School leaders navigating student wellbeing: the interplay between academic achievement and economic logics in Danish schools

ABSTRACT

This exploratory qualitative case study was conducted at three primary and lower secondary schools in Denmark, with the aim of empirically illustrating how principals work with student wellbeing. The study utilised a data package comprising 18 interviews with principals, vice-principals, and key teachers. The analysis of the data is inspired by grounded theory. The study reports three major findings. First, it finds that Danish principals recognise the close connection between student wellbeing and academic achievement. Second, the study identifies that principals work to establish structures that can identify underperforming students or those with poor wellbeing. Since the principals’ work is removed from the teaching practice, they rely on data to organise meetings and are accountable for collaborative decision-making. Third, the study uncovers that these schools prioritise a learning culture, where student wellbeing is considered as a precondition for learning, which is seen as a precondition for the students’ continuing education. The particular focus on student wellbeing is shaped by politicians’ emphasis on human capital economic logics, which underpins education as a means for economic growth.

KEYWORDS:

• Student wellbeing
• school leadership
• schools
• qualitative case study
• principals

Introduction

In light of the expectations set forth by human capital theory (Becker, 1993), global policymakers have increasingly recognised the importance of student wellbeing (OECD, 2020; The European Commission, 2021; UNESCO, 2022) in recent years. While global policymakers emphasise the significance of schools fostering a healthy learning environment as a key factor for student wellbeing, there are concerns that placing too much emphasis on good performance in tests or final grades can, on the contrary, harm student wellbeing (Ball, 2003; Katznelson et al., 2022; Ydesen, 2013). Consequently, this study seeks to shed light on how principals address student wellbeing within the current paradoxical policy environment in Denmark.

The school leadership literature emphasises the principal’s responsibility to create a healthy learning environment that promotes high student learning achievement (Bass & Riggio, 2005; Bush, 2018; Hallinger, 2005). However, there remains a gap in our understanding of how school leaders operationalise student wellbeing in their daily practice. Despite this, principals are accountable for implementing visions and policies that align with educational reforms (Andersen et al., 2018). Additionally, various areas of educational research indicate that principals are held accountable for their students’ performance with regard to learning outcomes (Courtney & Gunter, 2015; Selwyn, 2011; Verger & Lluís, 2018).

In Danish primary and lower secondary schools, student wellbeing encompasses discussions of the “performance culture”, which is believed to contribute to anxiety and depression among young people, potentially jeopardising their completion of a competency-providing education (Ministry of Education, 2021). Furthermore, the objectives of Danish schools have evolved since the first participation in PISA in 2001 toward a “what works in evidence-based teaching” culture, where the focus within schools has shifted toward learning and competencies (Krejsler & Moos, 2021). The substantial accountability pressure on principals involves responsibility for their students’ performance in the national test system (Minitry of Education, 2006) and how students report their wellbeing in the national student wellbeing survey (Ministry of Education, 2019a). Given the global emphasis on student wellbeing, principal accountability pressure on principals, and the potential harm of performance cultures, Denmark is ideal for investigating how principals navigate these intertwined factors.

This study employs exploratory qualitative data analysis, incorporating interviews with principals, vice-principals, and key teachers, along with document analysis of school visions, to investigate how principals work with students’ wellbeing in their schools. Through this comprehensive approach, the study seeks to contribute by providing novel insights into the strategies employed by principals in addressing student wellbeing. The research question guiding this study is: How do principals work with student wellbeing in their schools?

The next section explores wellbeing, discusses school leadership, examines their interconnections, and focuses on student wellbeing and leadership in Denmark. The research design, methodology, results, and critical implications are then presented and discussed in the concluding section.

Wellbeing as a concept

In 1989, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced a questionnaire scale to measure wellbeing, useful for assessing wellbeing in populations, institutions, and organisations (Topp et al., 2015). WHO defines wellbeing as complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing, beyond the mere absence of disease or infirmity (WHO, 2021). This questionnaire facilitates researchers to examine subjective wellbeing in various contexts. However, there are diverse traditions and challenges in wellbeing research, from workplace demands to philosophical inquiries, exist. For example, workplace studies influenced by Karasek (1979) and leadership studies concerning employee motivation (Le Grand, 2003), indicate that the concept of wellbeing can have different meanings depending on the research traditions involved.

From a global policymaker’s perspective, the concept of wellbeing in education is intrinsically linked to the principles of lifelong learning and the acquisition of competencies, as advocated by organisations such as the OECD (2001, 2015) and UNESCO (2022). Both the OECD and UNESCO, within their policy frameworks, designate student wellbeing as a foundational prerequisite for fostering economic growth. They recognise that the wellbeing of students constitutes the cornerstone of their capacity to learn effectively. This perspective positions student wellbeing as a central parameter in the governance of education, notably within institutions such as the European Commission. Consequently, the maintenance of an educated and well-prepared population is emphasised in policymaking discussions, given its significant implications for the state. Low levels of education among citizens pose multifaceted risks, including unemployment, health-related challenges, and other factors that can adversely impact a state’s fiscal health and budgetary considerations. In their analysis of the OECD, Bürgi and Tröhler (2018) argue that modern state governance is about producing the right kind of people (Bürgi & Tröhler, 2018).

