In comparison with their peers in many other countries, school leaders in Germany have traditionally speaking limited decision-making power due to Germany's bureaucratic traditions and the institution of educational autonomy which places the full responsibility of teaching on each teacher. Therefore they had restricted authority over staff employment and dismissal, they had limited influence on the schools' curricula (non on the state curriculum, only through the enacted one on school site level), and they had very limited control over financial resources. However, there have been policy reforms over the last 15 years to change this situation and to shift responsibilities from state level to the school site level and from the individual level to the organizational level. Germany experienced a focus from macro and micro level to meso level with an uplift on school site school leadership. School leaders seem to be involved and responsible for everything. Document analysis shows that all policies refer to the central role of school leaders for policy translation and implementation. All states in Germany move towards New Public Management but in different degree and slowly. The degree of decision-making power as well as the resources located to the school varies from state to state. Generally speaking, and in particular when comparing Germany with other OECD countries, New Public Management is not as widely implemented as in some other countries but the role and the possible formal influence on assuring and increasing the quality of schools has strongly increased (besides informal influence through particular forms of leadership actions). School leadership has become more crucial and complex than ever before. Job expectations were formulated, training and development as well as qualification opportunities were expanded quantitatively and qualitatively speaking. Measures of quality management like student assessment, school inspection and other forms of expectation setting were implemented. As a result, school leaders’ practices and their work effectiveness and efficiency have become a major concern for policy makers and educational authorities. Their health, resilience and well- being have become a major concern for school leader associations and for some authorities as well, particular in one state where 25% of the school leaders were identified as being in a risk group (whereas other countries this group was only 10%). Germany experiences a drop in job applications on school leadership positions and marketing positions and selecting school leaders is another (emerging) issue.

Döbert, H. and Sroka, W. (eds) (2004). Features of School Systems. A Comparison of Schooling in Six Countries. Münster: Waxmann. Döbert, H., Klieme, E. and Sroka, W. (eds) (2004). Conditions of School Performance in Seven Countries. A Quest for Understanding the International Variation of PISA Results. Münster: Waxmann. Heinrich, M. (2007). Governance in der Schulentwicklung. Von der Autonomie zur evaluationsbasierten Steuerung. Wiesbaden: VS. Huber, S.G. (2011). Research on Principals in the German Speaking Countries. In O. Johansson (eds) Rektor – En Forskningsöversikt 2000– 2010 (pp. 230–254). Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. Huber, S.G. (ed.) (2012). Jahrbuch Schulleitung 2012. Befunde und Impulse zu den Handlungsfeldern des Schulmanagements. Köln: Carl Link. Huber, S.G. (2013). Forschung zu Belastung und Beanspruchung von Schulleitung.In S.G. Huber (ed.) Jahrbuch Schulleitung 2013. Befunde und Impulse zu den Handlungsfeldern des Schulmanagements (pp. 222–240). Köln: Wolters Kluwer Deutschland. Moos, L. (2005). How do schools bridge the gap between external demands for accountability and the need for internal trust? Journal of Educational Change, 6(4), 307–328.