Principals´ influences on teaching and assessment in special education

ABSTRACT Background Through their leadership, principals have an important, yet typically indirect, effect on pupils’ learning. This article focuses attention on principals’ influences on teaching and assessment in special education in Sweden: specifically, in special schools for pupils with intellectual disabilities (SID). Whilst SID principals are accountable for teaching and assessment quality in their schools, research on this aspect is limited. Purpose The research sought to investigate principals’ leadership practices within SID in terms of their influence on teaching and assessment. Methods Data in this qualitative study comprised six principals’ written reports, produced as part of assignment work during a principal education programme. These related to their systematic examination of the internal processes at their schools in relation to teaching and assessment. The reports were analysed, in depth, using an approach informed by the theory of practice architecture. Findings The analysis suggested that principals’ influences on teaching and assessment were constrained, and enabled, by a number of factors. Constraints included arrangements which shaped a form of leadership characterised by replicating the organisational structures of mainstream schools. However, enabling arrangements, including the increased distribution of time and space, emerged as principals’ perspectives shifted. It may be possible for principals to increase their influence on teaching and assessment in SID by better understanding their practice architecture in relation to other practices. This could influence the practice ecology in relation to teaching and assessment, and increase the improvement capacity of the local school – and beyond – in terms of teaching and assessment. Conclusion This study draws attention to SID principals’ self-understanding as system players, and the opportunities to influence practice ecology. It highlights how principals’ leadership within special education has the potential to improve teaching and assessment in local schools within a community, ultimately becoming the driving force for realising inclusive education.


Introduction
Through their roles as leaders, principals in all schools have a significant, although usually indirect, effect on pupils' learning, by influencing teachers' practice (Fullan 2002(Fullan , 2014;;Grissom, Egalite, and Lindsay 2021;Gurr-Mark, Drysdale-George, and Mulford 2010;Hargreaves and Harris 2015;Kemmis et al. 2014;Leithwood et al. 2004).The notion of principals' leadership is complex and may be understood in various ways, including as individual-centred or as an organisational function (Wilkinson and Kemmis 2015).Whilst the individual-centred perspective refers to principals' personal traits, skills and strategies, the organisational function relates to social processes and structures.The latter views principals as leaders within a social system that has an immanent school improvement capacity embedded within the school's internal culture, resources, and infrastructure in relation to its mission and the wider society.From this latter perspective, principals influence teacher practice and, indirectly, pupils' learning, by applying system thinking.Such an approach requires recognition of the complicated links between society and the cultures and infrastructures of local schools; and how the practices of principals, teachers, other professional groups and pupils' learning practice are interrelated (Fullan 2002(Fullan , 2014;;Strandli Portfelt 2006).Overall, this brings with it the possibility of influencing the entire improvement capacity of the local school by altering the principal's own leadership (Blossing et al. 2015;Fullan 2002Fullan , 2014;;Kemmis et al. 2014).Accordingly, the context of schools influence professional practices and school improvement capacity (Fullan 2002(Fullan , 2014;;Kemmis et al. 2014;Nehez and Blossing 2020).
This article is interested in principals' influences on teaching and assessment in special education.Its particular focus is on principals in Swedish special schools for pupils with intellectual disabilities (hereafter abbreviated as SID).Although these are schools with no precise international equivalent (Andersson and Östlund 2017;Ineland and Silfver 2018), the issues of how best to support pupil learning in special education contexts, and conceptualisations of inclusion, undoubtedly have wider international relevance.Like many countries, Sweden has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008 and its Optional Protocol in 2009 and is committed to realise one inclusive educational system for all pupils, adjusted to pupils' needs, abilities and preferences (United Nations 2016).However, Sweden has two parallel educational systems, as pupils are educated both in mainstream and non-mainstream educational settings, which may be regarded as a challenge in terms of Sweden's progress towards inclusive education (Göransson, Tideman, and Szönyi 2021).
In recent times, SID have moved from a more traditional 'caretaking' view of pupils towards a conception of pupils as capable individuals who are able to develop academically (Göransson, Tideman, and Szönyi 2021).The Swedish curriculum for upper secondary SID (2013) states that education should prepare pupils for future life and have an influence on their working life, as well as their position in society.Gaining access to the labour market requires gaining qualifications; in turn, achieving good grades relies on quality in teaching and assessment, which involves particularly complex processes due to SID's heterogenous pupil population and variety of intellectual and communicative capacity (Andersson and Östlund 2017).Although SID principals are accountable for quality in teaching and assessment, research on SID is limited when it comes to this aspect (Ineland and Silfver 2018).As SID constitute a unique context for principals' leadership, there is consequently a need to better understand principals' leadership practices in special education contexts and their strategies to influence practices within their schools that have an effect on pupils' learning.The study reported in this paper offers a contribution to this endeavour.

