Successful implementation of large-scale educational reforms is an ongoing challenge for educational leaders in Europe and internationally (Barrenechea et al., 2023). Research has identified some factors promoting successful educational change: First, a whole-system approach, emphasizing the dynamics, interaction and cooperation of national, local and school levels has been shown crucial for reform implementation (Fullan, 2003). Second, a top-down bottom-up strategy, comprising change management and knowledge sharing, has proved an effective strategy to promote reform aims (Pietarinen et al., 2017; Ramberg, 2014). Third, a collaborative school development approach and cooperative teacher professional development (CPD) support commitment to and realization of reform aims at school level (Askell-Williams & Koh, 2020).   

Principals play a key role in educational reforms, with the main responsibility of school level development and a mediating role in the interface of the local and school levels. School leaders can promote reform implementation by creating a participative culture and by supporting teacher learning (Hauge et al., 2014; Simon et al., 2021). A collaborative approach to school development – comprising shared goals, assessment practices, engaging collaborative climate, shared responsibility, and student engagement (Heikonen & Ahtiainen, 2024) - has proven to support sustainable change at the school level (Kohm & Nance, 2013).  

Furthermore, principals play a key role in supporting and leading teacher professional development, which is another essential element of reform implementation (Barreneacha et al., 2023). In terms of leading teacher CPD in a reform, leadership and the dynamics between the national, local and school levels in the education system are accordingly essential (Kang, 2021; Lindfors et al., 2024). 

Principal’s commitment to and ownership of the reform is crucial (Battistich et al, 2000). Previous research suggests that the school leader’s perceptions of their own opportunities to contribute to reform work affects their commitment to and ownership of reform goals (Patojoki et al., 2021; Tikkanen et al., 2020). Furthermore, principal’s perceptions of knowledge sharing have an influence on their views of the extent to which the reform can impact school development as well as their confidence in promoting change initiatives (Lopez-Yanez & Sancez-Moreno 2013; Patojoki et al., 2021; Sullanmaa et al., 2019; Tikkanen et al., 2020). These findings suggest that how a principal perceives the reform process at the local level is very relevant to how committed they are to promoting the change process at the school level. However, there is no evidence to show whether the principal's perception of a participatory process at the local level is associated with their approach to collaborative school development or to leading reform-related teacher professional development, which are two key elements of leading reform implementation at the school level.  

This study aims to gain a better understanding of school leaders’ role in implementing educational reforms by exploring the possible variance in their perceptions of local level development process, school level collaborative development and leading teacher cooperative professional development aiming to support reform implementation. 

The specific research questions are as follows:  

1. Which principal profiles can be identified based on principals’ perceptions of local implementation process, school impact of the reform and collaborative school development? 

2. How do principals with different profiles perceive the role of CPD in leading school development? 

The data were collected from 25 municipalities representing different sizes, municipality types (urban/rural), and geographical locations around Finland. All the participating municipalities had a cooperative professional development model, e.g., peer tutor or developer teacher program, going on to support school development. A survey was sent to all the principals and vice principals in the comprehensive schools of the municipalities. So far, altogether 690 principals and vice principals have been invited to respond to the survey, and 110 completed it. A second round of data collection is currently in progress, with the aim of 200-300 respondents in total. The data were collected by using three scales complemented with two open-ended questions. The Top-down, bottom-up implementation strategy scale (16 items), comprising change management (3 items) and knowledge sharing (3 items), and the School impact scale (12 items) were both adapted from the Curriculum Reform Inventory (Pietarinen et al., 2017). Collaborative school development scale (14 items) comprised five factors: Clear goals (2 items), Assessment practices (2 items), Conversational environment (4 items), Shared responsibility (3 items) and Student engagement (3 items) (Heikonen & Ahtiainen, 2024). All three scales had been previously validated in the Finnish comprehensive school context. The open-ended questions concerned the role of CPD activities in school development and factors influencing successfulness of the activities. We used a person-centered approach to investigate what kinds of principal profiles exist. Principals with similar patterns of perceiving the local development process, school impact of the reform and collaborative school development were identified through latent profile analysis (LPA). Next, we gave each participant a class membership based on the probabilities of the LPA and analyzed the open-ended questions of each class using qualitative content analysis.

