Current trends acknowledge that school leadership encounters a lot of challenges. For instance, contextual conditions are central when it comes to examining school leaders’ practices. More precisely, a number of researchers (e.g. Hallinger, 2016; Racherbäumer et al., 2013; Fiege et al., 2011) have presented several factors regarding the connection between school leadership and context. Specifically, they have put forward that investigating school leadership and context could, in fact, explain the variance of student performance between schools, as well as contextualize school performance. At the same time, this connection could help us position schools in the social, cultural and regional context and consider contextual factors’ constellations, especially with regards to the immediate school environment (Schwarz & Brauckmann, 2015).

What’s more on that, research lacks a theoretical foundation and/or a solid conceptual framing on school leadership activities and working hypothesis with regards to the influence of the various school environments, on the actions of school leaders, with regards the contextual features in which they operate (e.g. Leithwood et al. 2010; Leithwood & Levin, 2008). In order to address this issue, this study sought to examine the interplay between context and leadership behaviors/ actions by investigating and comparing two low – performing schools. This kind of schools provides a better understanding about where changes must be made, as well as provide us with an insight perspective on leadership strategies and characteristics (e.g., Flink, 1999; Murphy, 2010). Furthermore, investigating the reasons, which keep this kind of schools from achieving success, we are enabled to reveal specific contextual patterns which might affect schools’ overall performance. In particular, this study aimed to providea more comprehensive and holistic perspective of the effects of school leaders’ involvement on improving the schools’ core routines in two low – performing schools, with good (high socio-economic status) and bad pre-requisites (low socio-economic status). Moreover, we sought to investigate the reasons which simultaneously kept them from achieving success or in other words, suffering failure in relation to the context in which the school leaders have operated. By identifying two low - performing schools, one with good pre-requisites (high SES) and one with low pre-requisites (low SES) this research study sought to answer the following research questions:

(1) What prevents schools leaders from leading their low-performing schools towards higher student achievement in relation to their context?

(2) What kind of characteristics, behaviours and actions are school leaders exercising in those low performing schools?

(3) Which factors led these two schools to underperform?

All of the aforementioned could indeed have important implications for the study of theory and praxis of school leadership. In particular, through this relatively new research area on low – performing schools, school leaders’ characteristics, behaviours and actions could be conceptualized revealing the reasons which affect school organizational performance in relation to the context in which they operate, as well as to provide knowledge on school leaders’ characteristics, behaviours and actions on low-performing school. Finally, it is hoped that through this kind of research it is possible to contextualize European and/or international evidence. In other words, through this study we will be in a position to offer some insights into how we can translate European school leaders’ characteristics and strategies in relation to the low-performing school setting (high SES & low SES), as well as to provide evidence of the connection between the practicing of school leadership in a particular context.

Brauckmann, S. and Pashiardis, P. (2011). A Validation Study of the Leadership Styles of a Holistic Leadership Theoretical Framework. International Journal of Educational Management, 25 (1) 11-32. Fiege, C., Reuther, F., & Nachtigall, C. (2011). Faire Vergleiche? – Berücksichtigung von Kontextbedingungen des Lernens beim Vergleich von Testergebnissen aus deutschen Vergleichsarbeiten. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 1, pp. 133-149. Fink, D. (1999). Deadwood Didn’t Kill Itself: A Pathology of Failing Schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 27(2), 131-141. Hallinger, P. (2016). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Published online on December 02, 1-20. Leithwood, K., & Levin, B. (2008). Understanding and Assessing the Impact of Leadership Development. In J. Lumby, G. Crow, & P. Pashiardis (Eds.), International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of School Leaders (pp. 280-302). New York: Taylor and Francis. Leithwood K., Harris, A. & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading School Turnaround: How Successful Leaders Transform Low-Performing Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Murphy, J. (2010). Nine lessons for turning around failing schools. Phi Delta Kappa, 91(8), 93-97. Pashiardis, P. and Brauckmann, S. (2014). Leadership Styles and School Climate Variables of the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework: An Intimate Relationship? In Pashiardis, P. (Ed.), Modeling School Leadership Across Europe: In Search of New Frontiers (pp. 89-106). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer. Racherbäumer, K., Funke, C., van Ackeren, I., & Clausen, M. (2013). Schuleffektivitätsfoschung und die Frage nach guten Schulen in schwierigen Kontexten. In A. Schulze, & R. Becker (eds.), Bildungskontexte. Strukturelle Voraussetzungen und Ursachen ungleicher Bildungschancen (pp. 239-267). Wiesbaden: Springer. Schwarz, A. & Brauckmann, S. (2015). Between facts and perceptions: The area close to school as a context factor in school leadership. Schumpeter Discussion Papers, No. 2015-003, University of Wuppertal. Available at: http://elpub.bib.uniwuppertal.de/edocs/dokumente/fbb/wirtschaftswissenschaft/sdp/sdp15/sdp15003.pdf