"Changing the Right Thing Under Fire": Principals’ Challenges in Implementing the Accommodation Policy in Matriculation Examinations During Wartime

"Changing the Right Thing Under Fire": Principals’ Challenges in Implementing the Accommodation Policy in Matriculation Examinations During Wartime | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article "Changing the Right Thing Under Fire": Principals’ Challenges in Implementing the Accommodation Policy in Matriculation Examinations During Wartime David Gal, Chen Schechter, Pascale Benoliel This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9097885/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The October 7 war severely disrupted Israel’s upper secondary education system, undermining learning continuity and the implementation of high-stakes matriculation examinations across diverse regions and communities. In response, the Ministry of Education formulated the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy aimed at preserving fairness and educational stability under conditions of prolonged instability. This study explores how high school principals interpreted and enacted the policy during wartime. Based on 36 semi-structured interviews, the data were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis to explore the challenges, dilemmas, and leadership practices that emerged in this war context. The findings identify three central themes: principals as policy mediators navigating between centralized directives and unequal local realities; dilemmas of fairness and assessment validity amid differential disruptions; and processes of professional learning and sustained transformation in leadership practices. By examining policy enactment under conditions of armed conflict, the study highlights professional judgment as a central mechanism through which principals mediate centralized directives within uneven and rapidly changing school realities, underscoring the need for policy frameworks that enable bounded discretion during prolonged emergencies. Policy enactment Crisis leadership Educational assessment Professional judgment Emergency policy Wartime education Introduction The education system is among the public systems most sensitive to emergencies, being required to sustain functioning under conditions of uncertainty, stress, and prolonged disruption (Harris & Jones, 2020 ). The October 7 war confronted high school principals with an unprecedented reality, including student displacement, teacher mobilization to military reserve duty, uneven regional impact, and severe disruption to learning routines and matriculation examinations. In response, the Ministry of Education formulated the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy aimed at preserving educational continuity, fairness, and equal opportunities (Brookdale JDC Research Center, 2024). Education policy, particularly when developed under emergency conditions, is not enacted technically or uniformly; rather, it undergoes processes of interpretation and adaptation (Priestley et al., 2021), through which principals and other actors assign it local meanings and shape its practical realization. Within this interpretive space, school principals operate as key policy agents, mediating between formal directives, local constraints, and professional values (Aas & Vennebo, 2024 ; Braun et al., 2023 ). Under emergency conditions, this interaction generates acute value-based, pedagogical, and organizational dilemmas, particularly around issues of fairness, equity, and assessment validity (Wyatt-Smith et al., 2022 ). However, despite the centrality of these challenges, empirical research regarding how school principals enact systemic emergency policies during wartime remains limited (Durrani & Ozawa, 2024 ). Accordingly, this study aims to explore how high school principals interpreted and enacted the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy during the October 7 war. The study addresses two research questions: (1) What challenges and dilemmas do principals encounter in implementing the policy during wartime? and (2) How does the interaction between the policy and field conditions shape principals’ managerial practices? By addressing these questions, the study contributes to theoretical understandings of educational policy enactment in extreme contexts, exploring the role of school principals in exercising professional judgment and contextual adaptation as centralized policy directives encounter uneven and rapidly changing school realities during wartime (Braun et al., 2023 ; Harris & Jones, 2020 ). Literature Review Education policy in emergencies: Characteristics and challenges Emergency conditions fundamentally reshape how educational policy is formulated and enacted in practice. Rather than operating as stable technical directives implemented uniformly across education systems, policies enacted during crises function as provisional and evolving frameworks, developed under conditions of uncertainty, time pressure, and incomplete information (Ball et al., 2012 ). As a result, emergency policies are frequently characterized by ambiguity, recurrent revisions, and shifting guidelines, which undermine coherence and reduce the predictability required for consistent system-wide implementation (Harris & Jones, 2020 ; Netolicky, 2020 ). Crises such as wars, pandemics, and natural disasters disrupt education systems in uneven and context-dependent ways, producing markedly differentiated conditions across schools (Mutch, 2015 ). Levels of disruption vary according to geographic location, population displacement, resource availability, and pre-existing structural vulnerabilities. These variations generate highly unequal learning environments, particularly in conflict-affected and prolonged emergency contexts (Cohen et al., 2020 ; Durrani & Ozawa, 2024 ). When emergency policies are insufficiently sensitive to such heterogeneity, they risk treating unequal conditions as comparable, thereby intensifying existing educational disparities and creating tensions between formal policy objectives and lived educational realities (Brück et al., 2019 ). These structural tensions are particularly pronounced in policy domains that rely on comparability and standardization, such as educational assessment (Wyatt-Smith et al., 2022 ). Under conditions of uneven learning continuity, assessment policies face inherent challenges in reconciling equity, validity, and continuity (Skedsmo & Huber, 2025 ). Research on emergency and remote assessment highlights persistent concerns regarding fairness and integrity when standardized assessment models are applied across disrupted learning contexts (Baidoo-Anu et al., 2023). Consequently, assessment outcomes may increasingly reflect contextual disruption rather than students’ actual academic achievement, a pattern documented in studies examining assessment practices in times of systemic disruption (Wyatt-Smith et al., 2022 ). In such contexts, the meaning of assessment validity becomes contested. Traditional assumptions of comparability and stable testing conditions are destabilized when learning opportunities vary significantly across schools (Skedsmo & Huber, 2025 ). Validity can therefore no longer be understood solely as technical accuracy, but must also be considered in relation to contextual fairness and the legitimacy of assessment decisions, particularly in high-stakes settings where outcomes carry long-term consequences (Wyatt-Smith et al., 2022 ). Fairness, equity, and validity in assessment during emergency policy One of the most pronounced challenges of emergency policy implementation concerns educational assessment, where issues of fairness, equity, and validity become particularly acute (Brookhart, 2024 ). Research emphasizes that the interpretation and validity of assessment outcomes depend on equitable and context-sensitive practices, and that diverse learning conditions shape how assessment results should be understood (Skedsmo & Huber, 2025 ). Under emergency conditions, standardized assessment frameworks often struggle to accommodate such variation, increasing the risk that outcomes reflect contextual disruption rather than students’ academic achievement (Wyatt-Smith et al., 2022 ). During emergencies such as war, displacement, and prolonged systemic disruption, learning continuity is frequently interrupted, students’ well-being is compromised, and access to teaching and learning resources becomes uneven (Mutch, 2015 ). Under these conditions, traditional assessment frameworks face substantial challenges in aligning with highly differentiated learning realities, raising concerns about fairness, equity, and equality when assessment practices are rapidly adapted in response to crisis conditions, as documented in research on emergency remote assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic (Baidoo-Anu et al., 2023). Evidence from emergency and conflict-affected education contexts further indicates that non-academic factors, including cognitive and psychosocial difficulties associated with conflict and displacement, are closely linked to reduced learning progress (Anyaegbu et al., 2022 ). Studies from conflict-affected settings also document declines in measured achievement, as exposure to violence and persistent disruption is associated with significant reductions in student performance in core subjects such as reading and mathematics (Galindo-Silva & Tchuente, 2023 ). Together, these findings highlight the profound challenges that emergency conditions pose for ensuring fair, valid, and equitable assessment practices. These findings suggest that in conflict-affected contexts, examination results may conflate academic competence with externally imposed constraints. These assessment challenges create the conditions under which school leaders are required to interpret, mediate, and adapt policy in practice (Ball et al., 2012 ; Mutch, 2015 ). Under such conditions, high-stakes assessments cannot be assumed to function as neutral indicators of merit, thereby intensifying the interpretive and ethical responsibilities of school leaders (Brück et al., 2019 ; Galindo-Silva & Tchuente, 2023 ). Principals' policy mediation: Professional judgment and adaptive leadership Within the interpretive space created by emergency policies, principals exercise active agency as policy mediators, translating systemic directives into situated practice (Aas & Vennebo, 2024 ). This mediation involves assessing policy relevance, interpreting meaning, and adapting directives to local realities, a process intensified under continuous uncertainty, frequent policy changes, and competing demands characteristic of prolonged crisis contexts (Harris & Jones, 2020 ; Netolicky, 2020 ). Research on school leadership during crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrates how principals navigate shifting directives and rely on professional judgment to enact policy within complex and differentiated school environments (Azorín et al., 2020). In assessment contexts, such mediation becomes particularly salient, as standardized policies often struggle to accommodate variation in learning conditions and levels of disruption (Krupar et al., 2024 ). Principals are therefore required to balance systemic expectations for consistency with local needs for flexibility, exercising professional judgment grounded in pedagogical and ethical considerations. Thus, under conditions of prolonged crisis, professional judgment becomes a central mechanism through which educational policy is enacted (Hanhimäki, 2024 ; Mutch, 2015 ), particularly in high-stakes domains such as assessment. When standardized frameworks encounter uneven learning conditions and disruption, assessment validity and fairness cannot be ensured through technical compliance alone (Skedsmo & Huber, 2025 ; Wyatt-Smith et al., 2022 ). In such contexts, principals’ professional judgment plays a critical role in interpreting policy intentions and balancing systemic expectations with ethical and pedagogical considerations, especially in relation to equity for students differentially affected by crisis conditions (Hanhimäki, 2024 ). Overall, the literature positions principals as central policy agents whose role becomes particularly salient under prolonged emergency conditions. Uncertainty, recurring policy modifications, and uneven disruption across schools expand principals’ responsibility for interpreting and mediating policy, especially in high-stakes areas such as assessment (Priestley et al., 2015 ). In such contexts, centrally formulated emergency policies provide only partial guidance, and their practical enactment depends largely on school-level judgment and contextual adaptation. Therefore, although a crisis may strengthen principals' sense of responsibility and initiative at the school level and heighten the need for professional discretion (Harris & Jones, 2020 ; Mutch, 2015 ), it simultaneously embeds their work within broader structural and policy contexts that both shape and constrain their capacity to enact large-scale change (Hallinger, 2018 ). During wartime, supervision and accountability tend to increase, the need for uniformity and stability becomes stronger, and there is often less tolerance for deviation from official guidelines (Ball et al., 2012 ; Braun et al., 2023 ). As a result, principals work within a constrained and often tense environment, where they must balance adapting to rapidly changing local conditions with complying with central policy requirements (Aas & Vennebo, 2024 ). Their role therefore involves a continuous effort to navigate between professional judgment and structural limitations, a tension that is central to policy implementation in times of change (Bellibaş & Karaferye, 2025 ). Within such conditions, intensified accountability reshapes the space of discretion available to school leaders, while policy enactment research reminds us that principals actively interpret and negotiate policy demands within their local settings (Ball et al., 2012 ; Braun et al., 2023 ). Wartime governance thus heightens the structural boundaries within which professional judgment is exercised. From this perspective, exploring how principals interpret and implement policy adaptations in high-stakes examinations during wartime enables an understanding of how these boundaries for action are constructed and navigated within conditions of persistent systemic uncertainty (Priestley et al., 2015 ). Research context: The accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy following the October 7 war The war that erupted following the October 7 events caused extensive disruption to the national education system, including the evacuation of entire communities, prolonged interruptions to learning routines, widespread student and teacher absences, and significant emotional and organizational strain on schools. These conditions created highly unequal learning opportunities across schools, and examination results could no longer be assumed to reflect students’ academic ability (Galindo-Silva & Tchuente, 2023 ). Following October 7, policy implementation occurred amid uncertainty, frequent changes in directives, and marked variation between schools, placing school principals at the center of policy interpretation and enactment (Harris & Jones, 2020 ). In response, the Ministry of Education formulated the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy based on an impact-based classification of schools into affected areas (referred to by the Ministry of Education as "levels of impact"), according to the level of disruption experienced, including proximity to combat zones, community evacuation, and interruption of learning routines (Brookdale JDC Research Center, 2024). This policy context provides the empirical setting for exploring how school-level leaders interpreted and enacted the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy under conditions of prolonged emergency and systemic disruption. Research Method The study was conducted using an interpretive qualitative approach to explore how high school principals interpreted and enacted the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy during the October 7 war. Qualitative inquiry is particularly suitable for investigating sense-making processes through which principals construct meaning, negotiate expectations, and respond to change (Coburn & Penuel, 2016 ). Participants The research sample was selected using purposive sampling, which is appropriate for qualitative studies that seek to explore a phenomenon in depth through participants with relevant knowledge and experience (Ahmad & Wilkins, 2025 ). Within this framework, the study participants comprised 36 high school principals, 22 of them female principals (61%) and 14 male principals (39%). These participants represented the major educational sectors across the country, including Jewish state and state-religious education (n = 33), as well as Arab education (n = 2) and Druze education (n = 1). The principals were drawn from diverse geographic districts, ensuring broad regional representation. Their experience in principalship varied considerably, with an average tenure of approximately 10 years, reflecting substantial professional experience in school leadership. The participating principals led schools included in the Ministry of Education’s accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy for matriculation examinations during the October 7 war. Accordingly, the sample encompassed schools that experienced academic and community disruption. Data collection In accordance with the research questions, which seek to clarify the challenges and dilemmas of school principals in implementing the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy during the October 7 war, and how the encounter between policy and field conditions shapes principalship practices, semi-structured in-depth interviews were employed. This instrument enables understanding of how principals interpreted the directives, what considerations guided them, and how they coped with situations of uncertainty. Sample questions from the interviews include: What are the main challenges you encountered as a principal in implementing the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy during the war? How do you experience your role as a principal during the war in relation to the policy? Given the wartime context, the interview process involved significant coordination challenges, as principals were operating under conditions of uncertainty and multiple competing demands. Consequently, interviews