School leadership

The school leadership literature demonstrates that principals play a crucial role in facilitating student learning through their influence on teachers’ instructional approaches (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). In that sense, principals must prioritise the establishment of a school culture focusing on student learning as a fundamental aspect of their leadership practice (Robinson & Timperley, 2007; Robinson & Gray, 2019). However, in addition to their responsibility for fostering a conducive learning atmosphere within their local schools, modern school leaders, also contend with external pressures from global entities, such as the OECD (Sellar & Lingard, 2014). These external pressures materialise in the form of political expectations related to acceptable student performance on international assessments, such as the PISA assessment. Consequently, the increased interest in global comparisons has instigated educational policies that exert pressure on school leaders to deliver tangible results (Gunter, 2016), with a specific emphasis on students’ high achievement in standardised tests (Verger & Lluís, 2018). In light of these dual imperatives, school leaders find themselves in a delicate balancing act. On one hand, they must concentrate on cultivating a robust learning environment within the school to uphold the fundamental mission of education: enabling students to learn effectively. On the other hand, external pressures are pushing school leaders to ensure that students achieve their learning outcomes.

Accountability pressures manifest as a demanding insistence on evidence-based approaches and a requirement for educational leaders to adopt data-driven decision-making methodologies (Hardy & Lewis, 2017; Popkewitz & Lindblad, 2016; Sellar & Lingard, 2014). Data and numerical indicators serve as the cornerstone of leadership efficacy (Ratner et al., 2019; Ratner & Plotnikof, 2022). Statistical information assumes a pivotal role in the realm of educational governance, thereby placing significant demands on school leaders to integrate statistical insights into their daily practice. Statistics, owing to their persuasive nature, become instrumental in shaping discourse, as various stakeholders harness them as integral components of their persuasive narrative. In tandem with statistical data, the visual representation of statistical findings emerges as a potent tool for influencing and persuading stakeholders (Ratner & Plotnikof, 2022; Williamson, 2016). This further intensifies the pressure on contemporary school principals, as they find themselves increasingly compelled to align their leadership with statistical metrics and political expectations. Such pressure on leaders and teachers constitutes external pressure for the schools to perform with a strong focus on student learning (Ball, 2003; Selwyn, 2011).

Bush and Glover (2003) identify eight school leadership typologies, emphasising managerial, instructional, and transformational roles. These typologies serve as normative frameworks, influencing research perspectives (Bush & Glover, 2003, p. 32). While acknowledging the explorative nature, this study aligns with Bush and Glover’s view that contemporary school leadership involves diverse practices (Bush & Glover, 2003, p. 10). The study characterises school leadership as ensuring high student learning levels, encompassing elements from instructional and transformational frameworks. Simultaneously, it acknowledges the managerial role in addressing accountability pressure. The study envisions principals navigating external and internal expectations from stakeholders, including politicians, administrators, teachers, and parents.

School leadership and student wellbeing

In a meta-study comparing the effect of instructional and transformational leadership in schools, Robinson et al. (2008) concluded that school leadership likely impacts student wellbeing positively when it focuses on the quality of learning, teaching, and teachers’ learning. However, the study does not directly link school leadership and student wellbeing, and it is not clear what wellbeing refers to. Similarly, Robinson and Gray (2019) argue that ensuring a safe environment is essential for students to flourish and achieve academic performance, but the study does not specifically explore the role of school leadership in creating and maintaining such an environment. Roffey (2012), on the contrary, works with a student wellbeing understanding which assumes that wellbeing and learning are aligned. In the study, she argues that schools must be aware of the importance of creating environments to support teachers’ wellbeing as teachers’ wellbeing is regarded as a necessity for student learning and wellbeing.

Based on impressive empirical data and a critical theory approach, Anderson and Graham (2016) show how providing students with an active voice in schools improves their wellbeing. In another study based on the same data and theory, Graham and colleagues (2016) demonstrate that facilitating good relations within schools likewise improves student wellbeing. However, the study focuses mostly on the significance of healthy student-student relations and teacher-student relations, and consequently, not on the role of the principal. The importance of good trustful relations between students and teachers is also the object of Leighton et al.’s (2016) study. Their main argument is that trust is vital to establishing a strong student-teacher relationship, which they understand as essential to student learning. Along that line, the significance of school leadership influence on school culture, where culture is understood as a healthy environment for learning, is shown in many studies (Keddie, 2013; MacNeil et al., 2009). Additionally, using survey-data Lee and Louis (2019) further emphasise the importance of school culture constructs, such as professional learning communities and academic pressure, using survey data to demonstrate that schools supporting these mechanisms have a positive impact on student performance compared to those that do not.