Background
The Swedish context of SID Göransson, Tideman, and Szönyi (2021) argue that, in many countries, integration is, in fact, preserved and/or disguised as inclusive education when an educational system becomes a single system for all pupils.For example, pupils may be taught outside the ordinary classroom or in small study groups apart from their class.This underscores the challenges evident in ensuring that educational systems are wholly characterised by inclusivity.The reasons why inclusive processes are slow to be established may lie within the educational complex itself, which comprises all practices that may have an influence on local schools.As briefly mentioned above, the Swedish system is characterised by two parallel systems, in which pupils with intellectual disabilities are offered education in SID.In the Swedish education system, 1 all children aged between 7 and 16 attend compulsory school and are thereafter invited to attend upper secondary school for 3 years, which most of them do.Pupils who are medically, socially, mentally as well as pedagogically assessed to have too low a capability to meet the requirements in accordance with the national curriculum are offered a place at SID.The placement needs to be accepted by the person's guardian (Andersson and Östlund 2017).SID have their own curricula and syllabuses (SFS 2010:800), adjusted to the pupil population.Swedish studies suggest that, despite the ambitions in the curriculum, employment figures for former pupils of SID have not changed very much.There is a debate about whether the reasons for this lie in the unpreparedness of society to include the former pupils with intellectual disabilities, and/or in the internal work around these pupils in school (Andersson and Östlund 2017;Luthra et al. 2018).It is possible that causes lie in society and in schools' internal processes.For example, an Australian study on principals in schools for special purposes (Strnadová et al. 2022) concluded that the boundaries between schools and wider society set limitations of inclusive processes.Limiting boundaries are also present within and between practices, within and between schools.
In Sweden, pupils in SID can be socially or pedagogically integrated within mainstream schools' classes, which means that many teachers may at some point teach a pupil who is in a SID.Göransson, Tideman, and Szönyi's (2021) survey study of Swedish teachers indicated that the majority of respondents preferred segregated education and Klang et al.'s (2019) comparative study of teachers in SID and teachers in mainstream schools suggested that mainstream school teachers' inclusion of SID pupils' social participation was lacking.Teachers' resistance to inclusion can also be viewed in relation to principals' leadership.Sjöqvist et al.'s (2020) survey of Swedish principals found that cooperation between SID and mainstream schools was dependent on the organisation of school leadership in relation to the idea of inclusion.Further, Mann and Whitworth's (2017) US study showed that principals tended to exclude learning support staff from meetings about teaching and assessment.
Overall, it is evident that there are several practices involved in teaching and assessment for SID pupils, within SID as well as in mainstream schools, that tend to constrain or enable inclusive processes, thus affecting SID principals' opportunities to influence teaching and assessment.For SID principals to have an effect on teaching and assessment, there is a need for them to become 'system players' (Fullan 2018, 13) -in other words, to be able to influence practices.This hinges on the notion of leading rather than leadership (Wilkinson et al. 2010;Kemmis et al. 2014;Wilkinson and Kemmis 2015): focusing on principals' leading practice in relation to other practices that shape each other by broader arrangements; that is, practice ecology (Kemmis et al. 2014;Wilkinson and Kemmis 2015).SID principals' influence on teaching and assessment can thereby be examined by a focus on the interrelatedness of principals' practice and other practices, and how these practices knit together to increase the improvement capacity of the local school.