were conducted online via Zoom and lasted between one and one and a half hours each. The study adhered to accepted ethical standards, including principles of informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity, and protection from emotional harm. All participants received a full explanation of the study's objectives, its course, the manner of data use, and their rights, including the option to withdraw at any stage without consequence. Subsequently, they signed an informed consent form approved by the Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Education (Approval No. 14796). To ensure their privacy, all identifying information was removed from interview transcripts, and the names of participants and schools were replaced with codes. Throughout all stages of the data collection process, emphasis was placed on creating a safe and respectful environment that enabled principals to share their experiences during the war. Data analysis Data analysis was conducted using reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke ( 2019 , 2021 ). Interview transcripts were read repeatedly to develop in-depth familiarity with the data and to understand how principals interpreted and enacted the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy during the war. Specifically, each statement was inductively coded according to the aspect of the principals’ perceptions it reflected (Rossman & Rallis, 2012 ). Similar statements were grouped into broader categories, and conflicting data were clarified through ongoing analysis (Richards & Morse, 2013 ). Atlas.ti software supported systematic data management and analysis. Themes were developed through continuous comparison across interviews to ensure analytic coherence and grounding in participants’ accounts. Throughout the analytic process, reflexive awareness was maintained regarding the researchers’ interpretive role and the influence of contextual positioning on theme development. Analytic decisions were documented in an audit trail to enhance credibility and trustworthiness (Nowell et al., 2017 ). Findings Findings are organized around three themes: (1) adaptive leadership amid tensions between policy and local realities; (2) dilemmas of fairness, equity, and assessment validity; and (3) Changes in management practices during the prolonged implementation of the accommodation policy in the matriculation examinations. Adaptive Leadership in the Tension Between Policy and Field This theme draws on the accounts of 34 principals who described navigating tensions between uniform system-level policy and local school realities during wartime. Principals portrayed implementation as requiring interpretation and adaptation to local conditions. While some focused on translating Ministry directives into feasible practices, others framed their role as protecting their school community from directives they viewed as misaligned with local conditions. Across interviews, they referred to making concrete adjustments in implementing the accommodation policy. A recurring pattern concerned anticipatory adaptation in response to ongoing uncertainty. A principal from the Central District explained that, similar to the existing summer examination schedule, she began preparing backup dates for matriculation exams in anticipation of further disruptions: “I think you always need a backup plan… like we have a summer matriculation schedule and a back-up. Now I make sure to prepare alternative dates in advance.” In her description, she explained that she began preparing alternative dates in advance due to ongoing uncertainty. This included revising examination calendars, coordinating with staff in advance, and communicating alternative schedules to students and parents. Similarly, another principal described how staff shortages resulting from military reserve duty required immediate role reallocation. A principal from the Northern District explained how the school’s matriculation coordinator was called to reserve duty during a critical examination period, forcing her to assume the role herself: My matriculation coordinator was in the reserves. It created serious difficulties, so for part of the time I took it on myself… I replaced her in this exam session and that one. Even in the upcoming summer session, I already know I will step back into that role for a few days. In this case, implementation required role substitution and the absorption of additional responsibilities under crisis conditions. She described temporarily reallocating administrative tasks and coordinating examination logistics directly with teachers to ensure continuity. Beyond individual adjustments, principals emphasized the interpretive and dialogical nature of decision-making under these conditions. A principal from the Central District described how this work was enacted in practice: We have strong principalship, stable principalship. We make decisions through dialogue, through listening. Sometimes you need to take what the Ministry of Education requests and translate it to what is actually possible for us, otherwise it does not hold up. Across interviews, principals described engaging in consultation processes following new directives issued by the Ministry of Education, with the aim of reinterpreting how these could be implemented under local constraints such as staff shortages or student displacement. They referred to holding formal meetings, informal staff briefings, and ad hoc consultations as new directives were issued, emphasizing a collaborative decision-making approach among members of the leadership team. A principal from the Central District noted: “There are intuitive decisions, never impulsive ones. It is always a process of thought, of consultation. I ask myself how this directive meets my people, the staff, the students.” In addition to procedural adaptations, eleven principals framed their decisions in terms of broader responsibility toward students, staff, and the wider community. In these accounts, responsibility was described not only as administrative oversight, but also as emotional and communicative stewardship during instability. For instance, a principal from the Northern District described a sense of responsibility that extended beyond the school community: The principal bears a very broad communal responsibility. You are not only managing a school; you are managing an environment. When directives are issued, you must know how to make them accessible to your community, how not to lose trust, and how to maintain a coherent and up-to-date discourse in the face of constant change. Along similar lines, a principal from the Southern District described her commitment to ensuring that students would ultimately sit for their matriculation exams, even amid instability: These are children who have already lost trust in many systems around them… I knew that if the education system also gave up on them, it would mean abandoning them. I told myself: they will reach the matriculation exams. I don’t know if they will pass, but they will get there. She described this decision as part of her responsibility to ensure that students remained engaged in the matriculation process despite instability. Adding to this, a principal from the Central District emphasized the personal responsibility embedded in such autonomy: In the end, it has to be the person who stands there and makes the decision, even when there is no written answer. You are the one who remains with it, with the responsibility, and you have to be able to look people in the eye. Across districts, principals described repeatedly adjusting decisions as conditions shifted, particularly when Ministry guidance was unclear or delayed. They referred to revisiting earlier plans, consulting with staff, and determining what was feasible within their schools. Rather than following a fixed implementation plan, implementation was described as a continuous process of revision and recalibration in response to changing directives and local constraints during wartime. Challenges of Equity, Equality, and Assessment Reliability All 36 principals described significant disparities in learning conditions between schools and regions, noting that these differences complicated assessment practices during the war. Across interviews, disparities in exposure to learning emerged as a central challenge shaping assessment decisions. Equal Opportunities Versus Uniform Assessment In this category, fourteen principals described difficulties in implementing the accommodation policy in the matriculation examinations uniformly across schools, pointing to significant gaps between system-level directives and local learning conditions. A recurring concern among these principals was the tension between formal equality and contextual fairness. For example, a principal from the Northern District explained: I felt it was unfair. Some students had not studied for two months, while others were in school almost the whole time. So how can everyone be assessed in the same way? I asked to be allowed to assess differently, based on an understanding of each individual situation. In my view, this was not a concession, but a correction. She explained that strictly applying the written guidelines would have disadvantaged evacuated students in her school. She emphasized that differential assessment was framed within the school as a response to unequal learning exposure rather than as a relaxation of standards. In contrast, other principals emphasized the importance of maintaining academic rigor despite the disruptions. Principals from the Central and Northern districts described setting limits on the scope of accommodations, resisting expansions they considered educationally unjustified. A principal from the Central District stated: I think the main thing was to tell ourselves that we continue teaching seriously, and continue assessing seriously… not to look for these accommodations too much… We want to create real meaning for the students and not a fake one, because students immediately feel when something is fake. He explained that although accommodations were necessary, he instructed his staff not to lower academic standards, arguing that maintaining rigor helped sustain students and preserve continuity of learning. In contrast, a principal from the Southern District described feeling that the generalized guidelines did not reflect the specific circumstances of her school: The Ministry of Education’s guidelines regarding the accommodations were very clear, but I felt that if I implemented them exactly as written, I would harm some of the students. For example, evacuated students did not receive the same support framework. It was important for me to find a balance to uphold the policy, but also to protect the children. She explained that implementing the directives exactly as conveyed to the field would have harmed her students. Beyond these differing positions, most principals (31 of 36) described introducing internal flexibility in assessment practices in response to uneven learning conditions. These adjustments were typically documented in internal school protocols and communicated to teaching staff through updated assessment guidelines. These adjustments took various forms, including extending deadlines, modifying the weight of assignments, and adapting evaluation procedures to reflect differential access to instruction. Illustrating this approach, a principal from the Central District explained that “we could not pretend everyone had studied under the same conditions,” and therefore chose to provide additional preparation sessions for evacuated students. She described her request to assess students differently as an attempt to respond to unequal learning conditions rather than to lower standards. At the same time, principals also described structural boundaries that limited the scope of permitted flexibility. Three principals explicitly described firm limitations imposed by the Ministry of Education on requests for additional accommodations in the matriculation examinations. Principals described submitting formal requests for additional accommodations, some of which were rejected or only partially approved. Eleven principals reported refusing requests to grant additional exemptions or automatic grade increases for all students. External pressures further complicated these decisions. A principal from the Southern District described the pressure surrounding decisions such as whom to grant accommodations to: “It was very complex: who to prioritize – winter matriculation for grades 10–12 and the parents were on my head…”. He explained that decisions regarding which students would receive priority access to in-school instruction were often accompanied by external pressure and scrutiny. Taken together, the principals described the exercise of professional discretion alongside clearly defined boundaries regarding the scope of accommodations. They noted that while they were able to implement a certain degree of flexibility within the school, some requests for additional accommodations were subject to approval by the Ministry of Education. Three principals explicitly referred to institutional limitations imposed by the Ministry of Education, including the rejection or partial approval of requests. Eight principals described pressures surrounding decisions about student prioritization and the extent of permitted flexibility, and referred to appeals from parents and students regarding the expansion of accommodations. Decision-making was described as occurring within existing regulations and under conditions of oversight and external pressure. Principalship Ethics in Times of Emergency In this category, all 36 principals described situations in which official instructions did not fully match the conditions in their schools, requiring them to decide whether to implement directives immediately or adjust them based on safety concerns and the well-being of students and staff. Across interviews, this tension was framed not only as administrative, but also as moral. An example illustrating this ethical dilemma was reflected in the words of a principal from the Northern District, who described a situation in which she postponed the reopening of the school due to safety considerations: There was a moment when we were asked to reopen the school even though there were not enough protective measures in place. I knew the children needed routine, but I also knew the staff were afraid. I decided to wait two more days, even though I knew this was not exactly in line with the instructions. It felt like the right thing to do, not just the legal one. This distinction between “the right” and “the legal” recurred across accounts, highlighting the moral dimension of decision-making under emergency conditions. Beyond safety considerations, principals also described pressures stemming from parents and students. For example, a principal from the Northern District described academic pressures for additional accommodations in the matriculation examinations from parents and students during this period: There were pressures; parents continued to demand more and more accommodations, and students requested not to sit the examinations at all. I tried to explain that we could not relinquish everything. There is a boundary between sensitivity and the abandonment of pedagogical principles. It was a delicate line between empathy and the preservation of fairness. He described navigating sustained external pressure while attempting to uphold pedagogical boundaries and institutional standards. Similarly, reinforcing the personal dimension of decision-making under these conditions, a principal from the Central District described the sense of personal responsibility she experienced during the crisis: In the end, you feel that you are holding it alone. Of course there were mistakes along the way, but at least they were my mistakes. I felt that I was the order within the chaos. For the students and for the parents, I was the one from whom the messages were sent. There had to be someone standing behind them. In a general public atmosphere where it felt like no one stood behind what they said, this was my responsibility – to manage the entire event. Most principals (34 of 36) described making decisions that required weighing official instructions against safety concerns, parental pressures, and the well-being of staff and students. These decisions were often made under time pressure and in the absence of complete information regarding security conditions or forthcoming Ministry updates. They referred to delaying the implementation of certain directives, holding additional staff meetings before acting, or personally informing parents about controversial decisions. Reinforcing this pattern, a principal from the Southern District noted: "Sometimes there was no clear answer, and you just had to stand behind the decision." In such situations, they described communicating their decisions directly to staff and parents, even when no clear directive was available. In addition to navigating ambiguity, principals also described setting explicit boundaries regarding the scope of permitted flexibility. Most principals (34 of 36) also described coping with pressures from parents and students to expand accommodations or forgo examinations while attempting to maintain pedagogical principles and fairness in assessment. Eleven principals explicitly described setting boundaries within the accommodation policy and refusing requests for additional exemptions or automatic grade increases. In doing so, they sought to balance responsiveness to students’ hardships with the preservation of academic standards and the formal value of the matriculation certificate. Changes in Principalship Practices in Response to Policy Implementation Challenges Thirty-four principals described changes in their managerial practices during the prolonged implementation of the accommodation policy in the matriculation examinations. They referred to shifts in coordination, oversight, and the organization of school work as Ministry directives changed and uncertainty persisted. These changes included reorganizing leadership team responsibilities, increasing consultation processes, and revising internal routines in order to sustain policy implementation under unstable conditions. In some schools, specific team members were assigned responsibility for communication with parents, examination logistics, or staff coordination. Across accounts, these adjustments reflected an ongoing reconfiguration of daily leadership practices rather than isolated managerial