This contribution discusses school leadership during the process of building a school within a profit-driven education company in the context of Swedish compulsory education. We employ material from a longitudinal participatory observation study on the building of a private upper secondary school. The material enables an insight, first of all, into teacher and principal meetings during the first three years of the existence of this school. As defined in the symposium description, can we see clearly that the principals are the women/men in the middle who must mediate and negotiate different interests and perspectives (Lortie, 2009). The question is how they do this. Moreover, the conceptual backbone of the symposium, the autonomy grid, helps to unpack principals’ practice in analytical units that enable us to see what dimensions relate to each other. Even this material enables a comparative point of departure. Firstly, after the second year, the principal changed, which gives us the opportunity to discuss and compare different styles of school leadership. Secondly, due to the longitudinal character of the data, we can examine and compare the principals’ behaviours at different points in time. We observe that the individual teacher’s educational classroom agency is not regulated by the principal at all. However, certain aspects that will be controlled by the school inspectorate are important. Moreover, the results in the national curriculum tests are highly relevant. The principal is the voice and hand of the school owners in relation to the teachers. Thus, the principals act as intermediaries between teachers and owner, but this is not a position in the middle, but closer to the owner. This relates to the previous discussion of the role of principals in the field of tension between teachers and school administrations (Jarl et al., 2012; W. Wermke & Höstfält, 2014). Due to budget issues in the profit-oriented nature of the considered school, the administrative dimension rules over many other domains. Drawing on these findings, we discuss why the role of the principal or rather their leadership is extremely important, but is nevertheless conditioned by the facilities in place and joint arenas for discussions for all stakeholders (see (Hallerström, 2006). Last but not least, it must be clear in which direction the travel goes. A pedagogical organisation needs a certain vision and this vision should be consistent.

Hallerström, H. (2006). Rektorers normer i ledarskapet för skolutveckling. Lund: Lund University. Jarl, M., Fredriksson, A., & Persson, S. (2012). New public management in public education: A catalysts for the professionalisation of Swedish school prinicipals. Public Adminsitration, 90(2), 429-444. Lortie, D. C. (2009). School principal: managing in public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wermke, W., & Höstfält, G. (2014). Contextualising teacher autonomy in time and space. A model for comparing various forms of governing the teaching profession. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 58-80.