Student wellbeing and school leadership in Danish primary and lower secondary schools

From a political level, the ramifications of an undereducated population have been recognised as a pressing economic concern for the welfare state, as articulated in policies by the Danish Government (Danish Government, 2005; Danish Government, 2006). This challenge is further compounded by the fact that approximately 5% of children and young individuals, aged 0–17, have received confirmed diagnoses within the healthcare system, and this percentage tends to rise with age. Additionally, it is noteworthy that roughly 7% of primary school children grapple with dyslexia, a condition associated with diminished academic self-esteem and decreased enrolment in higher education programmes (EVA, 2020; Ingesson, 2007; Ministry of Social Affairs, 2022). These statistics underscore the substantial risk faced by a significant number of Danish students. When considering the unidentified students who may also be struggling, the situation could potentially hinder the political objective of ensuring that at least 90% of the youth cohort attains a vocational or specialised upper secondary education, commonly referred to as a gymnasium education. According to the Danish Government (2017), more than 50,000 young people under 25 lack such an educational level. Within this policy framework, there exists a profound concern among policymakers that the competence levels of the youth are potentially insufficient. Central to this policy is the notion that favourable student learning outcomes represent a foundational prerequisite for young individuals to embark on further education, including pathways such as vocational education.

Influenced by educational policies rooted in the Anglo-Saxon tradition (Krejsler & Moos, 2021), initiatives such as the national testing system (2006) and the more recent school reform (2013) have been implemented with the overarching goal of fostering a robust culture of evaluation within schools, with a pronounced emphasis on academic achievement. This profound focus on evaluation and measurable learning outcomes contributes to fostering a perceived culture of performance, particularly from the perspective of the youth, where achieving adequacy becomes a challenging endeavour (Katznelson et al., 2022). As a result, the youth perceive that the educational structures push them to perform, and society only recognises educational efficiency, and subsequently, there is no time for them to find themselves (Katznelson et al., 2022).

The implementation of a national test system and a school reform, emphasising the imperative that all students learn to their full potential, has played a pivotal role in shaping the path for educational leaders. These leaders are entrusted with the responsibility of translating politically articulated visions into tangible and substantial improvements in student learning outcomes. The objectives inherent in the recent school reform have been meticulously translated into action through the measurement of learning outcomes within the national testing system, while simultaneously upholding a strong commitment to the promotion of student wellbeing (Ministry of Education, 2013). As a follow-up to the educational reform, Danish schools are mandated to administer a wellbeing survey every few years. This survey not only reflects an evident concern for the general wellbeing of children but also underscores the shared perspectives of UNESCO and OECD regarding the indispensable connection between student wellbeing and academic advancement (Ministry of Education, 2023). The obligation of conducting this survey and interpreting its results lies with the school principal. The survey serves as a multifaceted tool. On one hand, it is invaluable for the collection of vital data aimed at comprehending the mental and emotional state of students, thereby facilitating the development of novel and more effective approaches within schools. Simultaneously, the survey assumes an accountability function, as the performance of school principals is assessed based on the outcomes of the survey (Ratner & Plotnikof, 2022).

A recent report by VIVE (2022) based on survey-panel data spanning from 2009 to 2021, encompassing 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19-year-old children, has identified a consistent decline in students’ joy of schooling since 2009. The authors posit that these findings may be linked to the implementation of the recent school reform, which is designed to be more inclusive, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to the 2013 reform, a report from the Danish Institute for Social Research (SFI) (2011) on school leadership practices in primary and secondary schools indicated a lack of a discernible connection between the practices of school leaders and student wellbeing, suggesting that student wellbeing was not a significant priority for principals at that time. Nevertheless, the report hinted at the existence of weak correlations between student wellbeing and schools where principals emphasised the professional competencies of teachers during the hiring process and focused on ongoing teacher development. In a subsequent report assessing the implementation of the objectives stemming from the recent reform, the authors identified a tenuous correlation, characterised as the principals’ specific leadership practice, which pertains to the utilisation of data and an emphasis on achieving results while promoting student wellbeing (VIVE, 2019). Regrettably, the report does not provide an explanation for this observation. This lack of elucidation is noteworthy since this finding appears to diverge from students’ perceptions of a performance-oriented culture. Hence, it is plausible that Danish students are aware of the expectations for measurement and consequently derive a sense of security from knowing the criteria against which they are assessed, albeit concurrently experiencing the pressure to perform.

In summary, Danish policies for primary and secondary schools are strongly influenced by economic perspectives, shaping the agency of school principals. Within this context, student wellbeing is intricately tied to continuing education and learning outcomes. This aligns with the core purpose of schools, emphasising the responsibility to ensure students’ successful progression (Ministry of Education, 2019b) Importantly, this study does not prescribe a specific wellbeing conceptualisation or pedagogical approach for principals. Instead, it explores how principals actively address student wellbeing in their schools.