In this article, assessment refers to professionals' systematic work of monitoring pupils' progression in learning, and sometimes grading their work.As mentioned, teaching and assessment are particularly complex in SID, in part due to the difficulties of recruiting educated special teachers who have a deep professional understanding of teaching and assessment within the specific context of SID (Ineland and Silfver 2018).Moreover, a large number of paraprofessionals, such as caregiving assistants, teacher assistants, special needs teachers, school counsellors and leisure education teachers, all work with pupils in SID.Östlund et al. (2021) emphasise that it is of fundamental importance that all these professionals have a common understanding of their specific duties and responsibilities in relation to the educational requirements.It follows that a high degree of coordination and organisation is needed to clarify the role of each professional in relation to teaching and assessment.This means that special teachers need to coordinate with paraprofessionals, who support the pupils in all situations within the school context.All professionals are supposed to collaborate and contribute to documenting the pupils' skills, learning strategies and achievements, which are used as a basis for teaching and assessment (Biggs, Gilson, and Carter 2016).However, paraprofessionals can often be overlooked when it comes to curriculum implementation processes, co-planning, co-teaching and coassessing activities.Due to systematic exclusion, paraprofessionals are referred to as caregiving and often not taken account of as a resource supporting the development of students' knowledge in accordance with curriculum requirements (Martin and Alborz 2014;Östlund et al. 2021).
The creation of an infrastructure that enables collaboration within and between professions is, therefore, a crucial factor for quality in teaching and assessment.Such collaboration needs to be characterised by the development of a common vision for a cross-professional practice.This means creating a shared understanding of the curriculum and the contribution of each professional to the educational goal of developing a local school practice that is situated, and shaping the school culture and structures that support it (Mann and Whitworth 2017;Martin and Alborz 2014;Östlund et al. 2021).In sum, one of the most important determining factors for improving teaching and assessment is a leading practice that creates good conditions for collegial professional development and learning, consistent with research on principals' leadership and school improvement (Grissom, Egalite, and Lindsay 2021;Gurr-Mark, Drysdale-George, and Mulford 2010;Hargreaves and Harris 2015).
The manner in which pupils attending SID have been integrated into mainstream schools presents a complex teaching and assessment picture, as two or three curricula and syllabuses may need to be considered by a teacher at the same time, involving a number of professionals from several school types.The Swedish Schools Inspectorate (2017) found that many teachers in mainstream school who taught pupils who were integrated did not understand which curriculum or syllabus a particular student was following, and considered that they did not have the necessary knowledge for teaching such pupils.Further, teachers only had limited collaboration with the variety of professionals within the local school, as well as between the local school and the SID.
Finally, the various ways that principals' management and accountability relate to SID has created unequal preconditions for principals' leading practices.For example, due to school size differences, one and the same principal can be accountable for SID as well as for a mainstream school and leisure education, or for SID only.Consequently, SID principals may be expected to possess good knowledge about several different pupil populations, school years, curricula and syllabuses, and be able to understand and organise collaboration with a mix of professions in different school years with different assignments and school cultures at the same time, sometimes with wide geographical distance.This requires a high level of cooperation between principals in different school types, as they work together to support the needs of pupils.