decisions. Daily Principalship Practices Under Policy Uncertainty Twenty-three principals described changes in their daily leadership routines as policy directives shifted under unstable conditions. They referred to holding additional meetings, revising task distribution within leadership teams, and consulting staff before making decisions. A recurring pattern involved the institutionalization of structured reflection and coordination within leadership teams. An example of a change in the perception of management was reflected in the words of a principal from the Central District, who described this routine: At the end of every day, the leadership team and I would sit together and ask what worked today and what did not. We learned so much about ourselves… We realized that the small things – how we speak to one another, how we distribute tasks – matter more than any external directive. It changed the way I manage. She described holding daily reflection meetings with the leadership team and updating internal coordination procedures accordingly. She also described documenting daily decisions and updating internal task lists to reflect ongoing adjustments. Along similar lines, a principal from the Northern District described a different form of adaptation: “…This crisis turned me into a leader who listens more. At first, I tried to hold everything myself until I realized that when the staff speak, when we share, a different kind of wisdom emerges. I learned that leadership is not only about knowing, but about knowing how to learn to listen to others.” He described changing his approach to decision-making by involving staff more frequently in discussions and consultations. In addition to increasing consultation, principals also described restructuring internal divisions of responsibility. A principal from the Northern District described redistributing the leadership team’s internal work during the crisis: At first, I tried to manage everything myself because the situation was so chaotic. But very quickly I realized that this was impossible. We divided responsibilities differently - each member of the leadership team took ownership over a specific area. It created more order and reduced the pressure on me. He described the redistribution of managerial responsibilities within the leadership team in response to the increased workload and policy demands. Similar descriptions were echoed by other principals, who noted adjustments in the allocation of roles and the scope of authority within leadership teams during the crisis period. Shifts in Leadership Approaches Eighteen principals described changes in how they organized work and made decisions during the crisis. They referred to letting go of centralized control, increasing reliance on leadership teams, and adopting more collaborative working practices. Whereas the previous section focused on daily routines and coordination practices, this category reflects shifts at the level of leadership orientation and authority. For principals, this shift involved a deliberate move toward greater trust and distributed responsibility. A principal from the Southern District described this change in her approach to leadership: I always saw myself as someone who needed to know everything, to lead, to decide. But during the war, I realized that this did not work. You cannot manage alone when everyone is afraid. I learned to let go, to trust people, to make space for others’ initiatives. I discovered that real leadership was not control, but trust. She described a shift from individual decision-making to greater reliance on staff initiative and shared responsibility. In her account, leadership was reframed as relational and trust-based rather than focused on direct control. However, other principals described a different recalibration of authority under crisis conditions. A principal from the Northern District described an alternative shift in his leadership approach: I involved many people in my decision-making process, but in the end, I made the decision. It was clear to everyone that the final decision was mine; it was not a collective leadership decision. During a crisis, there is no time for endless discussions. In the first two weeks, the decisions were mine, in consultation with a small leadership group. In this account, collaboration coexisted with clear central authority, particularly during the initial and most unstable phase of the crisis. Across the 18 principals who described shifts in leadership approaches, changes were evident in how managerial work, authority, and decision-making were organized during the crisis. These included adjustments to daily routines, redistribution of responsibilities, and shifts in patterns of consultation within leadership teams as policy implementation unfolded under unstable conditions. These descriptions included references to changes in the organization of leadership work under conditions of sustained uncertainty. Discussion The findings highlight how emergency conditions reconfigure the relationships between centralized policy directives and school-level practice. Rather than operating as stable, uniform frameworks, policy directives during the October 7 war were enacted within contexts marked by pronounced heterogeneity, prolonged uncertainty, and significant emotional and organizational strain (Braun et al., 2023 ). Ball et al. ( 2012 ) conceptualize policy enactment as an ongoing practice of interpretation and mediation rather than a linear process of implementation. This perspective is reinforced by crisis research showing how school leaders reshape policy under emergency conditions (Harris & Jones, 2020 ). Importantly, the analysis indicates that under extreme conditions during wartime, policy implementation was shaped less by formal compliance with directives and more by interpretive actions and context-dependent decision-making on the part of school principals (Ball et al., 2012 ). In this regard, the findings point to an expansion of principals’ professional agency, as they were required to balance systemic expectations with responsibility for students, staff, and the overall functioning of the school (Smith & Riley, 2012 ). This pattern is reinforced by research on crisis policy enactment, which shows that during the COVID-19 pandemic school leaders interpreted and enacted policy according to local conditions and the priorities of the school community rather than strictly adhering to centralized mandates (Braun et al., 2023 ). Taken together, these findings extend crisis policy enactment scholarship by illustrating how prolonged emergency conditions intensify principals’ professional agency and position discretionary judgment as a central mechanism of policy enactment under conditions of instability (Braun et al., 2023 ; Priestley et al., 2015 ). The data further suggests that principals engaged in a wide range of interpretive actions, including assessing the relevance of policy guidelines to local realities and making context-sensitive decisions in response to rapidly changing conditions (Braun et al., 2023 ). Harris and Jones ( 2020 ) emphasize that under crisis conditions principals move beyond procedural compliance and engage in continuous sense-making regarding what is feasible and educationally responsible. This interpretive work positions principals as central policy mediators responsible for translating abstract directives into workable practices (Aas & Vennebo, 2024 ; Bellibaş & Karaferye, 2025 ). Such mediation involved ethical consideration, professional judgment, and the development of adaptive managerial practices aimed at sustaining educational stability amid disruption (Othman et al., 2024 ). Aas and Vennebo ( 2024 ) highlight that emergency conditions intensify the interpretive labor of school leaders and reposition them as key agents in translating policy into workable and morally defensible practices (Ball et al., 2012 ). Harris and Jones ( 2020 ) conceptualize leadership under conditions of uncertainty as involving an expansion of principals’ scope of action, requiring them to bridge gaps, exercise professional judgment, provide direction to staff, and develop new working arrangements. Coping with frequent policy changes, information gaps, and sharp disparities between schools further reinforced the need for adaptive leadership, capable of rapid response, priority reorganization, and flexible decision-making, particularly during wartime (Alene, 2025 ). This scholarship also highlights a key tension in crisis leadership: principals are required to respond rapidly to immediate demands while simultaneously maintaining a flexible and innovative mindset to manage ongoing uncertainty (Cohen et al., 2020 ). This dynamic became especially visible in the management of the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy during wartime. Principals described their dual responsibility during wartime as extending beyond technical coordination or procedural compliance. Rather than simply enforcing policy directives, they emphasized listening, collaboration, and attentiveness to the emotional climate of the school community (Harris & Jones, 2020 ). In practice, this meant that policy was not implemented mechanically but interpreted through relational considerations, thus translating accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy into context-sensitive assessment decisions. In this sense, community-oriented leadership became a central mechanism through which policy was enacted rather than merely followed. This interpretation aligns with research studies emphasizing the relational character of leadership in times of crisis (Mutch, 2015 ). A key challenge emerging from the analysis concerns the tension between equal treatment and fairness for students who experienced markedly different levels of disruption. Research from conflict-affected contexts demonstrates that exposure to violent conflict reduces students’ chances of passing high-stakes examinations and negatively affects academic achievement, reflecting patterns of unequal disadvantage (Brück et al., 2019 ). Conflict-related violence has also been associated with significant declines in core test scores such as reading and mathematics (Galindo-Silva & Tchuente, 2023 ). These variations in students’ experiences – including differences in exposure to violence and disruptions to schooling – underscore the limits of uniform policy responses and highlight the ethical and equity–related dimensions of leadership decision-making in crisis contexts (Harris & Jones, 2020 ). The analysis suggests that under emergency conditions, standardized assessment approaches were often insufficient to address the diversity of students’ learning experiences, raising concerns regarding assessment validity and fairness (Baidoo-Anu et al., 2023; Wyatt-Smith et al., 2022 ). In response, principals relied on professional judgment and ethical reasoning to determine when uniform standards could support fairness and when they risked disadvantaging already vulnerable students (Hanhimäki, 2024 ; Harris & Jones, 2020 ). Consistent with policy enactment theory as articulated by Ball et al. ( 2012 ), this process required context–sensitive interpretation of the policy and, in some cases, targeted accommodations in the matriculation examinations aimed at safeguarding educational equity, rather than reliance on technical compliance alone. This interpretation is reinforced by research on social justice leadership, which highlights the role of school leaders in addressing inequities embedded within standardized policies and ensuring equitable opportunities for diverse learners (Kavrayıcı, 2024 ). Bellibaş and Karaferye ( 2025 ) conceptualize policy enactment under crisis conditions as a catalyst for professional learning, reflection, and the ongoing transformation of work processes. This perspective is also reflected in the present findings, which show how the ambiguities and challenges generated by the policy prompted sustained reflection and learning among principals (e.g., Harris & Jones, 2020 ). Emergency conditions have prompted principals to re-examine roles, priorities, and modes of action. This interpretation aligns with research on crisis leadership and broader reflections on the implications of COVID-19 for education, which has emphasized that emergency contexts compel school leaders to adapt practices, refine leadership capacities, and rethink established professional norms (Azorín, 2020 ; Bellibaş & Karaferye, 2025 ), consistent with scholarship framing crises as catalysts for leadership learning and professional change (Harris, 2025 ). Furthermore, the findings suggest that crisis conditions did not only generate professional learning but also reshaped patterns of authority and decision-making within schools. Principals described both expanding collaborative practices and, at times, re-centralizing decision-making authority in order to respond rapidly to urgent demands (Cohen et al., 2020 ; Harris & Jones, 2020 ). This dual movement – toward shared responsibility in some contexts and concentrated authority in others – highlights how crisis leadership involves dynamic recalibration of managerial structures rather than a linear shift toward a single leadership model. Such patterns reinforce the view of policy enactment as a situated and relational process in which leadership configurations are continually adjusted in response to contextual pressures and emergent demands (Aas & Vennebo, 2024 ; Ball et al., 2012 ; Priestley et al., 2015 ). Implications, Limitations and Future Research The present study offers insights into principals’ enactment of education policy during crisis. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, although principals indeed play a central role in policy enactment, focusing solely on principals’ perspectives might be remedied by incorporating additional stakeholders’ voices – including those of teachers, students, and parents – that could provide a more holistic understanding of how policy is interpreted and enacted in practice during wartime crisis (Ball et al., 2012 ; Kavrayıcı, 2024 ). Second, data collection occurred during the crisis and therefore primarily reflected principals’ immediate experiences. Literature on crisis leadership and professional learning suggests that leaders’ roles and practices evolve over time, indicating that longitudinal research could reveal sustained impacts beyond short-term responses (Azorín, 2020 ; Bellibaş & Karaferye, 2025 ). Furthermore, future longitudinal studies may offer insights into the longer-term implications of emergency policy enactment for leadership practice, assessment processes, and organizational adaptation, as suggested by research on policy enactment and agency in contexts of disruption (Braun et al., 2023 ; Netolicky, 2020 ; Priestley et al., 2015 ). Finally, future research could benefit from focused comparative analyses of high-stakes assessment policy enactment in different crisis contexts. For example, examining how school leaders mediated examination policies during the COVID-19 pandemic (Braun et al., 2023 ; Harris & Jones, 2020 ), natural disasters (Mutch, 2015 ), or armed conflicts (Brück et al., 2019 ; Galindo-Silva & Tchuente, 2023 ) could illuminate how varying forms and intensities of disruption shape decisions regarding fairness, flexibility, and accountability in assessment policy (Baidoo-Anu et al., 2023; Wyatt-Smith et al., 2022 ). Such comparisons would enable a more nuanced understanding of how principals negotiate tensions between uniform national assessment frameworks and uneven local learning conditions, consistent with policy enactment theory’s emphasis on contextually mediated interpretation (Ball et al., 2012 ). Rather than treating crisis leadership as a generalized phenomenon, this approach would clarify how specific types of disruption generate distinct dilemmas in assessment policy enactment and professional judgment, thereby refining theoretical insights into leadership agency under conditions of educational instability (Bellibaş & Karaferye, 2025 ; Priestley et al., 2015 ). Theoretical and Practical Contributions This study contributes to the understanding of education policy enactment in crisis contexts by demonstrating how policy is perceived, mediated, and reshaped within schools during conditions of disruption. Consistent with policy enactment theory, the findings show that implementation under crisis conditions relies on professional interpretation and local judgment rather than on technical compliance alone (Ball et al., 2012 ). Principals emerged as adaptive agents who tailored systemic directives to rapidly changing conditions, thereby extending research on adaptive leadership in crisis situations (Harris & Jones, 2020 ; Netolicky, 2020 ). In this sense, the study contributes to contemporary conceptualizations of crisis leadership under wartime conditions as inherently adaptive and reflective (Harris & Jones, 2020 ). The study also contributes to scholarly debates on equity and assessment. While literature on crisis-induced disruption highlights that uniform policies may exacerbate educational inequalities under uneven learning conditions (OECD, 2020 ; UNESCO, 2021 ), the present findings show how such inequalities are negotiated within schools experiencing conflict-related disruption. This suggests that principals were engaged in practices that resonate with social justice imperatives specifically under conditions of conflict and emergency: recognizing and responding to structural inequalities that affect students’ learning experiences and opportunities (Harris & Jones, 2020 ). By adapting assessment practices in response to diverse and unequal learning conditions generated by the war, principals acted to mitigate the reproduction of disadvantage and support more equitable outcomes, aligning their policy enactment with equity and inclusion goals in education during wartime and prolonged crisis (Bellibaş & Karaferye, 2025 ; Chaaban et al., 2025 ). From a practical perspective, the findings suggest that during wartime and prolonged emergency conditions, policy frameworks cannot function merely as predefined regulatory instruments. Rather, they need to actively enable and support school leaders’ professional judgment, as principals are required to make time-sensitive decisions amid persistent uncertainty, emotional strain, and rapidly shifting directives (Harris & Jones, 2020 ; Mutch, 2015 ). The findings suggest that decentralized policy frameworks are particularly important during prolonged emergencies, when uniform directives are