Data and methods

The data supporting this research were collected from three schools located in the same municipality. The decision to focus on three schools was intentional and based on a maximum variation strategy (Flyvbjerg, 2010) that allowed for investigating potential differences in how the schools work with student wellbeing under the same policy regime. The schools were selected based on their student grade points at final exams and the socio-economic composition of their students, according to statistics provided by the Danish Ministry of Education (2022), with School 2 situated between the two outliers. The deliberate selection of schools that embody diverse criteria allows for investigating potential variations in leadership practices attributable to these specific criteria. The underlying objective is to employ this selection of schools to explore the role of the school principal within distinct contextual settings as well as the narratives surrounding wellbeing at three schools, ultimately aiming to discover emerging patterns across these different contexts.

In the framework of this study, the primary objective is to investigate the methodologies employed by school principals to address student wellbeing within their schools. To attain this objective, interviews were conducted with the school principals themselves. In one instance, where there was a change in principalship during the research process, interviews were held with both the former and incoming principals. In Denmark, the leadership responsibilities within schools are frequently distributed among members of the leadership team, typically consisting of the principal, a pedagogical leader, and department heads (Moos, 2009; VIVE, 2019). In conjunction with interviews conducted with school principals, the research also included interviews with members of the school leadership team and influential teachers holding pivotal roles within the school, such as literacy or math counsellors. This approach intends to yield valuable insights and uncover emerging trends in the practices of school principals, as well as to gain deeper insights into the narratives surrounding student wellbeing within the school environment.

In summary, the selection of respondents at the schools provides the study with a detailed understanding of the particular efforts at the schools, and due to the differing positions, a good understanding of how the efforts related to student wellbeing are initiated, organised and executed. Such a strategically selected variation of respondents allows me an exploratory investigation into the role of the school principal, with a particular focus on identifying emerging patterns throughout the interview process. Furthermore, the teacher interviews act as a control mechanism to avoid the most common source bias regarding principals’ overestimation of their own leadership practice (Andersen et al., 2018).

Data

In this study, I conducted qualitative interviews to carry out a comprehensive exploratory case study in the academic year 2021/2022. The design of the case study aimed to investigate the possible mechanisms associated with principals’ practices regarding student wellbeing at the schools. With this design, I aimed to explore how principals shape a school culture that focuses on student wellbeing (Table 1).

Table

	School characteristics	Principal	Vice principals	Key teachers
1	High academic performance and socioeconomic community	1	2	3
2	Middle academic performance and socioeconomic community	1	3	3
3	Low academic performance and socioeconomic community	2	1	2

The table presents the positions of the 18 interviewees and their distribution across the three schools. The in-depth interviews were semi-structured (Bryman, 2016), based on an interview guide focusing broadly on principals’ efforts regarding student wellbeing and allowing the respondents to elaborate on the questions (Kvale, 2007). I used the same question guide for all interviews, but the questions were adjusted to the different respondents. For example, I asked the principals and vice-principals about their thoughts, practices, and efforts concerning student wellbeing, while I asked the teachers about their perceptions of their principals’ and vice-principals’ practices. The semi-structured format ensured that all interviewees covered all themes in the guide, although not necessarily in the prescribed order. This approach allowed them to elaborate on the various themes, ensuring that I gained a full understanding of my interest in principals’ practices to ensure student achievements. The length of the interviews was approximately 55–60 min.

As this study’s nature is exploratory, I drew inspiration from grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1968) and Selwyn’s (2011) method to work with the particular data. Thus, the first analysis of the data involved reading all the transcripts to gain an overall sense of the data and combine the different data. From this basis, the whole dataset was then coded in terms of categories identified in the themes related to the intentions of this research study. Based on that, the second round of coding was initiated, which involved reading the data with special attention to student wellbeing. This careful reading of the data helped produce preliminary categories of school practices, vision, and efforts regarding student wellbeing, and produce a coherent variety of influences underlying principals’ practices regarding student wellbeing. Subsequently, I reviewed the preliminary open codes, and based on this assessment, I developed a more focused analysis of the data. The following three perspectives emerged from the data.

Findings

Understanding wellbeing in schools: emphasising student learning and community involvement

Initially, all the interviews conducted emphasised the importance of working with student wellbeing as an essential part of schooling. Subsequently, the interviews revealed that students with special needs constitute a considerable portion of the work with student wellbeing. For example, according to the interviewees, children diagnosed with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or autism require individualised approaches to either maintain a healthy environment for the child at school that caters to their special needs, or simply to ensure that they attend school. Although the interviewees recognised the importance of individual considerations in their work with special needs students, they also worked towards the same goals for all students in their schools. Thus, the wellbeing initiatives at the three schools considered the wellbeing of all students, not only those with special needs. As such, the data overwhelmingly points to the fact that in a school context, student wellbeing is a matter of learning and preparation for further education. In this light, the analysis revealed two interdependent understandings of wellbeing. First, as the principal of School 2 put it:

it stems from the idea [work with preventive measures concerning student wellbeing] that you learn in communities and that if you have to learn a particular way of being, then you have to be introduced to and learn about to become a member of the community. You cannot expect the children, when they enter the school gates, are able to become a member. I think the whole ´role model’ thinking, be introduced and become an important member of a community, and so. I love that vision (Principal at School 2).

