the schools’ needs, choose an appropriate intervention, and infer from the process and results (Abbott, 1988). In addition, to successfully meet the demands of the reform, principals have to develop supportive networks with colleges and experts to obtain information, resources, and tools (Eyal, 2019). The present study seeks to examine the relationship between educational reform and the professional skills of school principals.

Preliminary findings show that the main challenges the principals face are meeting budget requirements, timetables, and reports, while keeping to the reform budget. The principals deal with these challenges by participating in networks that provide sound advice, consultation, and quick solutions to the demands of the reform. Following the wisdom of the network enhances the pattern of compliance, and suppresses the professional skills needed to adapt the solutions to the school’s needs and context. Virtually no evidence was found of diagnostic processes regarding students’ or teachers’ needs. The principals preferred to delegate diagnosis responsibilities to middle leaders, such as the social education coordinator, or favored programs with popular topics, like student inclusion and resilience. At times, the guiding principle of “Every child gets something”, leads to purchasing a wide variety of programs that do not necessarily correspond to the students’ or teachers’ needs.

At the same time, when the principals chose programs, there was partial reference to an informed choice between alternatives. One reason for this is that the digital reform includes more than 5,000 different programs, making it difficult to choose. Consequently, in most instances, the principals look for recommendations from colleagues, or continue with programs already operating at the school.

Finally, little evidence was found to evaluate the quality of the program. Principals used accessible indicators, such as the students’ desire to participate or the absence of discipline problems, with no reference to whether the program’s pedagogical or administrative goals have been achieved. Possible explanations for the principals’ coping patterns are associated with the nature of reform implementation (top-down, all at once, without sufficient time), with “growing pains” of the new digital system, and with the principals’ lack of professional skills, which altogether result in them devoting their efforts to “solving the problem of the reform”, rather than to the problems the reform seeks to solve. 

The research design is a multiple-case study to examine the principals’ professional skills in coping with educational reform. A multiple-case study seeks to study a phenomenon in its social, cultural, and organizational contexts (Merriam, 1988). A “case” in the present study is defined as a principal’s decision and professional skills in implementing the reform. The number of cases in a multiple-case study ranges from four to ten cases that can represent the phenomenon. In the present study, four categories of schools were selected, based on the size of the school (small, less than 500 students, and large – more than 1,000 students) and the principal’s seniority (young, up to five years, and veteran, more than ten years in office). This combination created four categories of four schools each, a total of sixteen schools. As customary in case-study research, the data was collected using several practical tools to ensure the study’s reliability and obtain a deep understanding of the phenomenon (Merriam, 2015). The tools included two rounds of semi-structured interviews with the principals and relevant staff members (two or three in large schools), and dozens of reform implementation documents, such as the school curriculum, program contracts, internal feedback survey, and activity plans. The data was analyzed in two stages: Within-case analysis of each school to identify the interactions between the reform, the context, and the principal’s professional skills, and Cross-case analysis to compare the patterns of similarities and differences between the cases (Yin, 2013). Concurrently, content analysis was conducted, based on an inductive thematic content analysis that emerged from the research data, and a deductive analysis derived from the theories of professions (Abbott, 1988) and expertise (Eyal, 2019). This study adopts Guba and Lincoln’s (1985) approach to “trustworthiness” in qualitative research. Ethical standards were maintained by presenting the research objectives to the interviewees, protecting their privacy and anonymity, storing all data in password-protected digital folders, and obtaining informed consent from all the interviewees.

The study findings indicate that the principals’ focus their efforts on solving the “problem of the reform”, emphasizing its bureaucratic manifestations rather than what the reform sought to promote. This is because the reform was carried out in a rigorous timeframe, without adjustments to take into consideration the school’s calendar or needs. These constraints encouraged the principals to develop expertise by means of a colleague network, to find quick solutions for compliance with the demands of the reform, at the expense of utilizing the reform’s resources to promote their school’s unique goals, by diagnosing the school’s needs, choosing suitable programs, and inferring to promote student learning. This means that rather than promoting educational and pedagogical goals, the reform pushes principals to meet its demands. Two key conclusions can be drawn: First, the characteristics of the reform prevented the principals from developing professional skills since it was top-down, under a strict time limit, and rigorous budget enforcement reduced the principals’ freedom. The findings are not surprising since developing principals’ professional skills is not one of the reform’s goals. The second conclusion is that the principals approached the reform with their preexisting professional skills, which largely depend on their seniority and the size of their school. This variance leads to differential reform assimilation; however, the vast majority emphasizes meeting bureaucratic requirements at the expense of educational or pedagogical quality. There are theoretical and practical contributions: Theoretically, the findings demonstrate how the conditions of the reform promote or hinder principals’ professional skills of diagnosing the school’s needs, making an informed choice of intervention, and making inferences regarding the results of the intervention. Practically, the present study’s results can inform principal preparation programs regarding the reform, which can help in leading effective implementation, and developing the principals’ professionalism.

Abbott, A. (1988). Professional work, ch. 2, 35-58. The system of professions. Chicago: The university of Chicago press. Cohen, D. K., Spillane, J. P., & Peurach, D. J. (2018). The dilemmas of educational reform. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 204-212.‏ Eyal, G. (2019). The crisis of expertise. Polity Press. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluence. In Denzin, N. K.& Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 163-188. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Gupta, S., Nguyen, T., Raman, S., Lee, B., Lozano-Rojas, F., Bento, A., ... & Wing, C. (2021). Tracking public and private responses to the COVID-19 epidemic: evidence from state and local government actions. American Journal of Health Economics, 7(4), 361-404.‏ Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass.‏ Merriam, S.B. (2015), Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Sahlberg, P. (2016). The global educational reform movement and its impact on schooling. The handbook of global education policy, 128-144.‏ Yin, R. K. (2013). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Fifth edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.