Theoretical framework. Research indicates (Mujis, 2011; OECD, 2012), that leadership has a significant indirect impact on student outcomes, though the school context in shaping leadership is important. In the European Commission Communication “Rethinking Education” (2012) it is stated, that ‘School leadership is second only to teaching among the school-related factors that determine what students learn and how successfully’ (p. 43). In the same document it is also emphasized, that ‘the impact of school leaders tends to be stronger where there is a higher degree of school autonomy’. However ‘Autonomy’ is not ‘autonomy’: in different countries schools have been given decision rights of different extent and in different fields at very different points in time (Altrichter, Heinrich, Soukup-Altrichter, 2014, p. 677). Even within the same country the degree of autonomy of schools can vary depending on education management principles in the region and on how much the school is ready to be autonomous. Autonomous school management is a process, which involves all persons interested in the school activity. The quality of this process and involvement of pupils, parents and teachers determine the expediency of tasks, which are carried out during the course of performing school functions. The school determines whether the development of autonomy will become the process of development of self-governance, or whether it will be only a formal activity (Kubiczek, 2002). The process of school autonomisation is influenced by the perception of leadership as a process, during which school principal as a leader makes impact on the school community in order to achieve common objectives. It can be argued that the main task of the school principal’s leadership by implementation of autonomy given to school is to effectively organize the school community activity in the achievement of the set goals. Therefore, the school principal as a leader must create the right operating conditions, coordinate actions of the school community, and ensure appropriate interpersonal relations at work.

In this context, the following research questions arise: 1) How does school principal’s leadership manifest by implementation of autonomy granted to school in four areas: designing curriculum, managing organisational processes, personnel and financial resources; 2) What barriers emerge for school principal’s leadership by implementationof autonomy granted to school in the areas which were set for the research?

The research objectives:

1)    to reveal how schools implement granted autonomy in designing curriculum, managing organisational processes, personnel and financial resources;

2)    to identify school principal’s leadership expression in implementation of granted autonomy in the areas, which were set for the research;

3) to identify school principal’s leadership barriers in implementation of granted autonomy in the areas, which were set for the research.

1. Altrichter, H., Heinrich, M., Soukup-Altrichter, K. (2014). School Decentralization as a Process of Differentiation, Hierarchization and Selection. Journal of Education Policy 29(5), pp. 675-699. 2. Commission Staff Working Document ‘Supporting the Teaching Professions for Better Learning Outcomes’ (SWD(2012) 347 final) which accompanies the Communication from the Commission ‘Rethinking Education: Investing in Skills for Better Socio-Economic Outcomes’ (2012), pp. 1-65. 3. Kubiczek, B. (2002). Autonomija Szkoly. Jak ja Tworzyc? Jak z neij Korzystac? Poradnik Dyrektora. Opole: Wydawnictwo Nowik. 4. Mujis, D. (2011). Leadership and Organizational Performance: from Research to Prescription? International Journal of Educational Management 25(1), pp. 45-60. 5. OECD ‘Teaching in Focus’ 2012(1), pp. 1-4.