Study context
The idea for the study reported in this paper started within a principal education programme at a university in Sweden.During an early part of their career, school principals participate in a three-year principal education programme which runs alongside their work.In recent years, a group of principals in their second year of the programme were each given an assignment to identify a specific improvement area within their local schools.They were required to form a design for systematic data gathering to examine their local schools in relation to the identified improvement area, and then analyse their data.Furthermore, principals reflected upon the results in relation to their own leadership and developed a plan for improvement to be initiated in their local schools during the third year of the programme.As part of this process, six principals responsible for compulsory and upper secondary SID were invited to collaborate as part of a professional learning community, supervised by the author and a colleague; the project was analysed by the author as researcher.The principals identified a need for quality improvement in teaching and assessment processes.They worked through all stages in the assignment and their work resulted in individually written reports.This article is based on a contextualised analysis of these reports.

Conceptual framework
This research views the relationship between SID principals, other practices and contexts as mutual and intertwined, shaping one another.It is, therefore, helpful to adopt an organic and ecologic metaphoric perspective, broadly in line, for example, with contingency theory, system theory (Strandli Portfelt 2006) and theory of practice architecture (Kemmis and Grootenboer 2008).While contingency theory centres on how to design the most fitting organisation to balance and reflect changes in the environment, system theory and theory of practice architecture draw attention to the dynamic complexity within a defined system.However, while system theory does not exclude practices, theory of practice architecture has a particular interest in practice, and offers a framework that can be used as an analytical tool to reveal practices.In addition, it is developed and used in the research field of education and focuses on educational practices.Theory of practice architecture was, therefore, selected as the most appropriate theoretical approach to underpin this study.
In theory of practice architecture (Kemmis and Grootenboer 2008), practice is defined as something that happens in a specific context, time and space in relation to a common project.The practice context in this study was SID principals and the project was their influence on teaching and assessment.It follows that the influential factors on these principals' practice were part of the educational complex.Practices are, thereby, viewed as social processes that emerge in the interplay between individuals, cultures and structures produced by historical as well as present processes.As practices are mutually interrelated, they shape one another in an ecology of practice, which is networking rather than hierarchical (Kemmis et al. 2014).Practices are constituted by sayings, doings and relatings (Kemmis et al. 2014), which, in turn, shape and are shaped by surrounding arrangements that precondition practice.Sayings refers to what is said in and about practice, mediated by language, and expresses ideas and understanding of practice shaped by, and shaping, cultural-discursive arrangements.Examples of such arrangements are national as well as local cultures and the culturally specific semantic use of language that ultimately expresses norms and values.Doings refers to what makes actions possible in practice, such as time, space, tools and personnel; shaped by, and shaping, material-economic arrangements such as access to funding, personnel, competencies, buildings, and technical equipment.Relatings refers to the distribution of power and authority and the interrelations between people as well as between people and objects, such as policies and curricula which are shaped by, and shape, social-political arrangements (Wilkinson and Kemmis 2014).Hence, in the study reported below, the arrangements reflect the social, physical and semantic dimensions that together shape principals' practice architecture.When revealing a practice architecture, its enabling as well as constraining characteristics in relation to the project emerge.To influence practice consequently takes more than changing the sayings, doings and relatings: there is a need for principals to understand the practice ecology in which they operate and of which they are a part, how they shape each other, and how they can influence surrounding arrangements (Kemmis et al. 2014).Ultimately, improvement is about the principals' own interpretation of, and interactions with, the purpose of the common project and ecology of practice.
Theory of practice architecture is sometimes regarded as imprecise, as ongoing practice is difficult to identify; it has also been viewed as prescriptive (Nehez and Blossing 2020).It is truly a challenge to identify and describe a multifaceted practice, and the research reported below does not claim to provide a full description.The theory, however, does offer a useful structure through which to understand and interpret practice in a specific school context, and it was this aspect that was considered particularly valuable to the research investigation.The purpose of this study was not prescriptive -rather, it was descriptive, and underpinned by relevant theory.

Purpose
With this contextual and theoretical landscape in mind, the study sought to explore SID principals' influences on teaching and assessment in special education.The research questions were: (1) How are SID principals' influences on teaching and assessment constrained as well as enabled in practice?and (2) How can SID principals increase their influence on teaching and assessment?

Methods
In order to address the study's purpose, a qualitative approach was adopted.The empirical data for in-depth analysis comprised the principals' written reports which had been produced as a part of a principal education programme (as detailed in Study context, above).