The principal has expressed a desire to educate children to become valuable members of their communities. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to create a sense of community in schools where students feel that they belong and are valued members. The vast majority of the interviewees suggest that this can positively impact students’ wellbeing, as a sense of belonging and connection with others is an important aspect of overall wellbeing. Echoing this sentiment, a member of the leadership team of School 3 states:

so the teachers can work with children facing difficulties, adjusting my teaching approach based on their unique needs and capacities. I believe in differentiating instruction within the classroom, ensuring that each child receives personalized support. It’s essential not to isolate children from their community, as they require a sense of attachment to foster optimal learning experiences. (Vice-principal at School 3)

The idea of working with preventive measures concerning student wellbeing also suggests that the schools are taking a proactive approach to promote students’ wellbeing, which the interviewees believe is crucial for their academic and personal success.

All principals and most of the other interviewees emphasised the importance of contributing to and being part of a community for the individual. For example, at School 1, the principal had written a school brochure that is handed out to all parents, which emphasises that the school’s most important task is to educate young people to become participants in a democratically structured community. Thus, the school’s everyday practice focuses on being part of small class communities in order to prepare the students for participation in Danish society’s larger community. The principal of School 3 similarly stated that creating a positive school culture and fostering a sense of belonging is essential for students’ wellbeing, as it helps to build a strong community that supports their academic and personal success. Overall, the importance of promoting student wellbeing through a sense of community and a proactive approach to preventive measures was a consistent theme throughout the interviews:

But that the children have the feeling of being part of a teaching they can manage, it is quite significant for me. Because it has enormous importance that you thrive. And that you don’t get tired of school, and that you continue to be motivated to come and be with the professional community, and also participate in the social community. (Principal at School 3)

The principal explained that wellbeing is linked to the ability to manage being a part of both professional and social communities. Accordingly, the interviewees connected wellbeing to communities in a way that emphasised the school’s commitment to responding if a student does not fit in. While one teacher expressed some reservations about this concept, the school’s response is nevertheless demonstrated by the following:

Yes, what do we do with them [students that misbehave or misthrives]. In other words, some … After all, our social educators do courses with some of our children during periods of the day or during periods over time. Special wellbeing courses. I’m now just of the opinion that … Then they are taken out of the reality they actually have to act in. And then it’s all of a sudden easy. So we [the teacher but he also refers to the other students] want the children who are having a hard time also to be inside the class. (Key teacher at School 3)

The teacher believes that being included in the community is the best solution, both for students who need to learn to attend school regularly due to absenteeism and for students whose disruptive behaviour affects their lessons. The teacher acknowledges that there are mixed feelings associated with the inclusion and exclusion of students, as the teacher believes that students learn the most in the class community, but there is also a limit to how much disruption can be accepted, as it risks going beyond what the rest of the class can tolerate. Another teacher at the school elucidates that teachers are held accountable for the results of the class. Consequently, they respond to students who disrupt the teaching process, and in such situations, it becomes more challenging to facilitate effective teaching and ensure that the rest of the class comprehends the intended session content. As explained later in the analysis, all three schools have a formalised process to identify students who disrupt teaching for various reasons, thereby challenging the class community.

This example illustrates that the three schools have a response when the community is threatened, using a range of strategies. Most of the interviewees agree with the teacher that it is important to keep students in the classroom community for as long as possible. In line with this, wellbeing in the context of the three schools is associated with the student’s ability to perform according to fixed criteria, such as achieving high enough grades for further education. However, the interviewees also regard being part of the community as an essential learning process for students. This perspective is partly because students can achieve higher learning outcomes by giving and receiving peer feedback, but it can also be seen as a Danish cultural dimension of the importance of being part of and participating in a democratic society. Consequently, students who frequently disrupt the learning environment are considered at risk of developing unhappiness, as their behaviour not only disrupts their own learning but also that of other students. Such disruptive behaviour may lead to the implementation of individualised learning courses, as mentioned earlier.

The interviewees emphasised that schools must prioritise the wellbeing of their students by ensuring that they are on the right path in their learning journey. The vice-principal at School 3 explained the significance of students who are able to reflect on their learning process in the following way:

We work a lot with a learning mindset. In other words, we must ensure that the planned activities make the students more active. That they are in dialogue with each other, that they develop a language for their own learning process, and that they can relate to their own learning and talk about it. (Vice-principal at School 3)

The quote exemplifies the importance of supporting the student learning process while also acknowledging that learning is ultimately individualised, underscoring the need for schools to teach students how to learn. Thus, facilitating the learning process involves helping students visualise the process for themselves. A key teacher described how the principals and vice-principals at the school emphasise the expectations for how teachers must perform their work:

And it is also an expression of all the work that has been done, regarding this mentality and way of thinking, about visible learning and involving the students in their own learning process. This way of working is emphazised by the leadership and constantly articulated to the teachers. The aim [for the teaching] is how we get the students’ voices heard? How do we get them motivated in the oldest students to get engaged and want to learn? (Key teacher at School 2)

As the key teacher explained, the goal is to help students visualise their learning process so that they can better reflect on their progress. Despite the emphasis on collective learning communities and the corresponding responsibility of teachers to scaffold such communities, the majority of interviewees also emphasised the importance of students having a positive learning mindset, where they are “willing or ready” to learn when teachers teach. Therefore, being on the right learning path ultimately falls on the students’ shoulders, as they must take responsibility for developing the right learning mindset.

