Middle leadership is a topic of interest across education systems with a push to find the relationship between leadership and student outcomes (Bento et al 2023: Lipscombe et al., 2023). In Ireland the Department of Education (DE, 2022a, p.10) policy sees ‘leadership and management as inseparable’ and as serving teaching and learning. School leaders are charged with promoting ‘a culture of reflection, improvement, collaboration, innovation and creativity in learning, teaching and assessment,  managing the planning and implementation of the school curriculum, fostering teacher professional learning that enriches teachers’ practice and students’ learning and fostering a commitment to inclusion, equality of opportunity and the holistic development of each student’ (2022a, p.15). These are the four standards that are judged to be ‘effective’ or ‘highly effective’ in school inspections.

This paper is focused on the role of the deputy principal in Irish primary and post-primary schools with a particular emphasis on leading within the curriculum space. Deputy principals have been described as leaders of learning or instructional leaders (see for example, Lochmiller and Cunningham, 2019; Shaked, 2023), however, in this paper we focus on leading curriculum making in schools.  We did not focus on the measurable impact of leadership on learning or teaching rather how deputy leaders described their role in each of these. Most leadership research focuses on the role of the principal with the empirical research on middle leadership less developed (Tahir et al, 2023; Lipscombe et al., 2023). There is very little research on the range of responsibilities of deputies (Leaf and Odhiambo, 2017) or the critical skills needed for the role (Kumalo and Van der Vyer, 2020).

In this paper we explore the role of the deputy principal in relation to the dynamic processes of curriculum making within the theoretical framework of the ‘multilayered and rich ecologies of education systems’ where ‘layers, activities and actors are intertwined’ (Alvunger et al, 2021, p.275). In the topology proposed by Alvunger and colleagues (2021) the deputy principal is found within the micro layer of the sites, actors and activities. This pivotal layer between the macro (policy makers, agencies including curriculum and politicians) and the nano layer (students, parents, community) merits further empirical exploration. This research explores how the deputy principal acts as an intermediary between the curriculum, principal, parents, students, teachers and community through connecting, translating and at times brokering. Curriculum making is taken to mean ‘a highly dynamic and transactional process of interpretation, mediation, negotiation and translation’ within the complex everyday work of leading a school (Priestley et al, 2021, p.273).

Middle leaders have been described as being pivotal to the successful running of a school (Flemming, 2019) and as impacting directly and indirectly teacher practice and curriculum (Lipscombe et al., 2023). The deputy principal is involved in curriculum making through their work on for example, interpreting curriculum policy, timetabling, teacher allocation to areas of the curriculum, student allocation, leading professional development at school level, managing assessment and feedback for students, communicating with parents/ guardians and advocating for students who need additional supports. They often act an intermediary between the principal and the teachers. Recent discourse on school leadership has emphasised the value of greater collaboration in schools, including ‘distributed leadership’ (e.g. DE, 2022a, 2022b; Hargreaves and O’Connor, 2018). This is evident in the Irish school system with an enhanced middle leadership structure, pointing to the need for this research at this time to inform policy on the role of the deputy principal as a hidden asset in schools.

This research adopted an exploratory case study methodology (Yin, 2018) within an interpretivist paradigm (Burke and Dempsey, 2022). It is exploratory in design as it sought to explore the hidden potential within the role of Deputy Principal. It is interpretivist in that we contend that the reality of one’s situation is constructed by individuals and that there are as many realities as there are individuals (Scotland, 2012), therefore, knowledge is culturally derived and historically situated (Creswell and Poth, 2016). Culture and environment are very relevant to the complexity of leadership roles and responsibilities (Bento et al., 2023; Barth, 2001). Forde and colleagues (2008) contend that a cultural understanding of local meaning is necessary when thinking about leadership. The local is important but the other layers of influence cannot be neglected in the complex intertwined ways in which actors human and non-human (in the form of policy imperatives) exert influence on action and in-action in the curriculum space. The framework for analysis employed in this research involved that of curriculum making (Priestley et al., 2022) and the complex ecology of schools (Alvunger et al., 2021) coupled with school culture (Barth, 2001) and literature on identity (Ford et al., 2008). Within the case study we employed a mixed methods design where questionnaires were sent to a wide population of Deputy Principals through networks, social media and school emails. 121 responses (49 primary and 72 post-primary) were analysed inductively and deductively (Braun and Clarke, 2021). This analysis was used to generate questions for semi-structured interviews with n=5 primary and n=5 post-primary participants. These interviews were coded and themes developed from the data. Respondents report satisfaction deriving from their role as deputy principal as well as tensions, frustrations and even contradictions arising from expectations, overload of tasks, time management, occasionally limited responsibilities, mediation and conflict resolution, and particular school contexts. Within the extensive lists of tasks associated with the role, ‘timetabling’ features in many lists; at post-primary level, involvement with students, particularly in relation to their behaviour, discipline, wellbeing and pastoral needs is also seen as central to the role by many. Leading on curriculum developments was characterised in different ways by participants.

