In the biography and development of children, moments of changing from one school to another represent special events that can be experienced as critical by both students and teachers (Kottmann & Miller, 2016). Depending on the country, a child might get placed according to (perceived) ability or grades into a certain school level (school type) at the beginning of secondary school. This is the case in Switzerland, where, after finishing primary school, children in most cantons (federal states) are divided up into three different school types according to their grades. As these different school types ultimately lead to different high school diplomas and different career opportunities, these moments of being assigned to a certain school type can create a lot of tension and apprehension. In the context of this proposal, this practice is referred to as "tracking".

While teachers and/or students are often the focus of theoretical or empirical analyses of tracking (see, for example, Neuenschwander & Garrote, 2024), school principals have virtually never been examined in this context so far. Due to their relative distance from the day-to-day teaching, it can be argued – especially in the case of larger schools – that their knowledge of the school's current practices around tracking is limited. However, in Switzerland (as well as other countries), they are connected to tracking practices on (at least) two levels: on the one hand, they are consulted in many cantons in cases of uncertainty, disagreement or conflict around what school level a child should be assigned to. On the other hand, they can influence teachers' practices and attitudes in the context of inclusion and tracking, both structurally and culturally (Scheer, 2020). Furthermore, they have the opportunity to influence tracking at both the collective (e.g. agenda setting, for example organizing a professional development course on fair assessment practices) and the individual level (e.g. discussions with individual teachers on grading or on what student to nominate for what secondary school type). Finally, they can shape teachers' attitudes through their own modeling behavior (Murphy et al., 2007). Teachers, in turn, can find themselves torn between pedagogical and tracking-related obligations in their daily work. Various studies in Switzerland as well as in from the international ream point to challenges and dilemmas in trying to fairly separate students into different tracks and/or school types (Felouzis & Charmillot, 2013).

The goal of the present contribution was to explore the perspective of school principals towards tracking in schools. The research question was: What perspectives and attitudes do principals express with regard to tracking?

As theoretical framework, a model by Streckeisen et al. (2007) was adopted. According to this model, teachers use different patterns of interpretation to make sense of tracking requirements and act professionally when tracking requirements and pedagogical ideals might create tensions. These different patterns indicate different underlying orientations and understandings of the nature of tracking, ranging from “tracking as a useful practice to select the best” to “tracking as a way to enforce discipline", to "tracking as a dilemma" to “tracking as harming children”. The model was adapted to suit the position of school principals.

The data is based on open responses on the topic of tracking, which were collected as part of a larger survey of school principals from public compulsory education schools. A total of 318 school principals from all of German-speaking Switzerland responded. In a first pass, all answers were reviewed and filtered according to two criteria: Only statements that were explicitly related to the topic of tracking (synonyms: phasing, (level) separation, reallocation, allocation, categorization, selection, streaming, placing) and that were at least two sentences long were included in the analysis. In the end, 107 statements remained, which were between two and 14 sentences long. Data was then analyzed using a qualitative content analysis approach (Mayring, 2000). The aim of this type of content analysis is to systematically analyze communication based on rules and theoretically grounded steps. In this case, each coding unit (meaning each of the 107 statements) was coded deductively with the adapted model by Streckeisen et al. (2007) serving as a backdrop. Next, summaries of clusters of coded segments were created. Additionally, the material was coded inductively to look for aspects that might not be covered by the Streckeisen-model. Finally, the coded segments were enriched with contextual information on the participants (like their age, their professional background, their response to other questions in the survey) to help expand the explanatory and theory-generating potential of each segment. The statements could be assigned to the following categories in the analysis: • Category 1: Tracking as a form of support: Here, tracking is seen as a positive and proven mechanism through which students can receive the appropriate support. 27% of all statements were coded in this category. • Category 2: Tracking as a flexible instrument: Tracking is seen as helpful and supporting students, provided adjustments can be made along the way. 32% of all statements were coded in this category. • Category 3: Tracking as a dilemma: Tracking is seen as potentially harmful for the development of children and at the same time, making the call what children should go to what type of school or class, is seen as a core mission of a school. 16% of all statements were coded in this category. • Category 4: Tracking as an abomination: Tracking is seen as clearly harmful to the development of children and as standing in the way of effective schooling. 24% of all statements were coded in this category.

Statements categorized as belonging to the first two categories are generally favorable of tracking practices. Respondents there describe tracking as an element that is "just part of life" and should thus also be a part of school, that is rooted in society, and has a long tradition. In their view, not tracking students would be unfair to them, as it would give them a false outlook on life. Furthermore, they see the idea of a comprehensive/integrative school as a failed one, (partly) due to a lack of human and financial resources and due to too much diversity. Respondents in this category often lead secondary schools. It’s notable that in their line of reasoning, they often refer to their own needs or those of their staff. By contrast, statements coded as the third and fourth category often describe tracking as an obstacle to a competence-oriented and inclusive school. Furthermore, the negative consequences of tracking and the incompatibility with the school's core mission (to educate all children) are often mentioned. Respondents in this category often lead primary schools. It’s notable that in their line of reasoning, they often refer to students and their needs. The results expressed by the school principals correspond to those expressed by teachers (Streckeisen et al., 2007), but on an organizational level. These findings are relevant beyond the national context as they underscore that principals have positions and attitudes on school-relevant matters that they are not directly involved in. How they speak about tracking practices, how they interpret regulations and how they position themselves vis-à-vis tracking can influence how teachers view tracking and how they engage with it. Additionally, many countries have tracking practices within schools (for example advanced and special ed classes). Therefore, the principals’ perspective can help gaining insights into reasonings and motives for similar practices.

Felouzis, G., & Charmillot, S. (2013). School tracking and educational inequality: A comparison of 12 education systems in Switzerland. Comparative Education, 49(2), 181–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2012.706032 Kottmann, B., & Miller, S. (2016). „Und dann war das auch noch so ein kleines, zartes Persönchen“: Grundschullehrkräfte im Entscheidungsdilemma zwischen Fördern und Selektieren. In B. Amrhein (Ed.), Diagnostik im Kontext inklusiver Bildung: Theorien, Ambivalenzen, Akteure, Konzepte (pp. 154–167). Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089 Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leadership for learning: A research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. School Leadership & Management, 27(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701237420 Neuenschwander, M. P., & Garrote, A. (2024). Biased teacher expectations of students with migration backgrounds: Analysis with nationality stereotype clusters. Zeitschrift Für Bildungsforschung. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-024-00460-7 Scheer, D. (2020). Schulleitung und Inklusion: Empirische Untersuchung zur Schulleitungsrolle im Kontext schulischer Inklusion. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27401-6 Streckeisen, U., Hänzi, D., & Hungerbühler, A. (2007). Fördern und Auslesen. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90751-2