Purpose There are various notions of and different approaches to accountability (Pollock & Winton; Ranson et al. 2003). Accountability is defined in this paper as a social practice (Ranson, 2003) closely linked to improvement and quality work in schools (Møller, 2009). The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into how accountability practices intersect with successful principalship. The study is situated in the Norwegian context. Norway has so far adopted what is conceptualized as low-stakes accountability systems as opposed to high-stakes accountability systems (Maroy, 2015). The purpose of this paper is to address 1) how principals and other actors define successful principalship, 2) how principals and other leaders create optimal organizational structures and cultures that enable teachers and students to learn, and 3) what accountability practices mediate and constrain successful principalship. Conceptualization Ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner,1979) and complexity theory (Haggis, 2008; Morrison, 2010) serve as the analytical framework, supplemented by concepts of the theory of administrative and professional accountability (Møller, 2009) and accountability as a social practice (Ranson, 2003). Methodology Using the revised protocols of ISSPP, the study employs a multiple-perspective and mixed method design. It builds on the voices of principals (individual interviews), middle leaders (group interviews), the voices of teachers and students (group interviews). In addition, we collected survey data from teachers and students. Data were collected from four cases, i.e., two primary and two secondary schools, located in the north, west, and south of Norway. The data were subjected to content and discourse analyses. Preliminary Results In all cases, successful principalship was conceptualized as engagement in students’ wellbeing and learning. The principals expressed students´ wellbeing came first. The principals described their engagements in environment, engagement in building professional communities, and collaboration among teachers and stakeholders, as well as engagement in governance and administration, developmental work, and processes of change. They seem to create optimal organizational structures and cultures that enable teachers to focus on students´ learning and wellbeing. Constraining factors seem to be related to high, and sometimes conflicting, expectations in the immediate environment (microsystems) among parents (mesosystems), local authorities (exosystems), and the national education authority (macrosystems). The findings suggest the principals seem to navigate among the many expectations by using their professional discretion and voices from colleagues at the many arenas where such issues are discussed. The significance of the research is that it built on rich data from low-stakes accountability systems.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard university press. Day, C., & Gurr, D. (2018). International network as sites for research on successful school leadership. In C. Lochmiller (Ed.), Complementary research methods for educational leadership and policy studies (pp. 341-357). Springer International. Haggis, T. (2008). ‘Knowledge Must Be Contextual’: Some possible implications of complexity and dynamic systems theories for educational research. Educational philosophy and theory, 40(1), 158-176. Maroy, C. (2015). Comparing accountability policy tools and rationales: Various ways, various effects? In H.-G. Kotthoff & E. Klerides (Eds.), Governing educational spaces: Knowledge, teaching, and learning in transition (pp. 35–59). Sense Publishers. Morrison, K. (2010). Complexity Theory, School Leadership and Management: Questions for Theory and Practice, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(3), 374–393. Møller, J. (2009). School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between managerial and professional accountability. Journal of Educational Change,10(1), 37–46. Pollock, K., & Winton, S. (2015). Juggling multiple accountability systems: How three prin-cipals manage these tensions in Ontario, Canada. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(4), 323–345. Ranson, S. (2003). Public accountability in the age of neo-liberal governance. Journal of Education Policy, 18(5), 459–480.