often misaligned with uneven local conditions. Enabling bounded discretion within a clear systemic structure supports more equitable and context-sensitive implementation under instability (Braun et al., 2023 ). Finally, the study highlights the importance of pre-existing mechanisms for flexibility, particularly in assessment and organizational procedures. When formally recognized and activated in advance, such mechanisms enhance schools’ capacity to cope with ambiguity, sustain functioning, and protect equity during wartime emergencies (Netolicky, 2020 ). Declarations Author Contribution Editors, Journal of Educational Change March, 2026"Doing the Right Thing Under Fire": Principals’ Challenges in Implementing the Accommodation Policy in Matriculation Examinations During WartimeDear Editors, Enclosed please find the above manuscript that we submitted for editorial review to be considered for possible publication in the Journal of Educational Change. This paper has not been copyrighted, published, or submitted elsewhere.Ethics and research integrityThe study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards for research involving human participants. Ethical approval was obtained from the appropriate institutional review board, and informed consent was secured from all participants. Specifically, as noted in the manuscript, data collection was conducted in multiple stages following approval from the university’s institutional review board and the Israeli Ministry of Education (Approval No. 14796). The authors confirm that ethical guidelines for research and publishing have been fully respected. Declaration of interestThe authors declare that there are no known financial or personal conflicts of interest that could have influenced the work reported in this manuscript.Copyrighted materialThe manuscript does not include any copyrighted material requiring permission for reproduction or adaptation. Therefore, no permissions are appended.Thank you for considering our manuscript. We appreciate your time and look forward to your response.Sincerely,David Gal, Chen Schechter, PhD & Pascale Benoliel, PhD Bio:David Gal, PhD candidate. David’s research interests include school effectiveness, resilience, and crisis leadership. [email protected] Schechter, PhD, Professor, Leadership, Organizational Development and Policy in Education, Faculty of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Chen is the Head of the MOFET National Institute for Research and Development in Education and the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Educational Administration. Chen’s research interests include Leadership Development/Preparation, Educational Change/Reform in Accountability Systems, Collaborative Learning Strategies, and Systems Thinking. [email protected] Benoliel, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Head of the Leadership, Organizational Development, and Policy program, Faculty of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Pascale is the commissioner of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Faculty of Education, Bar-Ilan University. Pascale’s research interests include leadership in educational minority, crisis leadership, team leadership, boundary management, participative leadership, and systems thinking within the educational context. She also focuses on global education governance and cross-cultural and comparative research, combining quantitative and qualitative research. [email protected] References Aas, M., & Vennebo, K. F. (2024). School actors making sense of educational innovation policy. Education Inquiry , 15 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2024.2419472 Ahmad, M., & Wilkins, S. (2025). Purposive sampling in qualitative research: A framework for the entire journey. Quality & Quantity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-02022-5 Alene, A. A. (2025). Secondary school principals’ adaptive leadership practices amid the quality education crisis in Amhara regional state, Ethiopia. Social Sciences & Humanities Open , Article 101349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101349 Anyaegbu, G. N., Carney, C., Howell, H.-J., Zaza, A., & Alaeddin, A. (2022). How cognitive and psychosocial difficulties affect learning outcomes: A study of primary school children in Syria. Journal on Education in Emergencies, 8 (1), 50–75. https://doi.org/10.33682/gr0e-hnjz Azorín, C. (2020). Beyond COVID-19 supernova: Is another education coming? Journal of Professional Capital and Community , 5 (3–4), 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-05-2020-0019 Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ennu Baidoo, S. (2023). Emergency remote assessment practices in higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa during COVID-19. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1221115. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1221115 Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203153185 Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Karaferye, F. (2025). School leadership during times of crisis: A qualitative meta-synthesis. International Journal of Educational Management, 39 (5), 1389–1426. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-06-2025-0450 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11 (4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide . SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X211058251 Braun, A., Ball, S. J., & Maguire, M. (2023). Crisis policy enactment: Primary school leaders’ responses to the Covid-19 pandemic in England. Journal of Education Policy . https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2022.2097316 Brookdale JDC Research Center. (2024). The effects of the Israel–Hamas war on children and youth . Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute. https://brookdale-web.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/files/Israel-Hamas_War_Children_and_Youth.pdf Brookhart, S. M. (2024). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers revisited. Education Sciences, 14 (7), 751. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070751 Brück, T., Di Maio, M., & Miaari, S. H. (2019). Learning the hard way: The effect of violent conflict on student academic achievement. Journal of the European Economic Association, 17 (5), 1502–1537. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvy051 Chaaban, Y., Badwan, K., & Arar, K. (2025). Educational leadership for social justice: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Review of Education, 13 (2), e70077. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70077 Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research-practice partnership in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45 (1), 48-54. Cohen, J., Loeb, S., Miller, L. C., & Wyckoff, J. H. (2020). Policy implementation, principal agency, and strategic action: Improving teaching effectiveness in New York City middle schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42 (1), 134–160. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719893338 Durrani, N., & Ozawa, V. (2024). Education in emergencies: Mapping the global education research landscape in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. SAGE Open, 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241233402 Galindo-Silva, H., & Tchuente, G. (2023). Armed conflict and early human capital accumulation: Evidence from Cameroon’s Anglophone conflict (GLO Discussion Paper No. 1295). Global Labor Organization. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.13070 Hanhimäki, E. (2024). Moral professionalism in the context of educational leadership. In R. Ahtiainen, E. Hanhimäki, J. Leinonen, M. Risku, & A.-S. Smeds-Nylund (Eds.), Leadership in educational contexts in Finland (Vol. 23, pp. 201–216). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37604-7_10 Harris, A. (2025). Crisis leadership: Implications for school leaders . School Leadership & Management , 45 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2025.2515299 Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID-19 – school leadership in disruptive times. School Leadership & Management, 40 (4), 243–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479 Hallinger, P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46 (1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216670652 Kavrayıcı, C. (2024). Social justice leadership in school settings: A qualitative study. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 9 (2), 232–266. https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1431311 Krupar, A., Sabaratnam, M., & Lombard, A. (2024). Measuring learning during crises: Developing and validating a novel instrument. International Journal of Educational Research Open . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2024.100320 Mutch, C. (2015). Leadership in times of crisis: Dispositional, relational and contextual factors influencing school principals’ actions. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14 , 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.06.005 Netolicky, D. (2020). School leadership during a pandemic: Navigating tensions. Journal of Professional Capital and Community , 5 (3–4), 391–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-05-2020-0017 Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 OECD. (2020). Education and COVID-19: Focusing on the long-term impact. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/coronavirus-education-country-notes.htm Othman, S. A., Ibrahim, M. B., Johdi Salleh, M., & Suhailawaty Md Sidek, S. (2024). School leaders’ leadership practices and their influence on crisis-related problem-solving and decision-making: A multi-site case study. IIUM Journal of Educational Studies, 12 (1), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.31436/ijes.v12i1.515 Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic. Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2013). Readme first for a user's guide to qualitative methods. Sage. Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2012). The research journey: Introduction to inquiry . Sage. Skedsmo, G., & Huber, S. G. (2025). Beyond the score: validity, equity, and interpretation in diverse assessment contexts . Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability , 37(2), 163–169 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-025-09459-8 Smith, L., & Riley, D. (2012). School leadership in times of crisis. School Leadership & Management , 32 (1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.614941 UNESCO. (2021). Education in emergencies . UNESCO Publishing. https://www.unesco.org/en/emergencies/education Wyatt-Smith, C., Lingard, B., & Heck, E. (2022). Assessment, equity and accountability in times of disruption . Review of Education, 10 (3), e3376. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3376 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9097885","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":622450554,"identity":"5116be79-a8a6-4eb2-a52e-8c8e34160ace","order_by":0,"name":"David Gal","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bar-Ilan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"David","middleName":"","lastName":"Gal","suffix":""},{"id":622450556,"identity":"3f6d6132-a920-4fd8-918e-66429318d0e7","order_by":1,"name":"Chen Schechter","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bar-Ilan University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chen","middleName":"","lastName":"Schechter","suffix":""},{"id":622450557,"identity":"fc1f61b6-1767-4c02-822b-61fa3cc0afd7","order_by":2,"name":"Pascale Benoliel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bar-Ilan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pascale","middleName":"","lastName":"Benoliel","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-11 20:23:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9097885/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9097885/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106994373,"identity":"33ee4b2c-f70d-4142-9e99-a4d0d1a371ba","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 15:08:06","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":813373,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9097885/v1/7b907f44-44aa-4f52-9221-a0da6ecb280d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\"Changing the Right Thing Under Fire\": Principals’ Challenges in Implementing the Accommodation Policy in Matriculation Examinations During Wartime","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe education system is among the public systems most sensitive to emergencies, being required to sustain functioning under conditions of uncertainty, stress, and prolonged disruption (Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The October 7 war confronted high school principals with an unprecedented reality, including student displacement, teacher mobilization to military reserve duty, uneven regional impact, and severe disruption to learning routines and matriculation examinations. In response, the Ministry of Education formulated the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy aimed at preserving educational continuity, fairness, and equal opportunities (Brookdale JDC Research Center, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation policy, particularly when developed under emergency conditions, is not enacted technically or uniformly; rather, it undergoes processes of interpretation and adaptation (Priestley et al., 2021), through which principals and other actors assign it local meanings and shape its practical realization. Within this interpretive space, school principals operate as key policy agents, mediating between formal directives, local constraints, and professional values (Aas \u0026amp; Vennebo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Under emergency conditions, this interaction generates acute value-based, pedagogical, and organizational dilemmas, particularly around issues of fairness, equity, and assessment validity (Wyatt-Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, despite the centrality of these challenges, empirical research regarding how school principals enact systemic emergency policies during wartime remains limited (Durrani \u0026amp; Ozawa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Accordingly, this study aims to explore how high school principals interpreted and enacted the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy during the October 7 war. The study addresses two research questions: (1) What challenges and dilemmas do principals encounter in implementing the policy during wartime? and (2) How does the interaction between the policy and field conditions shape principals\u0026rsquo; managerial practices? By addressing these questions, the study contributes to theoretical understandings of educational policy enactment in extreme contexts, exploring the role of school principals in exercising professional judgment and contextual adaptation as centralized policy directives encounter uneven and rapidly changing school realities during wartime (Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEducation policy in emergencies: Characteristics and challenges\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmergency conditions fundamentally reshape how educational policy is formulated and enacted in practice. Rather than operating as stable technical directives implemented uniformly across education systems, policies enacted during crises function as provisional and evolving frameworks, developed under conditions of uncertainty, time pressure, and incomplete information (Ball et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, emergency policies are frequently characterized by ambiguity, recurrent revisions, and shifting guidelines, which undermine coherence and reduce the predictability required for consistent system-wide implementation (Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Netolicky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrises such as wars, pandemics, and natural disasters disrupt education systems in uneven and context-dependent ways, producing markedly differentiated conditions across schools (Mutch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Levels of disruption vary according to geographic location, population displacement, resource availability, and pre-existing structural vulnerabilities. These variations generate highly unequal learning environments, particularly in conflict-affected and prolonged emergency contexts (Cohen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Durrani \u0026amp; Ozawa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). When emergency policies are insufficiently sensitive to such heterogeneity, they risk treating unequal conditions as comparable, thereby intensifying existing educational disparities and creating tensions between formal policy objectives and lived educational realities (Br\u0026uuml;ck et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese structural tensions are particularly pronounced in policy domains that rely on comparability and standardization, such as educational assessment (Wyatt-Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Under conditions of uneven learning continuity, assessment policies face inherent challenges in reconciling equity, validity, and continuity (Skedsmo \u0026amp; Huber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Research on emergency and remote assessment highlights persistent concerns regarding fairness and integrity when standardized assessment models are applied across disrupted learning contexts (Baidoo-Anu et al., 2023). Consequently, assessment outcomes may increasingly reflect contextual disruption rather than students\u0026rsquo; actual academic achievement, a pattern documented in studies examining assessment practices in times of systemic disruption (Wyatt-Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn such contexts, the meaning of assessment validity becomes contested. Traditional assumptions of comparability and stable testing conditions are destabilized when learning opportunities vary significantly across schools (Skedsmo \u0026amp; Huber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Validity can therefore no longer be understood solely as technical accuracy, but must also be considered in relation to contextual fairness and the legitimacy of assessment decisions, particularly in high-stakes settings where outcomes carry long-term consequences (Wyatt-Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFairness, equity, and validity in assessment during emergency policy\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne of the most pronounced challenges of emergency policy implementation concerns educational assessment, where issues of fairness, equity, and validity become particularly acute (Brookhart, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Research emphasizes that the interpretation and validity of assessment outcomes depend on equitable and context-sensitive practices, and that diverse learning conditions shape how assessment results should be understood (Skedsmo \u0026amp; Huber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Under emergency conditions, standardized assessment frameworks often struggle to accommodate such variation, increasing the risk that outcomes reflect contextual disruption rather than students\u0026rsquo; academic achievement (Wyatt-Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring emergencies such as war, displacement, and prolonged systemic disruption, learning continuity is frequently interrupted, students\u0026rsquo; well-being is compromised, and access to teaching and learning resources becomes uneven (Mutch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Under these conditions, traditional assessment frameworks face substantial challenges in aligning with highly differentiated learning realities, raising concerns about fairness, equity, and equality when assessment practices are rapidly adapted in response to crisis conditions, as documented in research on emergency remote assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic (Baidoo-Anu et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence from emergency and conflict-affected education contexts further indicates that non-academic factors, including cognitive and psychosocial difficulties associated with conflict and displacement, are closely linked to reduced learning progress (Anyaegbu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Studies from conflict-affected settings also document declines in measured achievement, as exposure to violence and persistent disruption is associated with significant reductions in student performance in core subjects such as reading and mathematics (Galindo-Silva \u0026amp; Tchuente, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Together, these findings highlight the profound challenges that emergency conditions pose for ensuring fair, valid, and equitable assessment practices. These findings suggest that in conflict-affected contexts, examination results may conflate academic competence with externally imposed constraints. These assessment challenges create the conditions under which school leaders are required to interpret, mediate, and adapt policy in practice (Ball et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Mutch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Under such conditions, high-stakes assessments cannot be assumed to function as neutral indicators of merit, thereby intensifying the interpretive and ethical responsibilities of school leaders (Br\u0026uuml;ck et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Galindo-Silva \u0026amp; Tchuente, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePrincipals' policy mediation: Professional judgment and adaptive leadership\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the interpretive space created by emergency policies, principals exercise active agency as policy mediators, translating systemic directives into situated practice (Aas \u0026amp; Vennebo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This mediation involves assessing policy relevance, interpreting meaning, and adapting directives to local realities, a process intensified under continuous uncertainty, frequent policy changes, and competing demands characteristic of prolonged crisis contexts (Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Netolicky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Research on school leadership during crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrates how principals navigate shifting directives and rely on professional judgment to enact policy within complex and differentiated school environments (Azor\u0026iacute;n et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn assessment contexts, such mediation becomes particularly salient, as standardized policies often struggle to accommodate variation in learning conditions and levels of disruption (Krupar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Principals are therefore required to balance systemic expectations for consistency with local needs for flexibility, exercising professional judgment grounded in pedagogical and ethical considerations. Thus, under conditions of prolonged crisis, professional judgment becomes a central mechanism through which educational policy is enacted (Hanhim\u0026auml;ki, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Mutch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), particularly in high-stakes domains such as assessment. When standardized frameworks encounter uneven learning conditions and disruption, assessment validity and fairness cannot be ensured through technical compliance alone (Skedsmo \u0026amp; Huber, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Wyatt-Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In such contexts, principals\u0026rsquo; professional judgment plays a critical role in interpreting policy intentions and balancing systemic expectations with ethical and pedagogical considerations, especially in relation to equity for students differentially affected by crisis conditions (Hanhim\u0026auml;ki, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the literature positions principals as central policy agents whose role becomes particularly salient under prolonged emergency conditions. Uncertainty, recurring policy modifications, and uneven disruption across schools expand principals\u0026rsquo; responsibility for interpreting and mediating policy, especially in high-stakes areas such as assessment (Priestley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In such contexts, centrally formulated emergency policies provide only partial guidance, and their practical enactment depends largely on school-level judgment and contextual adaptation. Therefore, although a crisis may strengthen principals' sense of responsibility and initiative at the school level and heighten the need for professional discretion (Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Mutch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), it simultaneously embeds their work within broader structural and policy contexts that both shape and constrain their capacity to enact large-scale change (Hallinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring wartime, supervision and accountability tend to increase, the need for uniformity and stability becomes stronger, and there is often less tolerance for deviation from official guidelines (Ball et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, principals work within a constrained and often tense environment, where they must balance adapting to rapidly changing local conditions with complying with central policy requirements (Aas \u0026amp; Vennebo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Their role therefore involves a continuous effort to navigate between professional judgment and structural limitations, a tension that is central to policy implementation in times of change (Bellibaş \u0026amp; Karaferye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin such conditions, intensified accountability reshapes the space of discretion available to school leaders, while policy enactment research reminds us that principals actively interpret and negotiate policy demands within their local settings (Ball et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Wartime governance thus heightens the structural boundaries within which professional judgment is exercised. From this perspective, exploring how principals interpret and implement policy adaptations in high-stakes examinations during wartime enables an understanding of how these boundaries for action are constructed and navigated within conditions of persistent systemic uncertainty (Priestley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResearch context: The accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy following the October 7 war\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe war that erupted following the October 7 events caused extensive disruption to the national education system, including the evacuation of entire communities, prolonged interruptions to learning routines, widespread student and teacher absences, and significant emotional and organizational strain on schools. These conditions created highly unequal learning opportunities across schools, and examination results could no longer be assumed to reflect students\u0026rsquo; academic ability (Galindo-Silva \u0026amp; Tchuente, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing October 7, policy implementation occurred amid uncertainty, frequent changes in directives, and marked variation between schools, placing school principals at the center of policy interpretation and enactment (Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In response, the Ministry of Education formulated the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy based on an impact-based classification of schools into affected areas (referred to by the Ministry of Education as \"levels of impact\"), according to the level of disruption experienced, including proximity to combat zones, community evacuation, and interruption of learning routines (Brookdale JDC Research Center, 2024). This policy context provides the empirical setting for exploring how school-level leaders interpreted and enacted the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy under conditions of prolonged emergency and systemic disruption.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted using an interpretive qualitative approach to explore how high school principals interpreted and enacted the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy during the October 7 war. Qualitative inquiry is particularly suitable for investigating sense-making processes through which principals construct meaning, negotiate expectations, and respond to change (Coburn \u0026amp; Penuel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research sample was selected using purposive sampling, which is appropriate for qualitative studies that seek to explore a phenomenon in depth through participants with relevant knowledge and experience (Ahmad \u0026amp; Wilkins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Within this framework, the study participants comprised 36 high school principals, 22 of them female principals (61%) and 14 male principals (39%). These participants represented the major educational sectors across the country, including Jewish state and state-religious education (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;33), as well as Arab education (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2) and Druze education (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1). The principals were drawn from diverse geographic districts, ensuring broad regional representation. Their experience in principalship varied considerably, with an average tenure of approximately 10 years, reflecting substantial professional experience in school leadership. The participating principals led schools included in the Ministry of Education\u0026rsquo;s accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy for matriculation examinations during the October 7 war. Accordingly, the sample encompassed schools that experienced academic and community disruption.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData collection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn accordance with the research questions, which seek to clarify the challenges and dilemmas of school principals in implementing the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy during the October 7 war, and how the encounter between policy and field conditions shapes principalship practices, semi-structured in-depth interviews were employed. This instrument enables understanding of how principals interpreted the directives, what considerations guided them, and how they coped with situations of uncertainty. Sample questions from the interviews include: What are the main challenges you encountered as a principal in implementing the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy during the war? How do you experience your role as a principal during the war in relation to the policy? Given the wartime context, the interview process involved significant coordination challenges, as principals were operating under conditions of uncertainty and multiple competing demands. Consequently, interviews were conducted online via Zoom and lasted between one and one and a half hours each.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study adhered to accepted ethical standards, including principles of informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity, and protection from emotional harm. All participants received a full explanation of the study's objectives, its course, the manner of data use, and their rights, including the option to withdraw at any stage without consequence. Subsequently, they signed an informed consent form approved by the Chief Scientist of the Ministry of Education (Approval No. 14796). To ensure their privacy, all identifying information was removed from interview transcripts, and the names of participants and schools were replaced with codes. Throughout all stages of the data collection process, emphasis was placed on creating a safe and respectful environment that enabled principals to share their experiences during the war.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData analysis was conducted using reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Interview transcripts were read repeatedly to develop in-depth familiarity with the data and to understand how principals interpreted and enacted the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy during the war. Specifically, each statement was inductively coded according to the aspect of the principals\u0026rsquo; perceptions it reflected (Rossman \u0026amp; Rallis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Similar statements were grouped into broader categories, and conflicting data were clarified through ongoing analysis (Richards \u0026amp; Morse, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Atlas.ti software supported systematic data management and analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThemes were developed through continuous comparison across interviews to ensure analytic coherence and grounding in participants\u0026rsquo; accounts. Throughout the analytic process, reflexive awareness was maintained regarding the researchers\u0026rsquo; interpretive role and the influence of contextual positioning on theme development. Analytic decisions were documented in an audit trail to enhance credibility and trustworthiness (Nowell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFindings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings are organized around three themes: (1) adaptive leadership amid tensions between policy and local realities; (2) dilemmas of fairness, equity, and assessment validity; and (3) Changes in management practices during the prolonged implementation of the accommodation policy in the matriculation examinations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAdaptive Leadership in the Tension Between Policy and Field\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis theme draws on the accounts of 34 principals who described navigating tensions between uniform system-level policy and local school realities during wartime. Principals portrayed implementation as requiring interpretation and adaptation to local conditions. While some focused on translating Ministry directives into feasible practices, others framed their role as protecting their school community from directives they viewed as misaligned with local conditions. Across interviews, they referred to making concrete adjustments in implementing the accommodation policy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA recurring pattern concerned anticipatory adaptation in response to ongoing uncertainty. A principal from the Central District explained that, similar to the existing summer examination schedule, she began preparing backup dates for matriculation exams in anticipation of further disruptions: \u0026ldquo;I think you always need a backup plan\u0026hellip; like we have a summer matriculation schedule and a back-up. Now I make sure to prepare alternative dates in advance.\u0026rdquo; In her description, she explained that she began preparing alternative dates in advance due to ongoing uncertainty. This included revising examination calendars, coordinating with staff in advance, and communicating alternative schedules to students and parents.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, another principal described how staff shortages resulting from military reserve duty required immediate role reallocation. A principal from the Northern District explained how the school\u0026rsquo;s matriculation coordinator was called to reserve duty during a critical examination period, forcing her to assume the role herself:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eMy matriculation coordinator was in the reserves. It created serious difficulties, so for part of the time I took it on myself\u0026hellip; I replaced her in this exam session and that one. Even in the upcoming summer session, I already know I will step back into that role for a few days.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this case, implementation required role substitution and the absorption of additional responsibilities under crisis conditions. She described temporarily reallocating administrative tasks and coordinating examination logistics directly with teachers to ensure continuity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond individual adjustments, principals emphasized the interpretive and dialogical nature of decision-making under these conditions. A principal from the Central District described how this work was enacted in practice:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eWe have strong principalship, stable principalship. We make decisions through dialogue, through listening. Sometimes you need to take what the Ministry of Education requests and translate it to what is actually possible for us, otherwise it does not hold up.