Evidence from participants in the research points to a strong desire for deputy principals to be more centrally involved in the leadership of the school community. The relationship between principals and deputy principals are pivotal to nurturing a culture of collaboration throughout a school in relation to curriculum. Obstacles to realising this include structures and policies that restrict deputies to tasks that are primarily administrative or allow insufficient time for meaningful leadership. The current teacher shortage is having a negative impact on the work of leaders. A notable feature of the research is that many deputy principals at primary level act as special education needs co-ordinators (SENCOs) with responsibility for the administration, management and leadership of all aspects of the schooling of the most vulnerable children in addition to many other tasks. The respondents who described themselves as coping with their work load tended to develop a healthy balance between leadership, management and administration. However, all mentioned the tensions involved in balancing the different aspects of the role. An important finding was how all the respondents identified themselves as teachers and talked about moving from subject expert and role model to curriculum leader as being very satisfying. This teacher identity gave them enhanced credibility when they were leading curriculum activities. We raise an important concern around the complexity of the role of the Deputy Principal. Our participants are happy in the role and cite the variety of relationships, the challenge to problem solve and the link to students and teachers as most satisfying aspects of the role. The similarities and differences of the role in each setting, primary and post-primary are presented with some early conclusions and recommendations for future policy proffered.

Alvunger, D., Soini, T., Philippou, S., & Priestely, M. (2021) Patterns and Trends in Curriculum Making in Europe. In Priestley, M., Alvunger, D., Philippou, S. & Soini, T. (Eds.) (2021). Curriculum making in Europe: Policy and practice within and across diverse contexts. Emerald Publishing. Barth, R. (2001) Learning by Heart, San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Bento, F., Adenusi, T., & Khanal, P. (2023) Middle level leadership in schools: a scoping review of literature informed by a complex system perspective, International Journal of Leadership in Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2023.2234329 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage Creswell, J., & Poth, C.N. (2018) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Fourth Edition. London: Sage. Department of Education (2022a) Looking at Our School, A quality framework for Primary Schools and Special Schools. Dublin: Department of Education Fleming, P. (2019) Successful Middle Leadership in Secondary Schools. Routledge Forde, J., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. (2008) Leadership as Identity. Constructions and Deconstructions. Palgrave Macmillan. Hargreaves, A. & O’Connor, M. (2018) Collaborative Professionalism: When Teaching Together Means Learning for All. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Khumalo, Jan B., & Van der Vyver, C.P.. (2020) Critical skills for deputy principals in South African secondary schools. South African Journal of Education, 40(3), 1-10 Leaf, A., & Odhiambo, G. (2017) The Deputy Principal Instructional Leadership Role and Professional Learning: Perceptions of Secondary Principals, Deputies and Teachers. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1) 33-48. Lipscombe, K., Tindall-Ford, S., & Lamanna, J. (2023) School middle leadership: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(2), 270-288. Lochmiller, CR., Cunningham, KMW., (2019) Leading learning in content areas A systematic review of leadership practices used in mathematics and science instruction. International Journal of Educational Management. 33(6), 1219-1234 Priestley, M., Alvunger, D., Philippou, S. & Soini, T. (Eds.) (2021) Curriculum making in Europe: Policy and practice within and across diverse contexts. London: Emerald Publishing. Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the Philosophical Underpinnings of Research: Relating Ontology and Epistemology to the Methodology and Methods of the Scientific, Interpretive, and Critical Research Paradigms. English Language Teaching; 5,(9), 10-16 Shaked, H. (2023) Instructional leadership in school middle leaders. International Journal of Educational Management. Early access. Tahir, LM., Musah, MB., Hassan, R., & Ali, MF. (2023) Published Articles on Deputy Principals From 1980 to 2020: A Systematic Literature Review. Sage Open.13(4) Yin, R.K. (2018) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th Edition. London: Sage.