Ethical considerations
All data were handled in accordance with good research practice based on the Swedish Research Council's (2017) recommendations.The documents used were all public documents that did not contain personal or sensitive information.All principals gave their consent for the use of the reports in the study.The participating principals were informed of the purpose of the research, and assured that neither their professional nor their personal information would be used in the study.They were assured of confidentiality during the coding and presentation of findings, and it was explained that they could withdraw their consent to participate at any time during the research process.Principals were informed about how data from the study were going to be analysed, used and reported.They were assured that participation was an optional, not an obligatory part of the course, and that it was not related to grading.The findings were reported to participating principals for intersubjectivity and approval before publication, and at this stage they were provided with another opportunity to withdraw their participation.They all remained in the study and encouraged publication.There was no external funding interest involved and no known conflicting ethical issues for the research study.

Data collection
The six participating principals had a variety of SID experience.While some were new to this school type, others had backgrounds as special teachers, having worked within SID for up to 20 years.Whilst four principals worked in different municipalities of differing sizes and contexts, two worked in different schools within the same municipality.The majority led SID only, rather than SID and other school types.The principals' written reports, in Swedish, were collected electronically after the principals had received pass grades in the course.

Data analysis
As explained above, the analytical process was informed by theory of practice architecture research practice (Nehez and Blossing 2020) which underpinned the study's approach.In terms of procedure, the principals' written reports were transferred into a software programme for qualitative analysis, and initially sorted based on relevance.They were then coded into sayings, doings and relatings, according to theory of practice architecture's definitions of cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements (Kemmis et al. 2014), in order to identify the arrangements involved in SID principals' leading practices.Analysis focused on how the arrangements in social, physical and semantic dimensions were interrelated and how they shaped each other.This process was conducted by first analysing the relation of two arrangements at a time, which included three different combinations.Then, the three analysed combinations were integrated and synthesised, which increased the dynamic of complexity and revealed the practice architecture and its emergent properties.In other words, it allowed identification of enabling and constraining characteristics in relation to the SID principals' influences on teaching and assessment, corresponding to the first research question (i.e.How are SID principals´ influences on teaching and assessment constrained as well as enabled in practice?).Based on these findings, the analysis continued by considering how SID principals could influence practice ecology, thereby addressing the second research question (i.e.How can SID principals increase their influence on teaching and assessment?).A copy of a Swedish schools' inspectorate report (The Swedish Schools Inspectorate 2017) was also utilised for reference purposes, as a basis for interpreting the principals' narratives during the data analysis process.

Findings
By using the analytical methods outlined above, it was possible to gain insight into the research questions.In the sections below, an overview of the main findings is presented, followed by more detailed descriptions drawn from the fine-grained analysis of the SID principals' written reports (and, where relevant, the inspectorate report).In line with the study's purpose, the focus throughout the presentation of findings is on articulating and drawing out SID principals' practice architecture rather than on SID principals' individual perceptions; this emphasis is reflected in the present tense narrative style of presentation.Where helpful to highlight key points, selected anonymised quotations from the reports (translated into English from Swedish) have been included.

Overview of findings
Figure 1 presents the practice architecture of SID principals' leading practice, in terms of their influence on teaching and assessment.The figure shows how, according to the analysis, the sayings, doings and relatings are connected to arrangements.These arrangements constitute the SID principals' practice architecture, and are presented with examples of constraining characteristics and enabling characteristics.It is important to note that the characteristics do not emerge until the arrangements are synthesised: they are emergent properties of the dynamic complexity in the practice architecture.The lines depict how different arrangements are interrelated and how they shape each other, and also how they contribute to constrain, or enable, the SID principals' influences on teaching and assessment.
Specifically, constraining characteristics may emerge in practice as a consequence of SID principals' partial focus on what, in their view, is lacking in practices related to SID (e.g. an abdicated steering system, or absence of support material developed nationally).In this scenario, mainstream school tends to be conceptualised as 'the norm', with SID principals organising their SID along the same lines as a mainstream school.The improvement of teaching and assessment may be left to teachers, and paraprofessionals' potential contribution to teaching and assessment might be overlooked.Altogether, this approach reproduces existing practices and provides no incentives for change.In contrast, enabling characteristics may emerge as a consequence of SID principals' embracing of the uniqueness of their educational mission, the inclusion of all professionals in the interpretation of the SID mission, teaching, and assessment.In this scenario, principals use resources to match the mission.For example, they seek to include all professionals in meetings related to teaching and assessment, recognising that they all have particular competencies that may help increase the school's capacity to improve teaching and assessment processes.Hence, this approach enables SID principals to influence teaching and assessment in their school -and, further, creates potential for them to influence practices in the wider practice ecology as well (e.g.other schools in the community).