In the preliminary analysis of the data from the first round of data collection, we identified three principal profiles in terms of perceiving the local level reform process, school impact of the reform and collaborative school development. The mediating group (N= 68) perceived both the local level reform process as participatory, school impact of the reform to be high and the school level development collaborative. The participatory group (N=28) perceived the local level reform process less successful yet having a high level of school impact, but the level of collaborative school development high. The disconnected group (N=4) perceived both local level participatory reform process and school level collaborative development low, but school impact of the reform high. In the preliminary qualitative content analysis of the open-ended questions, we found that some participants emphasized the importance of CPD activities organized at the school level, viewing the role of the school community central to this process. In contrast, other participants believed that the responsibility for CPD should lie at the local level. The analysis will be finalized during the spring and summer, and we will elaborate our findings further in our presentation. Based on our preliminary analysis, it seems that our study makes an interesting contribution to research of leading school development: The role of the principal at the interface of local and school levels is central, making it valuable to gain deeper understanding of the various ways in which their perceptions of local level development work can be reflected to their approach to collaborative school development and teacher cooperative professional development to support educational change.

Askell-Williams, H., & Koh, G. (2020). Enhancing the sustainability of school improvement initiatives. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31, 1–19. Barrenechea, I., Beech, J. & Rivas, A. 2023. How Can Education Systems Improve? A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Educational Change 24 (3): 479–99. Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M. et al. Effects of the Child Development Project on Students' Drug Use and Other Problem Behaviors. The Journal of Primary Prevention 21, 75–99 (2000). Fullan, Michael. 2003. Change Forces with a Vengeance. Routledge Falmer. Hauge, T., Norenes, S. & Vedøy, G. 2014. School Leadership and Educational Change: Tools and Practices in Shared School Leadership Development. Journal of Educational Change 15 (4): 357–76. Heikonen, L., & Ahtiainen, R. (2024). Interrelations between teachers’ perceptions of school leadership group practices and collaborative school development in Finland. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership. Kang, W. 2021. Explaining Effects of Transformational Leadership on Teachers’ Cooperative Professional Development through Structural Equation Model and Phantom Model Approach. Sustainability 13 (19): 10888. Kohm B and Nance B (2009). Creating collaborative cultures. Educational Leadership 67(2): 67-72. Lindfors, T., Ahtiainen, R., Heikonen, L., & Toom, A. (2024). Leading cooperative professional development in educational reform at school, local and regional levels. Research Papers in Education, 1–26. López-Yáñez, J., & Sánchez-Moreno, M. (2013). Levers for sustainable improvement of Spanish schools in challenging contexts. Journal of Educational Change, 14(2), 203–232. Patojoki, K., Soini-Ikonen, T., Pietarinen, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2021). Principals as leading learners in the Finnish curriculum reform. International studies in educational administration, 49(2), 28-50. Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K. & Soini, T.. 2017. Large-Scale Curriculum Reform in Finland – Exploring the Interrelation between Implementation Strategy, the Function of the Reform, and Curriculum Coherence. The Curriculum Journal 28 (1): 22–40. Ramberg, M. (2014). What makes reform work? School-based conditions as predictors of teachers’ changing practice after a national curriculum reform. International Education Studies, 7(6). Simon, S., Heck, D., Christie, M. & Farragher, Y. 2021. Leading Pedagogical Reform: Australian Principals Tell Their Stories. International Journal of Leadership in Education 24 (2): 266–89. Sullanmaa, J., Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2019). Curriculum coherence as perceived by district-level stakeholders in large-scale national curriculum reform in Finland. Curriculum Journal, 30(3), 244–263. Tikkanen, L., Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. 2020. Lessons Learnt from a Large-Scale Curriculum Reform: The Strategies to Enhance Development Work and Reduce Reform-Related Stress. Journal of Educational Change 21 (4): 543–67.