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross interviews, principals described engaging in consultation processes following new directives issued by the Ministry of Education, with the aim of reinterpreting how these could be implemented under local constraints such as staff shortages or student displacement. They referred to holding formal meetings, informal staff briefings, and ad hoc consultations as new directives were issued, emphasizing a collaborative decision-making approach among members of the leadership team. A principal from the Central District noted: \u0026ldquo;There are intuitive decisions, never impulsive ones. It is always a process of thought, of consultation. I ask myself how this directive meets my people, the staff, the students.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to procedural adaptations, eleven principals framed their decisions in terms of broader responsibility toward students, staff, and the wider community. In these accounts, responsibility was described not only as administrative oversight, but also as emotional and communicative stewardship during instability. For instance, a principal from the Northern District described a sense of responsibility that extended beyond the school community:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe principal bears a very broad communal responsibility. You are not only managing a school; you are managing an environment. When directives are issued, you must know how to make them accessible to your community, how not to lose trust, and how to maintain a coherent and up-to-date discourse in the face of constant change.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlong similar lines, a principal from the Southern District described her commitment to ensuring that students would ultimately sit for their matriculation exams, even amid instability:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThese are children who have already lost trust in many systems around them\u0026hellip; I knew that if the education system also gave up on them, it would mean abandoning them. I told myself: they will reach the matriculation exams. I don\u0026rsquo;t know if they will pass, but they will get there.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eShe described this decision as part of her responsibility to ensure that students remained engaged in the matriculation process despite instability. Adding to this, a principal from the Central District emphasized the personal responsibility embedded in such autonomy:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIn the end, it has to be the person who stands there and makes the decision, even when there is no written answer. You are the one who remains with it, with the responsibility, and you have to be able to look people in the eye.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross districts, principals described repeatedly adjusting decisions as conditions shifted, particularly when Ministry guidance was unclear or delayed. They referred to revisiting earlier plans, consulting with staff, and determining what was feasible within their schools. Rather than following a fixed implementation plan, implementation was described as a continuous process of revision and recalibration in response to changing directives and local constraints during wartime.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eChallenges of Equity, Equality, and Assessment Reliability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll 36 principals described significant disparities in learning conditions between schools and regions, noting that these differences complicated assessment practices during the war. Across interviews, disparities in exposure to learning emerged as a central challenge shaping assessment decisions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEqual Opportunities Versus Uniform Assessment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this category, fourteen principals described difficulties in implementing the accommodation policy in the matriculation examinations uniformly across schools, pointing to significant gaps between system-level directives and local learning conditions. A recurring concern among these principals was the tension between formal equality and contextual fairness. For example, a principal from the Northern District explained:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI felt it was unfair. Some students had not studied for two months, while others were in school almost the whole time. So how can everyone be assessed in the same way? I asked to be allowed to assess differently, based on an understanding of each individual situation. In my view, this was not a concession, but a correction.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eShe explained that strictly applying the written guidelines would have disadvantaged evacuated students in her school. She emphasized that differential assessment was framed within the school as a response to unequal learning exposure rather than as a relaxation of standards. In contrast, other principals emphasized the importance of maintaining academic rigor despite the disruptions. Principals from the Central and Northern districts described setting limits on the scope of accommodations, resisting expansions they considered educationally unjustified. A principal from the Central District stated:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI think the main thing was to tell ourselves that we continue teaching seriously, and continue assessing seriously\u0026hellip; not to look for these accommodations too much\u0026hellip; We want to create real meaning for the students and not a fake one, because students immediately feel when something is fake.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHe explained that although accommodations were necessary, he instructed his staff not to lower academic standards, arguing that maintaining rigor helped sustain students and preserve continuity of learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, a principal from the Southern District described feeling that the generalized guidelines did not reflect the specific circumstances of her school:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe Ministry of Education\u0026rsquo;s guidelines regarding the accommodations were very clear, but I felt that if I implemented them exactly as written, I would harm some of the students. For example, evacuated students did not receive the same support framework. It was important for me to find a balance to uphold the policy, but also to protect the children.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eShe explained that implementing the directives exactly as conveyed to the field would have harmed her students. Beyond these differing positions, most principals (31 of 36) described introducing internal flexibility in assessment practices in response to uneven learning conditions. These adjustments were typically documented in internal school protocols and communicated to teaching staff through updated assessment guidelines. These adjustments took various forms, including extending deadlines, modifying the weight of assignments, and adapting evaluation procedures to reflect differential access to instruction. Illustrating this approach, a principal from the Central District explained that \u0026ldquo;we could not pretend everyone had studied under the same conditions,\u0026rdquo; and therefore chose to provide additional preparation sessions for evacuated students. She described her request to assess students differently as an attempt to respond to unequal learning conditions rather than to lower standards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the same time, principals also described structural boundaries that limited the scope of permitted flexibility. Three principals explicitly described firm limitations imposed by the Ministry of Education on requests for additional accommodations in the matriculation examinations. Principals described submitting formal requests for additional accommodations, some of which were rejected or only partially approved. Eleven principals reported refusing requests to grant additional exemptions or automatic grade increases for all students. External pressures further complicated these decisions. A principal from the Southern District described the pressure surrounding decisions such as whom to grant accommodations to: \u0026ldquo;It was very complex: who to prioritize \u0026ndash; winter matriculation for grades 10\u0026ndash;12 and the parents were on my head\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;. He explained that decisions regarding which students would receive priority access to in-school instruction were often accompanied by external pressure and scrutiny.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, the principals described the exercise of professional discretion alongside clearly defined boundaries regarding the scope of accommodations. They noted that while they were able to implement a certain degree of flexibility within the school, some requests for additional accommodations were subject to approval by the Ministry of Education. Three principals explicitly referred to institutional limitations imposed by the Ministry of Education, including the rejection or partial approval of requests. Eight principals described pressures surrounding decisions about student prioritization and the extent of permitted flexibility, and referred to appeals from parents and students regarding the expansion of accommodations. Decision-making was described as occurring within existing regulations and under conditions of oversight and external pressure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePrincipalship Ethics in Times of Emergency\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this category, all 36 principals described situations in which official instructions did not fully match the conditions in their schools, requiring them to decide whether to implement directives immediately or adjust them based on safety concerns and the well-being of students and staff. Across interviews, this tension was framed not only as administrative, but also as moral. An example illustrating this ethical dilemma was reflected in the words of a principal from the Northern District, who described a situation in which she postponed the reopening of the school due to safety considerations:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThere was a moment when we were asked to reopen the school even though there were not enough protective measures in place. I knew the children needed routine, but I also knew the staff were afraid. I decided to wait two more days, even though I knew this was not exactly in line with the instructions. It felt like the right thing to do, not just the legal one.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis distinction between \u0026ldquo;the right\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;the legal\u0026rdquo; recurred across accounts, highlighting the moral dimension of decision-making under emergency conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond safety considerations, principals also described pressures stemming from parents and students. For example, a principal from the Northern District described academic pressures for additional accommodations in the matriculation examinations from parents and students during this period:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eThere were pressures; parents continued to demand more and more accommodations, and students requested not to sit the examinations at all. I tried to explain that we could not relinquish everything. There is a boundary between sensitivity and the abandonment of pedagogical principles. It was a delicate line between empathy and the preservation of fairness.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHe described navigating sustained external pressure while attempting to uphold pedagogical boundaries and institutional standards. Similarly, reinforcing the personal dimension of decision-making under these conditions, a principal from the Central District described the sense of personal responsibility she experienced during the crisis:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIn the end, you feel that you are holding it alone. Of course there were mistakes along the way, but at least they were my mistakes. I felt that I was the order within the chaos. For the students and for the parents, I was the one from whom the messages were sent. There had to be someone standing behind them. In a general public atmosphere where it felt like no one stood behind what they said, this was my responsibility \u0026ndash; to manage the entire event.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost principals (34 of 36) described making decisions that required weighing official instructions against safety concerns, parental pressures, and the well-being of staff and students. These decisions were often made under time pressure and in the absence of complete information regarding security conditions or forthcoming Ministry updates. They referred to delaying the implementation of certain directives, holding additional staff meetings before acting, or personally informing parents about controversial decisions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReinforcing this pattern, a principal from the Southern District noted: \"Sometimes there was no clear answer, and you just had to stand behind the decision.\" In such situations, they described communicating their decisions directly to staff and parents, even when no clear directive was available. In addition to navigating ambiguity, principals also described setting explicit boundaries regarding the scope of permitted flexibility. Most principals (34 of 36) also described coping with pressures from parents and students to expand accommodations or forgo examinations while attempting to maintain pedagogical principles and fairness in assessment. Eleven principals explicitly described setting boundaries within the accommodation policy and refusing requests for additional exemptions or automatic grade increases. In doing so, they sought to balance responsiveness to students\u0026rsquo; hardships with the preservation of academic standards and the formal value of the matriculation certificate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eChanges in Principalship Practices in Response to Policy Implementation Challenges\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThirty-four principals described changes in their managerial practices during the prolonged implementation of the accommodation policy in the matriculation examinations. They referred to shifts in coordination, oversight, and the organization of school work as Ministry directives changed and uncertainty persisted. These changes included reorganizing leadership team responsibilities, increasing consultation processes, and revising internal routines in order to sustain policy implementation under unstable conditions. In some schools, specific team members were assigned responsibility for communication with parents, examination logistics, or staff coordination. Across accounts, these adjustments reflected an ongoing reconfiguration of daily leadership practices rather than isolated managerial decisions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDaily Principalship Practices Under Policy Uncertainty\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwenty-three principals described changes in their daily leadership routines as policy directives shifted under unstable conditions. They referred to holding additional meetings, revising task distribution within leadership teams, and consulting staff before making decisions. A recurring pattern involved the institutionalization of structured reflection and coordination within leadership teams. An example of a change in the perception of management was reflected in the words of a principal from the Central District, who described this routine:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eAt the end of every day, the leadership team and I would sit together and ask what worked today and what did not. We learned so much about ourselves\u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eWe realized that the small things \u0026ndash; how we speak to one another, how we distribute tasks \u0026ndash; matter more than any external directive. It changed the way I manage.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eShe described holding daily reflection meetings with the leadership team and updating internal coordination procedures accordingly. She also described documenting daily decisions and updating internal task lists to reflect ongoing adjustments. Along similar lines, a principal from the Northern District described a different form of adaptation:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u0026hellip;This crisis turned me into a leader who listens more. At first, I tried to hold everything myself until I realized that when the staff speak, when we share, a different kind of wisdom emerges. I learned that leadership is not only about knowing, but about knowing how to learn to listen to others.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e He described changing his approach to decision-making by involving staff more frequently in discussions and consultations. In addition to increasing consultation, principals also described restructuring internal divisions of responsibility. A principal from the Northern District described redistributing the leadership team\u0026rsquo;s internal work during the crisis:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eAt first, I tried to manage everything myself because the situation was so chaotic. But very quickly I realized that this was impossible. We divided responsibilities differently - each member of the leadership team took ownership over a specific area. It created more order and reduced the pressure on me.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHe described the redistribution of managerial responsibilities within the leadership team in response to the increased workload and policy demands. Similar descriptions were echoed by other principals, who noted adjustments in the allocation of roles and the scope of authority within leadership teams during the crisis period.