Constraining arrangements -'chasing the shadow'
According to the analysis, there is a lack of national support material for assessment specifically developed for SID.These conditions shape the local practices of the municipal authorities, which tend not to have such a high level of knowledge about SID compared with mainstream schools.As the municipal authorities' main focus is on mainstream schooling, in order to structure their systematic quality work they primarily use the accessible national support material.There are, however, difficulties involved in relating SID to these mainstream structures.One way for them to handle the discrepancies is to transfer the steering of SID to the principals, as suggested in the principals' reports; another way is to manage SID as if they were mainstream schools.Mainstream schools are, therefore, used normatively.
Local municipal authorities rarely formulate goals or a strategy for how to increase the number of integrated pupils in mainstream school, according to the principals' reports and the inspectorate report.The absence of such goals appears to be motivated by a lack of material-economic resources that would, in any case, have constrained such efforts, and the need to prioritise other types of school.In addition, the staff in SID tend to be overlooked when municipal school leaders organise professional development.There is limited understanding about the purpose of SID, which creates distance between principals and authorities, and between teachers within SID as well as between different local schools.Principals relate to local authorities by adapting their systematic quality work, using templates from mainstream school, and distributing time, space and resources as any mainstream school would do, with a focus on students' results.Time and effort are also spent on finding appropriate support material.When such material is not identifiable, principals allow teachers to use support material from mainstream school and adjust it to the conditions of SID, or generate their own support material.This leads to a variety of material and matrices being used locally.As one principal's report stated: I have tried to press SID into the template of mainstream school, like everyone else.And when there is an absence of supporting mapping material for assessment, teachers create their own matrices.
This variance in materials leads to fragmentation of internal processes.It constrains professional collaboration and limits the creation of a common understanding and the extent to which teaching and assessment processes can be improved.Principals leave the responsibility for quality improvement to teachers.The role of paraprofessionals in educational assignments or in assessment is unclear and unexpressed: as a consequence, they are overlooked in the principals' distribution of time and space for developmental dialogues or professional development opportunities.For example, one principal wrote: Now I see that many of the staff have not had the necessary prerequisites to participate in discussions or assessment dialogue. . . .there is a variety of professionals who have different concerns about their assignment and roles.
As there is no articulated goal from the local school management to increase the number of pupils integrated into mainstream school, it is not considered a priority for principals in mainstream schools.Thus, this limits principals' options for creating spaces for collaboration between schools.The analysis indicated that principals had a focus on the absence of, and call for, nationally created support material which is specifically developed for SID and could be used as guidance to support the quality improvement of assessment processes on all system levels.Such support material is regarded as a necessity to start improving assessment processes.
In all, it is evident from the analysis that the arrangements in social, material and semantic dimensions shape each other.SID principals' practice is characterised by the conceptualisation of mainstream school as 'normative', the use of resources in line with mainstream school patterns, and an emphasis on what is lacking and beyond the control of the SID.All these elements can constrain principals' influences on teaching and assessment: according to this perspective, SID principals are, metaphorically, 'chasing a shadow' that cannot be reached.