Prioritising student wellbeing: the role of principals in building thriving schools

The principal of School 3 has described the work tasks of a principal as encompassing a variety of responsibilities, including personnel management, strategic management, and economic-administrative management.

So there is a lot of personnel management. As an immediate manager of the leadership team, the principal is also involved in managing the tasks of teachers and social educators. However, it is the educational leaders who are primarily responsible for annual teacher review conversations and department meetings. The principal may be invited to participate in these activities. (Principal at School 3)

The principal emphasises that personal management is an important part of their job, particularly when teachers encounter difficulties, such as a violent attack from a student. The principal in the study also likes to walk around the schools to get a sense of the teaching atmosphere. While being part of the teaching practice is not a part of their daily leadership routine, the principals acknowledge that supporting the wellbeing and learning of students is a crucial part of their role.

However, the principals interviewed in this study highlight a vision where all elements of practice underline that the school is for the students. Rather than being directly involved in the day-to-day practices of teachers and students, the principals work in what Laursen (forthcoming) refer to as the “leadership engine room”. Here, they focus on building a school where students can thrive and perform in accordance with their true academic potential. The following quote from the principal at School 1 illustrates the work process:

Organizing class conferences, where you “pick up” and gather data on the children? Do we have classes not performing? What is the reason for that, and does the teacher have plans for changes? So it’s one way of organizing to discover if we have progressions in the classes and that we don’t have any children we don’t “see”, both in a social and academic light. (Principal at School 1)

In relation to student wellbeing, this strategy involves planning a school structure that primarily focuses on identifying students who underperform in areas such as tests or attendance. The school principals at the three schools in this study have implemented systematised meetings to identify students with dyslexia or difficulties in math, often in continuation of class conferences or reviews (referred to as such at School 3). While members of the leadership team participate in these meetings, it is usually the vice-principal who is affiliated with secondary education (students aged 12–16) that attends.

These meetings are crucial for the daily practice of the principals, as they provide primary data on student test scores and absenteeism. While this data is always available to the principals, they do not have the time to check all the available data within the school. Therefore, they trust that they will receive accurate information at the right time through their organisation. Additionally, the meetings provide secondary information, mostly from the vice-principals who attend. In this light, the principals rely on good data, and the principal at School 2 explains how the best available data enables them to identify underperforming students:

So I think, in that way I think it’s fine [leading on data] I think that as a leader I need to find out how the children move out, all the way in 1.a and in 7.x, right? Where can you see that they are moving from A to B. (Principal at School 2)

Consequently, data concerning student wellbeing and performance becomes a tool for the principals to gain insight into school practice and to act accordingly. In addition to gathering data from class conferences, the principals investigated have implemented a specific structure at the schools to ensure that teachers can quickly (although there may be a waiting list in practice) receive support if they discover something suspicious.

Once a month we have meetings with our specialist, where you as a teacher can come with a student if there is unhappiness or there is a suspicion of or there is some behaviour or there is something that is academically difficult. At the meeting, we have a psychologist. We can also call in an audiologist, depending on the problem. But they can also come there, the teachers, and the parents are also welcome if they want to. (Vice-principal at School 2)

With the students' data at the centre of decision-making in different types of meetings, the principal has two main areas of responsibility. However, the specialists are not necessarily needed at these meetings, as teachers often provide sufficient data to inform decision-making. These various meetings, where data about students is the focal point of leadership’s decision-making, create two areas of responsibility for the principal.

First, when a meeting reveals that a student is underperforming or experiencing difficulties, the principal’s responsibility is to initiate collaboration that is seen at the school as a precondition for supporting the student to improve their academic performance or wellbeing. As the vice-principal at School 2 explains, addressing the needs of struggling students often requires various areas of expertise, and the role of the principal is to facilitate collaboration between students, parents, teachers, psychologists, and other professionals. The principal in this short quote explains the importance of assembling the right team:

Get together the people who can make the best contribution to the task solution. I take responsibility for that. (Principal at School 1)

The principal bears the responsibility of ensuring that relevant actors hold meetings and that students make progress according to the scheduled plan. Secondly, part of the principal’s responsibility in facilitating collaboration between relevant actors is to involve the right personnel. The vice-principal at School 1 explains how the school’s leadership has built a structure where math and reading experts are put into action without the leadership’s approval. Nonetheless, the role of the principal is to ensure that the right experts are engaged when needed. At the three schools, responsibilities are distributed among other actors, underpinning that a shared effort will increase the possibility that the student involved will return to the right path.