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eShifts in Leadership Approaches\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEighteen principals described changes in how they organized work and made decisions during the crisis. They referred to letting go of centralized control, increasing reliance on leadership teams, and adopting more collaborative working practices. Whereas the previous section focused on daily routines and coordination practices, this category reflects shifts at the level of leadership orientation and authority.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor principals, this shift involved a deliberate move toward greater trust and distributed responsibility. A principal from the Southern District described this change in her approach to leadership:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI always saw myself as someone who needed to know everything, to lead, to decide. But during the war, I realized that this did not work. You cannot manage alone when everyone is afraid. I learned to let go, to trust people, to make space for others\u0026rsquo; initiatives. I discovered that real leadership was not control, but trust.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eShe described a shift from individual decision-making to greater reliance on staff initiative and shared responsibility. In her account, leadership was reframed as relational and trust-based rather than focused on direct control. However, other principals described a different recalibration of authority under crisis conditions. A principal from the Northern District described an alternative shift in his leadership approach:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI involved many people in my decision-making process, but in the end, I made the decision. It was clear to everyone that the final decision was mine; it was not a collective leadership decision. During a crisis, there is no time for endless discussions. In the first two weeks, the decisions were mine, in consultation with a small leadership group.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this account, collaboration coexisted with clear central authority, particularly during the initial and most unstable phase of the crisis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross the 18 principals who described shifts in leadership approaches, changes were evident in how managerial work, authority, and decision-making were organized during the crisis. These included adjustments to daily routines, redistribution of responsibilities, and shifts in patterns of consultation within leadership teams as policy implementation unfolded under unstable conditions. These descriptions included references to changes in the organization of leadership work under conditions of sustained uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings highlight how emergency conditions reconfigure the relationships between centralized policy directives and school-level practice. Rather than operating as stable, uniform frameworks, policy directives during the October 7 war were enacted within contexts marked by pronounced heterogeneity, prolonged uncertainty, and significant emotional and organizational strain (Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Ball et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) conceptualize policy enactment as an ongoing practice of interpretation and mediation rather than a linear process of implementation. This perspective is reinforced by crisis research showing how school leaders reshape policy under emergency conditions (Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Importantly, the analysis indicates that under extreme conditions during wartime, policy implementation was shaped less by formal compliance with directives and more by interpretive actions and context-dependent decision-making on the part of school principals (Ball et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this regard, the findings point to an expansion of principals\u0026rsquo; professional agency, as they were required to balance systemic expectations with responsibility for students, staff, and the overall functioning of the school (Smith \u0026amp; Riley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). This pattern is reinforced by research on crisis policy enactment, which shows that during the COVID-19 pandemic school leaders interpreted and enacted policy according to local conditions and the priorities of the school community rather than strictly adhering to centralized mandates (Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Taken together, these findings extend crisis policy enactment scholarship by illustrating how prolonged emergency conditions intensify principals\u0026rsquo; professional agency and position discretionary judgment as a central mechanism of policy enactment under conditions of instability (Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Priestley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data further suggests that principals engaged in a wide range of interpretive actions, including assessing the relevance of policy guidelines to local realities and making context-sensitive decisions in response to rapidly changing conditions (Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Harris and Jones (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize that under crisis conditions principals move beyond procedural compliance and engage in continuous sense-making regarding what is feasible and educationally responsible. This interpretive work positions principals as central policy mediators responsible for translating abstract directives into workable practices (Aas \u0026amp; Vennebo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Bellibaş \u0026amp; Karaferye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Such mediation involved ethical consideration, professional judgment, and the development of adaptive managerial practices aimed at sustaining educational stability amid disruption (Othman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Aas and Vennebo (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) highlight that emergency conditions intensify the interpretive labor of school leaders and reposition them as key agents in translating policy into workable and morally defensible practices (Ball et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHarris and Jones (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) conceptualize leadership under conditions of uncertainty as involving an expansion of principals\u0026rsquo; scope of action, requiring them to bridge gaps, exercise professional judgment, provide direction to staff, and develop new working arrangements. Coping with frequent policy changes, information gaps, and sharp disparities between schools further reinforced the need for adaptive leadership, capable of rapid response, priority reorganization, and flexible decision-making, particularly during wartime (Alene, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This scholarship also highlights a key tension in crisis leadership: principals are required to respond rapidly to immediate demands while simultaneously maintaining a flexible and innovative mindset to manage ongoing uncertainty (Cohen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This dynamic became especially visible in the management of the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy during wartime.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrincipals described their dual responsibility during wartime as extending beyond technical coordination or procedural compliance. Rather than simply enforcing policy directives, they emphasized listening, collaboration, and attentiveness to the emotional climate of the school community (Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In practice, this meant that policy was not implemented mechanically but interpreted through relational considerations, thus translating accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy into context-sensitive assessment decisions. In this sense, community-oriented leadership became a central mechanism through which policy was enacted rather than merely followed. This interpretation aligns with research studies emphasizing the relational character of leadership in times of crisis (Mutch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA key challenge emerging from the analysis concerns the tension between equal treatment and fairness for students who experienced markedly different levels of disruption. Research from conflict-affected contexts demonstrates that exposure to violent conflict reduces students\u0026rsquo; chances of passing high-stakes examinations and negatively affects academic achievement, reflecting patterns of unequal disadvantage (Br\u0026uuml;ck et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Conflict-related violence has also been associated with significant declines in core test scores such as reading and mathematics (Galindo-Silva \u0026amp; Tchuente, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). These variations in students\u0026rsquo; experiences \u0026ndash; including differences in exposure to violence and disruptions to schooling \u0026ndash; underscore the limits of uniform policy responses and highlight the ethical and equity\u0026ndash;related dimensions of leadership decision-making in crisis contexts (Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis suggests that under emergency conditions, standardized assessment approaches were often insufficient to address the diversity of students\u0026rsquo; learning experiences, raising concerns regarding assessment validity and fairness (Baidoo-Anu et al., 2023; Wyatt-Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In response, principals relied on professional judgment and ethical reasoning to determine when uniform standards could support fairness and when they risked disadvantaging already vulnerable students (Hanhim\u0026auml;ki, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Consistent with policy enactment theory as articulated by Ball et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), this process required context\u0026ndash;sensitive interpretation of the policy and, in some cases, targeted accommodations in the matriculation examinations aimed at safeguarding educational equity, rather than reliance on technical compliance alone. This interpretation is reinforced by research on social justice leadership, which highlights the role of school leaders in addressing inequities embedded within standardized policies and ensuring equitable opportunities for diverse learners (Kavrayıcı, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBellibaş and Karaferye (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) conceptualize policy enactment under crisis conditions as a catalyst for professional learning, reflection, and the ongoing transformation of work processes. This perspective is also reflected in the present findings, which show how the ambiguities and challenges generated by the policy prompted sustained reflection and learning among principals (e.g., Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Emergency conditions have prompted principals to re-examine roles, priorities, and modes of action. This interpretation aligns with research on crisis leadership and broader reflections on the implications of COVID-19 for education, which has emphasized that emergency contexts compel school leaders to adapt practices, refine leadership capacities, and rethink established professional norms (Azor\u0026iacute;n, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Bellibaş \u0026amp; Karaferye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), consistent with scholarship framing crises as catalysts for leadership learning and professional change (Harris, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the findings suggest that crisis conditions did not only generate professional learning but also reshaped patterns of authority and decision-making within schools. Principals described both expanding collaborative practices and, at times, re-centralizing decision-making authority in order to respond rapidly to urgent demands (Cohen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This dual movement \u0026ndash; toward shared responsibility in some contexts and concentrated authority in others \u0026ndash; highlights how crisis leadership involves dynamic recalibration of managerial structures rather than a linear shift toward a single leadership model. Such patterns reinforce the view of policy enactment as a situated and relational process in which leadership configurations are continually adjusted in response to contextual pressures and emergent demands (Aas \u0026amp; Vennebo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Ball et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Priestley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications, Limitations and Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study offers insights into principals\u0026rsquo; enactment of education policy during crisis. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, although principals indeed play a central role in policy enactment, focusing solely on principals\u0026rsquo; perspectives might be remedied by incorporating additional stakeholders\u0026rsquo; voices \u0026ndash; including those of teachers, students, and parents \u0026ndash; that could provide a more holistic understanding of how policy is interpreted and enacted in practice during wartime crisis (Ball et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Kavrayıcı, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, data collection occurred during the crisis and therefore primarily reflected principals\u0026rsquo; immediate experiences. Literature on crisis leadership and professional learning suggests that leaders\u0026rsquo; roles and practices evolve over time, indicating that longitudinal research could reveal sustained impacts beyond short-term responses (Azor\u0026iacute;n, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Bellibaş \u0026amp; Karaferye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, future longitudinal studies may offer insights into the longer-term implications of emergency policy enactment for leadership practice, assessment processes, and organizational adaptation, as suggested by research on policy enactment and agency in contexts of disruption (Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Netolicky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Priestley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, future research could benefit from focused comparative analyses of high-stakes assessment policy enactment in different crisis contexts. For example, examining how school leaders mediated examination policies during the COVID-19 pandemic (Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), natural disasters (Mutch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), or armed conflicts (Br\u0026uuml;ck et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Galindo-Silva \u0026amp; Tchuente, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) could illuminate how varying forms and intensities of disruption shape decisions regarding fairness, flexibility, and accountability in assessment policy (Baidoo-Anu et al., 2023; Wyatt-Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Such comparisons would enable a more nuanced understanding of how principals negotiate tensions between uniform national assessment frameworks and uneven local learning conditions, consistent with policy enactment theory\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on contextually mediated interpretation (Ball et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Rather than treating crisis leadership as a generalized phenomenon, this approach would clarify how specific types of disruption generate distinct dilemmas in assessment policy enactment and professional judgment, thereby refining theoretical insights into leadership agency under conditions of educational instability (Bellibaş \u0026amp; Karaferye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Priestley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTheoretical and Practical Contributions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to the understanding of education policy enactment in crisis contexts by demonstrating how policy is perceived, mediated, and reshaped within schools during conditions of disruption. Consistent with policy enactment theory, the findings show that implementation under crisis conditions relies on professional interpretation and local judgment rather than on technical compliance alone (Ball et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Principals emerged as adaptive agents who tailored systemic directives to rapidly changing conditions, thereby extending research on adaptive leadership in crisis situations (Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Netolicky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In this sense, the study contributes to contemporary conceptualizations of crisis leadership under wartime conditions as inherently adaptive and reflective (Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study also contributes to scholarly debates on equity and assessment. While literature on crisis-induced disruption highlights that uniform policies may exacerbate educational inequalities under uneven learning conditions (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; UNESCO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), the present findings show how such inequalities are negotiated within schools experiencing conflict-related disruption. This suggests that principals were engaged in practices that resonate with social justice imperatives specifically under conditions of conflict and emergency: recognizing and responding to structural inequalities that affect students\u0026rsquo; learning experiences and opportunities (Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). By adapting assessment practices in response to diverse and unequal learning conditions generated by the war, principals acted to mitigate the reproduction of disadvantage and support more equitable outcomes, aligning their policy enactment with equity and inclusion goals in education during wartime and prolonged crisis (Bellibaş \u0026amp; Karaferye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Chaaban et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a practical perspective, the findings suggest that during wartime and prolonged emergency conditions, policy frameworks cannot function merely as predefined regulatory instruments. Rather, they need to actively enable and support school leaders\u0026rsquo; professional judgment, as principals are required to make time-sensitive decisions amid persistent uncertainty, emotional strain, and rapidly shifting directives (Harris \u0026amp; Jones, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Mutch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The findings suggest that decentralized policy frameworks are particularly important during prolonged emergencies, when uniform directives are often misaligned with uneven local conditions. Enabling bounded discretion within a clear systemic structure supports more equitable and context-sensitive implementation under instability (Braun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, the study highlights the importance of pre-existing mechanisms for flexibility, particularly in assessment and organizational procedures. When formally recognized and activated in advance, such mechanisms enhance schools\u0026rsquo; capacity to cope with ambiguity, sustain functioning, and protect equity during wartime emergencies (Netolicky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eEditors, Journal of Educational Change March, 2026\"Doing the Right Thing Under Fire\": Principals\u0026rsquo; Challenges in Implementing the Accommodation Policy in Matriculation Examinations During WartimeDear Editors, Enclosed please find the above manuscript that we submitted for editorial review to be considered for possible publication in the Journal of Educational Change. This paper has not been copyrighted, published, or submitted elsewhere.Ethics and research integrityThe study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards for research involving human participants. Ethical approval was obtained from the appropriate institutional review board, and informed consent was secured from all participants. Specifically, as noted in the manuscript, data collection was conducted in multiple stages following approval from the university\u0026rsquo;s institutional review board and the Israeli Ministry of Education (Approval No. 14796). The authors confirm that ethical guidelines for research and publishing have been fully respected. Declaration of interestThe authors declare that there are no known financial or personal conflicts of interest that could have influenced the work reported in this manuscript.Copyrighted materialThe manuscript does not include any copyrighted material requiring permission for reproduction or adaptation. Therefore, no permissions are appended.Thank you for considering our manuscript. We appreciate your time and look forward to your response.Sincerely,David Gal, Chen Schechter, PhD \u0026amp; Pascale Benoliel, PhD Bio:David Gal, PhD candidate. David\u0026rsquo;s research interests include school effectiveness, resilience, and crisis leadership. [email protected] Schechter, PhD, Professor, Leadership, Organizational Development and Policy in Education, Faculty of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Chen is the Head of the MOFET National Institute for Research and Development in Education and the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Educational Administration. Chen\u0026rsquo;s research interests include Leadership Development/Preparation, Educational Change/Reform in Accountability Systems, Collaborative Learning Strategies, and Systems Thinking. [email protected] Benoliel, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Head of the Leadership, Organizational Development, and Policy program, Faculty of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Pascale is the commissioner of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Faculty of Education, Bar-Ilan University. Pascale\u0026rsquo;s research interests include leadership in educational minority, crisis leadership, team leadership, boundary management, participative leadership, and systems thinking within the educational context. She also focuses on global education governance and cross-cultural and comparative research, combining quantitative and qualitative research. [email protected]\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eAas, M., \u0026amp; Vennebo, K. F. (2024). School actors making sense of educational innovation policy. \u003cem\u003eEducation Inquiry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2024.2419472\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eAhmad, M., \u0026amp; Wilkins, S. (2025). \u003cem\u003ePurposive sampling in qualitative research: A framework for the entire journey.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eQuality \u0026amp; Quantity.\u003c/em\u003e https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-02022-5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eAlene, A. A. (2025). Secondary school principals\u0026rsquo; adaptive leadership practices amid the quality education crisis in Amhara regional state, Ethiopia. \u003cem\u003eSocial Sciences \u0026amp; Humanities Open\u003c/em\u003e, Article 101349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101349\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eAnyaegbu, G. N., Carney, C., Howell, H.-J., Zaza, A., \u0026amp; Alaeddin, A. (2022). How cognitive and psychosocial difficulties affect learning outcomes: A study of primary school children in Syria. \u003cem\u003eJournal on Education in Emergencies, 8\u003c/em\u003e(1),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e50\u0026ndash;75. https://doi.org/10.33682/gr0e-hnjz\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eAzor\u0026iacute;n, C. (2020). Beyond COVID-19 supernova: Is another education coming? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Professional Capital and Community\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(3\u0026ndash;4), 381\u0026ndash;390. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-05-2020-0019\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eBaidoo-Anu, D., \u0026amp; Ennu Baidoo, S. (2023). Emergency remote assessment practices in higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa during COVID-19. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Education, 8,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eArticle 1221115. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1221115\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eBall, S. J., Maguire, M., \u0026amp; Braun, A. (2012). \u003cem\u003eHow schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203153185\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eBellibaş, M. Ş., \u0026amp; Karaferye, F. (2025). School leadership during times of crisis: A qualitative meta-synthesis. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Management, 39\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1389\u0026ndash;1426. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-06-2025-0450\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11\u003c/em\u003e(4), 589\u0026ndash;597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2021). \u003cem\u003eThematic analysis: A practical guide\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X211058251\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eBraun, A., Ball, S. J., \u0026amp; Maguire, M. (2023). Crisis policy enactment: Primary school leaders\u0026rsquo; responses to the Covid-19 pandemic in England. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Education Policy\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2022.2097316\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eBrookdale JDC Research Center. (2024). \u003cem\u003eThe effects of the Israel\u0026ndash;Hamas war on children and youth\u003c/em\u003e. Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute. https://brookdale-web.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/files/Israel-Hamas_War_Children_and_Youth.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eBrookhart, S. M. (2024). Educational assessment knowledge and skills for teachers revisited. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences, 14\u003c/em\u003e(7), 751. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14070751\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eBr\u0026uuml;ck, T., Di Maio, M., \u0026amp; Miaari, S. H. (2019). Learning the hard way: The effect of violent conflict on student academic achievement. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the European Economic Association, 17\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1502\u0026ndash;1537. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvy051\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eChaaban, Y., Badwan, K., \u0026amp; Arar, K. (2025). Educational leadership for social justice: A systematic review of empirical evidence. \u003cem\u003eReview of Education, 13\u003c/em\u003e(2), e70077. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.70077\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eCoburn, C. E., \u0026amp; Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research-practice partnership in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. \u003cem\u003eEducational Researcher, 45\u003c/em\u003e(1), 48-54.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eCohen, J., Loeb, S., Miller, L. C., \u0026amp; Wyckoff, J. H. (2020). Policy implementation, principal agency, and strategic action: Improving teaching effectiveness in New York City middle schools. \u003cem\u003eEducational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42\u003c/em\u003e(1), 134\u0026ndash;160. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719893338\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eDurrani, N., \u0026amp; Ozawa, V. (2024). Education in emergencies: Mapping the global education research landscape in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. \u003cem\u003eSAGE Open, 14\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241233402\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eGalindo-Silva, H., \u0026amp; Tchuente, G. (2023). \u003cem\u003eArmed conflict and early human capital accumulation: Evidence from Cameroon\u0026rsquo;s Anglophone conflict\u003c/em\u003e (GLO Discussion Paper No. 1295). Global Labor Organization. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.13070\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eHanhim\u0026auml;ki, E. (2024). Moral professionalism in the context of educational leadership. In R. Ahtiainen, E. Hanhim\u0026auml;ki, J. Leinonen, M. Risku, \u0026amp; A.-S. Smeds-Nylund (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eLeadership in educational contexts in Finland\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 23, pp. 201\u0026ndash;216). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37604-7_10\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eHarris, A. (2025). Crisis leadership: Implications for school leaders\u003cem\u003e. School Leadership \u0026amp; Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2025.2515299\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eHarris, A., \u0026amp; Jones, M. (2020). COVID-19 \u0026ndash; school leadership in disruptive times. \u003cem\u003eSchool Leadership \u0026amp; Management, 40\u003c/em\u003e(4), 243\u0026ndash;247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eHallinger, P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. \u003cem\u003eEducational Management Administration \u0026amp; Leadership, 46\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5\u0026ndash;24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216670652\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eKavrayıcı, C. (2024). Social justice leadership in school settings: A qualitative study. \u003cem\u003eResearch in Educational Administration \u0026amp; Leadership, 9\u003c/em\u003e(2), 232\u0026ndash;266. https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1431311\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eKrupar, A., Sabaratnam, M., \u0026amp; Lombard, A. (2024). Measuring learning during crises: Developing and validating a novel instrument. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Educational Research Open\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2024.100320\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eMutch, C. (2015). Leadership in times of crisis: Dispositional, relational and contextual factors influencing school principals\u0026rsquo; actions. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14\u003c/em\u003e, 186\u0026ndash;194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.06.005\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eNetolicky, D. (2020). School leadership during a pandemic: Navigating tensions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Professional Capital and Community\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(3\u0026ndash;4), 391\u0026ndash;395. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-05-2020-0017\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eNowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., \u0026amp; Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eOECD. (2020). \u003cem\u003eEducation and COVID-19: Focusing on the long-term impact.\u003c/em\u003e OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/education/coronavirus-education-country-notes.htm\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eOthman, S. A., Ibrahim, M. B., Johdi Salleh, M., \u0026amp; Suhailawaty Md Sidek, S. (2024). School leaders\u0026rsquo; leadership practices and their influence on crisis-related problem-solving and decision-making: A multi-site case study. \u003cem\u003eIIUM Journal of Educational Studies, 12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 50\u0026ndash;73. https://doi.org/10.31436/ijes.v12i1.515\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003ePriestley, M., Biesta, G., \u0026amp; Robinson, S. (2015). \u003cem\u003eTeacher agency: An ecological approach.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eBloomsbury Academic.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eRichards, L., \u0026amp; Morse, J. M. (2013). \u003cem\u003eReadme first for a user\u0026apos;s guide to qualitative methods.\u003c/em\u003e Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eRossman, G. B., \u0026amp; Rallis, S. F. (2012). \u003cem\u003eThe research journey: Introduction to inquiry\u003c/em\u003e. Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eSkedsmo, G., \u0026amp; Huber, S. G. (2025). Beyond the score: validity, equity, and interpretation in diverse assessment contexts\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eEducational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e, 37(2),\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e163\u0026ndash;169\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-025-09459-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eSmith, L., \u0026amp; Riley, D. (2012). School leadership in times of crisis. \u003cem\u003eSchool Leadership \u0026amp; Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(1), 57\u0026ndash;71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.614941\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eUNESCO. (2021). \u003cem\u003eEducation in emergencies\u003c/em\u003e. UNESCO Publishing. https://www.unesco.org/en/emergencies/education\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli dir=\"LTR\"\u003eWyatt-Smith, C., Lingard, B., \u0026amp; Heck, E. (2022). \u003cem\u003eAssessment, equity and accountability in times of disruption\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReview of Education, 10\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(3), e3376. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3376\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Policy enactment, Crisis leadership, Educational assessment, Professional judgment, Emergency policy, Wartime education","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9097885/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9097885/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe October 7 war severely disrupted Israel\u0026rsquo;s upper secondary education system, undermining learning continuity and the implementation of high-stakes matriculation examinations across diverse regions and communities. In response, the Ministry of Education formulated the accommodation in the matriculation examinations policy aimed at preserving fairness and educational stability under conditions of prolonged instability. This study explores how high school principals interpreted and enacted the policy during wartime. Based on 36 semi-structured interviews, the data were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis to explore the challenges, dilemmas, and leadership practices that emerged in this war context. The findings identify three central themes: principals as policy mediators navigating between centralized directives and unequal local realities; dilemmas of fairness and assessment validity amid differential disruptions; and processes of professional learning and sustained transformation in leadership practices. By examining policy enactment under conditions of armed conflict, the study highlights professional judgment as a central mechanism through which principals mediate centralized directives within uneven and rapidly changing school realities, underscoring the need for policy frameworks that enable bounded discretion during prolonged emergencies.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"\"Changing the Right Thing Under Fire\": Principals’ Challenges in Implementing the Accommodation Policy in Matriculation Examinations During Wartime","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-15 14:28:57","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9097885/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"5a02d619-641b-410f-9c57-3391590305bf","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 15th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-15T14:28:57+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-15 14:28:57","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9097885","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9097885","identity":"rs-9097885","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}