Enabling arrangements -'embracing the uniqueness'
The analysis identified how enabling characteristics can emerge as a consequence of a notable shift in principals' perspectives.Specifically, there is an increase of interest in SID from the governmental authorities, with a potential focus on the specific challenges of SID and the development of a range of support material.Principals also become conscious of an emerging research interest.According to the principals' reports, the inspectorate has recently focused more on quality in SID -in particular, on the local work of municipal school management.This has led to an awakening of interest from local school management, which has, in turn, changed the interaction and collaboration between principals and local authorities, who have become curious and eager for more information about SID, willing to learn from principals.Issues related specifically to SID are put on the agenda for meetings where all principals from all school types will attend.
Working together, principals and local school management analyse SID, concluding that the basis for such analysis needs development.The uniqueness of SID is embraced, and the focus shifts from results and grading towards progression and process.The personnel start to form a common understanding, recognising that the systematic, quality work of SID cannot be squeezed into the template of a mainstream school.As a consequence of this insight, the principals problematise and reflect on the consequences of their SID assignment for practice, and decisions about what to really focus on.One principal explained as follows: Now, I believe I have to deal with SID as the complex type of school type it actually is and work from such an understanding.Now I understand that it is not the pupils' results that provide the basis for quality work.Rather, it is the focus on teaching and assessment.
Principals view themselves as potential-shaping agents, influencing the practice of ecology in the direction of a desired future.As the goal is to increase the number of pupils integrated into mainstream schools, time and space are organised for all teachers, across all relevant school types, to participate in professional development and workshops around SID.There is an awareness of the complexity and efforts involved in identifying resources to include paraprofessionals as well.As a principal reflected: They [teachers] underline the importance of all teachers, leisure education teachers and support assistants being included in the discussions. . . . . .as these professions work around the pupils during different parts of the school day and in the leisure education centre.
Organising for the participation of paraprofessionals is challenging, as many students require care to be given during the entire school day.However, principals will still prioritise this, as it is seen as fundamental for the development of the common understanding necessary to improve quality in assessment.Middle leaders (i.e.teachers charged with leading improvement), are used to organise workshops and lead on the improvement of quality in assessment within the local school, under the principals' supervision.The number of interactions increases between local SID and other schools, requiring co-planning and adjustment in relation to other principals' ways of organising time and space.This relates, for instance, to planning for cooperation between schools' middle leaders and all professionals around SID pupils, and the provision of common days for professional development and workshops.Time and space are also distributed, so as to afford professional development for special teachers in how to supervise paraprofessionals in the educational assignment and assessment processes.For the first time, principals ask for teaching schedules and discuss how these relate to the curriculum, thus increasing the awareness of the other professionals in relation to policy.
According to the analysis, embracing the unique mission of SID influences principals' views on support material in the assessment processes.The development of such material is complex, due to the heterogeneous student population.It should be carefully developed locally, in collegial collaboration, related to overall policies and checked in terms of the national equivalency of education in SID.It involves developing a common data collection on the basis of professional judgement, working together across professions and schools, and discovering how to analyse data to improve teaching and assessment.The reports make clear that principals describe themselves as having become more active in these processes.In addition, principals focus on how professionals can collaborate and involve themselves more in analysis, raising professional scientific questions collectively, deepening professional dialogue in order to develop new practice.
Overall, in terms of enabling, the analysis identified how the arrangements in social, material and semantic dimensions shape each other to form SID principals' practices.These are characterised by a focus on relating to the particular mission of SID, the use of resources to organise local SIDs in accordance with the mission, and the use of a professional language.The orchestration of these elements enable SID principals to influence teaching and assessment.

How can SID principals increase their influence on teaching and assessment?
From a theory of practice architecture perspective, changing practice requires change in the surrounding arrangements and within practice ecology (Kemmis et al. 2014).By becoming aware of their practice architecture, it becomes possible for SID principals to change the arrangements to match the enabling characteristics.This, in turn, can influence practices within practice ecology within SID and, potentially, mainstream schools.In particular, this means organising the arrangements to allow distribution of time and space so that professionals can meet within and across schools.In this way, they will be better able to interpret policy, establish clear roles in terms of teaching and assessment, and deepen collaboration.These arrangements need to shape, and be shaped by, a shared professional language and culture, which can increase the improvement capacity of the local SID and, potentially, local mainstream schools; thereby increasing SID principals' influences on teaching and assessment.

