Divergent Paths: Principals’ Responses to Educational Reform in Cambodia

Introduction

Large-scale policy implementation is often mediated by local leadership. This comparative case study examined  how two high school principals' negotiated the compulsory implementation of a national educational reform effort, focusing on how participants adopted fundamentally different approaches based on their individual values. 

Method

Triangulated case study data sources occurred across five field sites and included 13 interviews with reform leaders (N=4), principals (N=5) and assistant principals (N=4), focus groups with teachers (N=5) and students (N=4), and site observations (N=5).

Findings

Thematic analysis revealed starkly divergent leadership trajectories resulting from each principal’s values. Principal One resisted core reform elements, prioritizing visible infrastructure projects over pedagogical changes. Rather than fostering collaboration with his site-based management team, he relied on them primarily for fundraising, while voicing frustration about limited ministry support and teacher buy-in. The outcome was a reform limited to superficial compliance rather than transformative change.

Principal Two, shaped by military service and deep awareness of rural poverty, embraced reforms to serve disadvantaged students. His leadership facilitated cultural shifts from violence to empathy, building trust with teachers, students, and community members. Instructional practice evolved from passive delivery to active engagement. Students reported increased ownership of their learning. These changes extended beyond the classroom, influencing teachers’ and parents’ relationships with children, positioning him as a mentor for other principals.

Implications

Findings suggest reform success is contingent on how school leaders interpret and enact reform within local contexts. Leadership emphasizing trust, empathy, and student well-being fostered sustainable cultural and pedagogical change, while leadership focused on material symbols of progress risked superficial implementation. For education reform in developing or transitional systems, attention must be given to principal preparation, support, and accountability structures that align leadership practices with the relational and instructional aims of reform.