School leaders have an important role to play in relation to the overall purpose of schooling of teaching, learning and upbringing, a role that is actualized in school reforms across Europe and in current calls for the need to build a bridge between pedagogical leadership, curriculum and pedagogical practices (Uljens and Ylimakis 2018). With the last Danish ‘Folkeskole’ reform in 2014 the aim of strengthening pupils’ school wellbeing is placed high up on the agenda of schools, based on the pragmatic presumption that their wellbeing leads to better academic performance “Well-being is as a prerequisite for pupils to become as proficient as they can be” (emu.dk). School leaders are required to take responsibility in the implementation of the school reform, to take leadership in the quality assurance strategies following up on the measurements of pupils’ academic achievements and wellbeing, and to focus more on the core task of schools of teaching and learning and develop pedagogical leadership in relation to this (Danish Ministry of Education 2019). Although the school wellbeing aim predominantly is described as an adjunct to academic performance in the school reform (Carlsson in review), the reform also accentuates wellbeing as an education problem that needs taking care of. Mandatory comparative well-being measurements included in the quality assurance processes taking place between schools, municipalities and the ministry is construed as a means of incentive, control and change in relation to this (Carlsson 2017). Reviews of research on school leadership strategies generally reflect the OECD policy discourses on the role of school leadership in improving knowledge results, focusing on the impact of school leadership on pupils’ academic achievements (see e.g. Soehner and Ryan 2011; Mulford 2013). The literature on school leaders’ roles and strategies in the implementation of school health promotion and health education is focusing on the need for integrating health objectives, policy and activities in the overall visions and goals of learning in the school (see e.g. Dadaczynski and Paulus 2015; Deschesnes et al. 2014; Nordin 2015; Simovska and Prøsch 2015; Samdal and Rowling 2015). However, the role of school leaders in policy shifts emphasising the aim of strengthening school wellbeing as part of a broader policy context linking school leadership, learning and wellbeing has not received sufficient attention. The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of school leadership in the implementation of the school reform of 2014 and, by extension, to address emerging perspectives linking school leadership, learning and wellbeing.

The analysis is drawing on Fenwick and Edwards (2011) distinction between policy intentions, i.e. visions, values, and governance rationales about ‘what works’, and policy enactment, defined as the specific materialization processes that makes certain practices visible. The space for wellbeing in schools and the role of school leaders in relation to strengthening school wellbeing is shaped both by the regulative policy in the school law and the governmental agreements (Danish Ministry of Education 2013; 2919a), and by guideline-based policy such as the guideline for schools work with the wellbeing measurements (Danish Ministry of Education 2019b). The paper first addresses the policy intentions in the regulative and guideline based policy on the role of school leaders in the implementation of the wellbeing aims and measurements, providing the policy context for the analysis of perspectives on school leadership in the school reform. It then addresses which aspects of school leadership practice that is emphasized in the implementation of the reform, drawing on the reports following up on the implementation of the reform (hereunder Winter 2017; Bjørnholt et al. 2019). This part of the analysis is focusing on identifying tensions and challenges between different perspectives on school leadership, and is inspired by key distinctions in school leadership theory, hereunder between pedagogical and strategical oriented, outcomes-oriented and participatory oriented, and instructional and transformational oriented school leadership.

School leaders are, on the one hand expected to exercise pedagogical leadership, drawing on instructional and transformational strategies in their work with teachers. On the other hand, they exercise strategical leadership, and are responsible for leading quality assurance strategies focusing on control and producing results in relation to national and municipality goals. The preliminary findings points to that these two roles, and the responsibilities and tasks connected with these, might be at odds with each other. The prerequisite for the first role is trust and establishing collaborative approaches in practices together with the pedagogical staff, while the second role demands a monitoring, exercise of control, and decision-making that might diminish the pedagogical staff’s trust and engagement. The increase in goal- and result management in the reform is combined with a higher degree of autonomy for school leaders when it comes to the choice of means to reach the goals. In practice, however, there are indications of that municipalities' management of both goals and means have increased, specifically in relation to the quality assurance strategies following up on the measurements of pupils’ academic achievements and school wellbeing. This can point to a potential tension in the balance between autonomy and control in the school leadership role and practice. The tensions between pedagogical and strategical leadership, and between autonomy and control in school leadership, actualizes Knapp and Hoppmanns (2015) argument that there with the introduction of accountability strategies and state-based standard testing and measurements in education is a risk of limiting school leadership to a question of technical efficiency, or as gap-management between state standards and school performance.

Bjørnholt, B. et al. (2019). School leadership under the ‘Folkeskole’-reform (Skoleledelse under folkeskolereformen). VIVE. Carlsson, M. (2017). Wellbeing measurements – as a part of evaluation and quality assurance in the school. In Schultz, A. & von Seelen, J., et al. (eds.) A school in movement. Learning, wellbeing and health. (En skole i bevægelse…), Akademisk Forlag. Carlsson (in review). Reimagining wellbeing in neoliberal times: School wellbeing as an adjunct to academic performance? in McLellan, R., Simovska, V. and Faucher, C. (eds.) Wellbeing and Schooling: Cross Cultural and Cross Disciplinary Perspectives. Springer. Danish Ministry of Education (2013). Agreement on strengthening academic achievement in primary school. (Aftalen om et fagligt løft af folkeskolen fra den 7. juni 2013 (pdf)) Danish Ministry of Education (2019a). Governmental agreement: Academic focus, formation, and freedom - adjustments of the “Folkeskole” to a more open and flexible “Folkeskole” (Faglighed, dannelse og frihed…). Danish Ministry of Education (2019b). The wellbeing measurement. Information and guidance for school managers and pedagogic professionals (Trivselsmålingen…). Dadaczynski, K. and Paulus, P. (2015). Healthy principals - healthy schools? A Neglected Perspective to School Health Promotion. In V. Simovska, & P. McNamarra (Eds.), Schools for health and sustainability: theory, research and practice. Springer. Deschesnes, M., Drouin, N., Tessier, C., & Couturier, Y. (2014). Schools’ capacity to absorb a healthy school approach into their operations – Insights from a realist evaluation. Health Education, 114. Fenwick, T. and Edwards. R. (2011). Considering materiality in educational policy. Messy objects and multiple reals. Educational Theory, Volume 61, Number 6, Knapp, M. and Hoppmann, S. (2016). School leadership as Gap management: School leadership pathways in times of transforming curriculum traditions. Symposium abstract ECER 2016. Nordin, L. (2016). Implementing the health promoting school in Denmark: a case study, Health Education, Vol. 116 No. 1. Samdal, O., & Rowling, L. (2015). Implementation strategies to promote and sustain health and learning in school. In V. Simovska & P. M. McNamara (Eds.), Schools for health and sustainability – Theory,research and practice (pp. 233–252). Dordrecht: Springer. Simovska, V. & Prøsch, Å.K. (2015). Global social issues in the curriculum: perspectives of school principals, Journal of Curriculum Studies, nov. Uljens M. & Ylimaki R. (2018). Bridging Educational Leadership, Curriculum Theory and Didaktik: Non-affirmative Theory of Education. Springer. Winter, S.C. (edt.) 2017. Does school leadership make a difference? Leadership of the implementation of the ‘Folkeskole’-reform (Gør skoleledelse en forskel?), SFI.