Discussion
The aim of the study reported in this paper was to explore SID principals' influences on teaching and assessment in special education.Through an approach underpinned by theory of practice architecture, it was possible to better understand how SID principals' practice can be shaped and also consider how their influences on teaching and assessment might be increased.In this section, the findings and their implications in the context of relevant literature are reflected upon further.
The study highlights how SID principals' influences on teaching and assessment cannot simply occur through the reproduction of arrangements from other schools or settings.This resonates with previous research on principals' leading in general (Wilkinson et al. 2010;Kemmis et al. 2014;Wilkinson and Kemmis 2015) or principals' leadership (Blossing et al. 2015;Fullan 2002Fullan , 2014;;Grissom, Egalite, and Lindsay 2021;Gurr-Mark, Drysdale-George, and Mulford 2010;Hargreaves and Harris 2015).Rather, the potential to influence teaching and assessment lies within the constraining and enabling arrangements which shape, and are shaped by, practices within the practice ecology.The findings uncovered a practice ecology that entailed a high degree of dynamic complexity.It included a number of practices in addition to the SID principals' practice, such as the school management and community authorities, middle leaders, special teachers, and paraprofessionals.Adding to this complexity, it was evident that different practices within the practice ecology tended to interpret the mission of SID differently.
The analysis also drew out the significance of constraining and enabling arrangements.For instance, while constraining arrangements shape practice that keeps different professionals and school types apart, and focuses on an awareness of resource restriction, enabling arrangements shape practice that paves the way for collaboration and professional learning between various professionals and school types, and recognises the influence that lies within professional competencies in and between SID and other local school types.There is, thus, the potential for SID principals to be less constricted by the arrangements.By knowledge about the practice architecture in which they operate, and an understanding of how practices within the practice ecology are interrelated, SID principals can change arrangements and, thereby, change the practice ecology from within.This, in turn, can increase the local improvement capacity of SID and their own influence on teaching and assessment.This may influence the leading of teaching and assessment in other practices beyond SID, which can strengthen the community's school improvement capacity.Through SID principals' leading practice, they can become a driving force for inclusive processes in schools within a community.In all, the research recognises that important determining factors for principals to influence teaching and assessment lie in leading practice that creates good conditions for collegial professional development and learning (Grissom, Egalite, and Lindsay 2021;Gurr-Mark, Drysdale-George, and Mulford 2010;Hargreaves and Harris 2015), including in the context of special education (Mann and Whitworth 2017;Martin and Alborz 2014;Östlund et al. 2021;Sjöqvist et al. 2020).

Limitations and further research
This small, exploratory study used a theory of practice architecture approach to gain understanding and build a picture of the ways in which SID principals' practice can influence teaching and assessment.The findings are not intended to be generalisable: it is acknowledged that the analysis was based on a small number of written reports; the distance of the data from principals' lived practice is recognised.The strength of the study lies in the insights gleaned from the indepth, qualitative analysis of rich data.A participatory action research study on SID principals' leading in terms of their influence on teaching and assessment is recommended as a next step, to increase awareness of how principals' leading in special education emerges in relation to other practices.

Conclusion
This study offers a contribution to the field of educational leadership by focusing on principals' roles as leaders within special education.It sought to explore SID principals' leading practice, specifically in terms of their potential influences on teaching and assessment.It has drawn attention to the importance of SID principals' self-understanding as system players and their potential to influence the practice ecology.Moreover, it highlights how principals leading within special education have the potential to become the driving force for improving teaching and assessment in local schools within a community.Leading within SID evidently entails a high degree of complexity and challenge, as principals work towards inclusion, bridging the boundaries between various professions, special education, mainstream education, the local community, and society at large.However, inclusion is not solely a mission for SID principals practising within special education: rather, it is about all schools' wider mission.Whilst the study focused on SID principals, it is hoped that this research might encourage all school practitioners and educational professionals to increase their awareness that they are an important part of leading inclusive education and can be involved in the improvement of teaching and assessment, irrespective of school type or educational system.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The practice architecture of SID principals' leading practice.