Learning as the dominant norm: wellbeing and academic performance in schools

Most of the interviewees suggest that schooling is about learning. A key teacher at School 3 explains the teacher-student conversations accordingly:

It is prior to everything else [building a good relationship with the students]. But when it comes to an end, my conversations with students [to build the relationship] are about their schoolwork. But it is important in relationship work and in wellbeing that it is “the common third” that we constantly talk about. In other words, learning is the starting point … what we are meeting about at school is learning. So that is the starting point for the conversations I have about wellbeing with the students, right?. (Key teacher at School 3)

As the teacher explains with an example, learning is the all-dominant norm within schools. Therefore, wellbeing initiatives at the three schools are often connected to learning, related to student academic results, and initiatives that prepare students for further education. However, there are differences between the schools regarding how strongly the principals emphasise learning in their visions for the schools. The most significant difference is between School 1 and Three: School 3 struggles with a bad reputation in terms of student results; hence their overall vision for the school concerns student results that qualify for further education, while School 1 has decent student results and therefore has the ability to emphasise holistic educational values as the overall school vision. Nevertheless, in the end, it is all about learning at the three schools. This is because learning is the norm at the schools. The principals at the investigated schools build accountability structures that underpin a performance culture. The scheduled meetings are about catching underperforming students, whether their underperformance is due to unhappiness or lack of academic skills. The frequency of class-conferences varies between the schools, but they are held at least once a year. In that sense, the accountability mechanism is always present, as teachers do not want to be in charge of classes that produce too many subjects for discussions at the meetings. A key teacher at School 3 explains the pressures from the leadership to perform this way:

When I started at the school, the school had just got extra money because it had better results than expected. But the following year the funds did not come because we did not deliver there. And that failure was agenda set at various meetings, right? Not pointed towards the teacher, but it is there indirectly. And then that criticism most often falls on those who have the ninth grade, because they are the teacher who must perform regarding the students’ final exams. There is a very sharp expectation that you have to perform, right?

In the data, this is the clearest example of a teacher expressing pressure on teachers to constantly achieve academic results. This teacher is the most explicit interviewee discussing accountability pressure. The pressure that principals build at the investigated schools is a result of the pressure on school leadership to achieve satisfactory results. One of the vice-principals at School 2 explains the result-based pressure on leadership as follows:

for demands [concerning specific results] that the school be supervised, right? And also, from the side of the administration, not just from the school board. Now it’s called learning conversations. Yes, and it is commendable enough that you want to try to call it a learning conversation, but sometimes you also have to call things what they are, and I experience, even though it has become a learning conversation, that there …  … They are also doing the contract-driven new public management, especially in relation to school principals and so forth. (Vice-principal at School 2)

As the vice-principal explains, the supervision of the schools is very present, and despite the fact that the administrators call it something else, the actors within the school know that a conversation with the administration about learning but also the school results in the student wellbeing survey is actually about explaining how the school will live up to the municipality’s expectations and how they will work going forward to achieve results.

Discussion of findings

This study elucidates that principals engage in the establishment of safeguard structures within schools to identify and support underperforming students. The creation of such structures serves as a scaffold for the school environment. Notably, the visualisation of data, particularly during events such as class conferences, emerges as a potent tool in the principal’s arsenal for subsequent interventions. Through data analysis, the principal can discern patterns such as excessive student absenteeism or poor performance in the national test system. Utilising this information, the principal activates strategic mechanisms to guide students back on track. These interventions may encompass various support teams, including, but not limited to, psychologists if there are concerns about mental health, or reading counsellors if there are suspicions of dyslexia or other reading-related challenges.

While this study reveals that principals do not actively engage in pedagogical approaches related to student wellbeing, it emphasises the critical role of establishing structures to ensure that staff prioritise student wellbeing in all three investigated schools. Notably, the identified structures orchestrated by the principals within the schools support a performance culture. This finding is somewhat surprising, considering that principals, teachers, and educational staff at the three schools demonstrate awareness of the importance of supporting children’s wellbeing. However, the dual imperative that student learning is both the school’s core task and a prerequisite for their further education concurrently restricts the understanding of learning, often measured solely by metrics such as performance in national tests. Regarding wellbeing, this implies that if students exhibit poor performance in national tests, the school must initiate corrective measures. Nevertheless, this perspective reinforces the overarching imperative that student learning remains central, framing student wellbeing as a precondition for effective learning, as asserted by Becker’s human capital theory (1993) and underpinned by OECD and UNESCO policies. In this context, the performance culture in schools is influenced by discourses emphasising outcome-focused measures, as exemplified by Ball and Grimaldi’s (2021) characterisation of education in a neoliberal era. These imperatives, whether conscious or unconscious, shape the approaches of the principals and teachers in the study to learning and wellbeing in schools. Ball and Grimaldi’s (2021) analysis of the fictive child Sarah demonstrates that student performance assumes a clear understanding of what students must achieve to meet requirements. Significantly, the ongoing discourse surrounding external expectations for high performance in national tests in Denmark is considered a potential factor contributing to students’ challenges in primary and lower secondary school. Although this study did not focus on students’ personal experiences, future research could investigate whether students themselves are influenced by the learning imperative, leading them to strive for optimal performance. This may also entail students’ need to comprehend the requirements to perform well, thereby reinforcing and sustaining the prevailing performance culture. Investigating this aspect becomes particularly significant, especially considering the 2019 VIVE report, which suggests that students’ wellbeing improves when they are familiar with performance criteria. It is noteworthy that, despite the negative connotations associated with the concept of a performance culture, the findings are surprising. It is plausible that the students in the specific study may not be aware of alternative approaches to schooling, as they have never experienced different ones.

