School leadership plays a key role in improving school outcomes, influencing teachers, creating an environment conducive of learning and improving the efficiency and equity of schooling (Pont, Nuche and Moorman, 2008).The principals’ expertise to administrate the school’s inner work, give priority to different activities and to engage all staff members to create prerequisites for a successful learning environment is considered substantial (Day 2007, Robinson, 2011). This study focus on how leadership in three underperforming schools change during three years. The intention with the project was to encourage the principals to change their behavior and become more visible as pedagogical leaders. Instead of focusing on variation between the schools context this presentation focus on the commonalities in the principals’ leadership and what happened when they increased their interest in teaching and learning

Despite the difficulties to measure the school leader’s influence on student’s performances several examples of strategies for school improvement are identified. Timperley (2011), argues that the most of these strategies include a focus on teaching and curriculum. In Sweden the concept pedagogical leadership is used to describe a leadership where principals in dialogue with teachers work to create good prerequisites for teaching, follow the daily processes and connect results and quality to classroom performance. To develop students and school results  learning is necessary collegial learning needs to take place among all actors.(Ärlestig & Tornsen, 2014) Duke (2012) provides examples of activities that can be considered having the specific context in mind: setting priorities; establishing measurable targets; determining first steps and mid-course correction as well as a set of core beliefs. Thus, there is no quick fix or one-size fits all. Each school has to take departure from its unique context and challenges which calls for active and conscious leadership.

In Swedish international comparisons as PISA and the increased number of school inspections create a pressure on the school districts and the individual schools to increase student learning and school results. Low school results are often connected to the schools socioeconomic context. This study is an example of a school improvement project due to low student achievement. It is initiated by the municipality’s superintendent who had launched a local school improvement program. Three schools has been in focus where principals and the deputy superintendent has been engaged to change the schools inner organization and culture by conscious prioritizing conversations and tasks with the aim to strengthen the attention on teaching and learning.

The three schools are situated in three different socio economic contexts where two schools has a high percentage of students with migrant background. All have school results below what could be expected due to the student body composition.  

Ärlestig, & Törnsén. (2014). Classroom observations and supervision - essential dimensions of pedagogical leadership. 28(7), 856-868. International Journal of Educational Management Day, C. (2007). Sustaining the Turnaround: What Capacity Building Means in Practice. International Studies of Educational Administration, 35(3), 39-48. Duke, D. L. (2012). The Judgement of Principals: A Key to Understanding Tough Calls and Instructional Leadership. In B. G. Barnett, A. R. Shoho, & A. Tooms Cyprès (Eds.), The Changing Nature of Instructional Leadership in the 21st Century (pp. 13-32). Charlotte: Information Age Publisher. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42. Pont, B., Nuche, D. and Moorman, H. (2008). Improving School Leadership Volume 2: Case Studies on System Leadership. OECD. Robinson, V. (2011) Student Centered Leadership. NY. Jossey Bass Publications, Timperley, H. (2011) Realizing The Power Of Professional Learning NY. Mcgraw Hill