The study analysis reveals a tight focus on learning at the schools, where wellbeing is understood in terms of students’ ability to continuously demonstrate academic progress. Initiatives are taken to get students back on track if they fall outside the academic path. In this light, the culture at the schools can accelerate the number of students experiencing unhappiness. The analysis also shows that the focus on student learning at the schools is a result of a strong belief that this will lead to better student outcomes, as Robinson and Gray (2019) highlight. The challenge lies in the fact that such a focus on learning shapes a performance-driven culture within schools (Ball & Grimaldi, 2021); such culture significantly shapes the schools’ practice as all involved are forced to perform (Ball, 2003). In the context of this study, the emphasis on performance culture within schools may inadvertently contribute to an increase in the number of students experiencing diminished wellbeing. This is concerning, as wellbeing is intrinsically linked to persisting educational challenges. Consequently, the concept of wellbeing may evolve into a performance metric for school principals. An illuminating case is provided by Ratner and Plotnikof’s (2022) discourse analysis of the mandatory wellbeing survey in Danish schools, which reveals a wellbeing index categorised into three colours: red, yellow, and green. This visual representation underscores the necessity for proactive measures when students fall within the “red” category. Notably, while several studies, including Williamson’s investigation of “The Learning Curve”, have focused on data visualisations and their role in constructing structures for agency within educational institutions (Hartong, 2016; Ratner et al., 2019; Williamson, 2016), there has been a lack of attention to the response of principals to such visualised data infrastructures or the “red-student” category. Nevertheless, it is plausible that such data visualisation exerts pressure on principals, subsequently influencing them to exert pressure on teachers (and ultimately students) through the structures the leaders build and the vision of learning they set at the school. Accountability keeps principals, vice-principals, and teachers on their toes to perform but may also constitute the learning and performance norm for students. This norm can alleviate students’ worries about their future because they can perform as required.

Furthermore, the results of the study shed light on how specific discourses pertaining to schools and wellbeing shape the approaches adopted by principals in addressing student wellbeing within the school context. In this context, the study makes a distinct contribution to the existing school leadership literature by empirically illustrating how educational policies that emphasise economic means influence the manner in which principals integrate student wellbeing into the broader framework of student learning. Moreover, the study underscores that principals, in line with the recommendations of scholars such as Robinson and Timperley (2007), primarily concentrate their approach on student learning. Simultaneously, the findings reveal that the emphasis on learning, consistent with economic and political expectations of schooling that prioritise continuous education and high learning outcomes, relegates student wellbeing to a secondary role. Consequently, this implies that the importance of good student wellbeing is subordinated to its role as a means to achieve broader educational goals. This aligns with the views of Courtney & Gunter (2015), Gunter (2016), and Hardy (2015), highlighting that accountability and performance largely define the practices of principals. In this context, the convergence of learning, performance, and accountability, as suggested by Katznelson et al. (2022) may inadvertently contribute to the exacerbation of the student wellbeing crisis, albeit without explicit intent.

Conclusion

This study investigates the strategies employed by school principals in addressing student wellbeing. Principals prioritise the identification and support of underperforming or discontented students, aligning with the emphasis on continuous education in Danish educational policy. Their focus revolves around establishing systems to detect issues and fostering collaboration for comprehensive student support. The study reveals that student wellbeing is intricately linked to economic logics, underscoring the significance of learning for elevated wellbeing. The pervasive economic logic and accountability pressures shape the practices at the investigated schools, emphasising students’ academic achievements as crucial to enhancing subjective wellbeing.

This study has certain limitations. For example, the sample was limited to three schools in Denmark, which may not be representative of other schools or contexts. To address this limitation, I conducted in-depth interviews with a range of principals, vice-principals and key teachers and analyzed the data rigorously to ensure that the findings were supported in the context. Additionally, I compared the findings to the existing literature on school leadership and wellbeing to ensure that the conclusions were grounded in a broader context. Therefore, I do not argue that the analysis establishes a causal link between the principals’ emphasis on learning, creating systems to identify underperforming or unhappy students, and establishing accountability mechanisms to ensure learning, which may contribute to the deterioration of student wellbeing. While the study findings are not intended for universal generalisation across all Danish schools, they offer valuable qualitative insights into the day-to-day practices and challenges confronted by principals concerning student wellbeing and academic achievement.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Sedat Gümüs for his comments on earlier versions of this paper. All remaining problems and mistakes are obviously mine.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Carlsberg Foundation [grant number: CF19-0751].