Legislative texts and recommendations are representing both legally fixed rights and duties and an overview of the changes in mindset and the terminology of concepts (Bowen, 2009; Prøitz, 2015). School leaders are obliged to follow the law and justify their decisions based on the Education Act (Møller & Skedsmo, 2013). These documents serve furthermore “as reference points for government discourse and are viewed as important sources for analyzing dominant trends and shifts in discursive patterns” (Stenersen & Prøitz, 2022, p. 198). One of these shifts is the powerful movement towards an inclusive school for all. However, the “fuzzy concept of inclusion” has to be included and transferred into practice in different historically developed education systems. Stakeholders of these systems have to interpret the regulations which led to many variations not just internationally, but also in a national frame (Badstieber & Moldenhauer, 2016). Findings have shown that especially school principals play a significant role in the implementation of reforms in general (Abrahamsen & Aas, 2019; Moos et al., 2016) but it is just assumed that they are important actors in the context of inclusive schooling (Badstieber, 2021). This is in conformity with a foregone study, where preliminary results are indicating clearly formulated task allocations for school authorities, while school leaders’ tasks are formulated more accurate just after the year 2001 (Dahle, 2023). Their tasks are furthermore influenced by accountability (Brauckmann & Schwarz, 2012; Moos et al., 2016). However, how these policies are admitted by school principals over time is still a blind spot. On that account, the study asks: How is the discourse of school principals’ leadership autonomy discussed in school leaders’ professional journals in Germany and Norway, regarding the implementation of inclusion policies since 1994?

Leadership autonomy is thereby understood as decision-making, control, and associated responsibilities (Wermke et al., 2022). A study has furthermore shown that a certain amount of autonomy in education is needed to quickly react to different educational needs: “Professionals in public education need a certain scope of action to formulate their decisions in interactions on the reactions of students in their educational day-to-day life” (Wermke et al., 2022, p. 5). Combining these aspects of leadership autonomy with the results of a foregone study about school leaders’ task allocations mentioned in policy documents (Dahle, 2023) will present the groundwork for the discourse analyzed in this study.

The fact of inclusion and its implementation is especially significant for this analysis. Inclusion shall improve the well-being of all people, which is associated with many risks and potential errors on the part of school principals. Taking risks, making mistakes and dealing with the results are topics crucial for the analysis of leadership autonomy (Wermke & Forsberg, 2017).

Since 92 countries agreed on a school for all children during an UNESCO-conference in Salamanca, the year 1994 is chosen as a starting point for the analysis. The conference led to extensive changes not just in schools in general but also in leadership autonomy.

Germany and Norway are interesting to compare due to many similarities in later education reforms with significant impact on educational leadership. However, these reforms are embedded in different educational traditions. Both countries differ in their education system, a bureaucratized tracked in Germany and a comprehensive approach in Norway but resemble each other in their method of system regulation (Wermke & Prøitz, 2021). Comparing these two countries with their different educational traditions, similarities in later education reforms, and an almost contrary approach to inclusive education will lead to a more nuanced picture about leadership autonomy from a comparative perspective.

Professional journals offer an informative background for the analysis of the discourse of principals’ autonomy and changes over the years can be considered (Taddicken, 2019). Partially written from school leaders for school leaders, the journals show furthermore how political implementations arrive in the professional daily work life and how policies are understood and interpreted by school leaders and their associations (Prøitz, 2015). The chosen material presents the interface between intentions (task allocations manifested in laws) and practice (daily school life). Both the German and the Norwegian journal are professional journals for principals and have been published regularly for more than 30 years. For the German part, the journal “Pädagogische Führung” will be examined. It is a journal for school leaders, published in collaboration with school leader unions from several federal states. It is publicized every second month, starting in 1990. “Skolelederen – fagblad for skoleledelse” is the research object for the investigation in Norway. It is published by the school leaders’ association, being released ten times a year. Both journals will be examined from 1994 until today. The analysis will be conducted with content document analysis (Bowen, 2009; Prøitz, 2015) in addition with Bohnsack’s documentary method (Bohnsack et al., 2010). Word counts at the beginning (school leader and inclusion in the respective language) will help to filter out the articles writing most about the topic and therefore present the material. These articles will finally be analyzed with the documentary method approach. It will be investigated, how the magazines are stating the role of principals in the implementation of inclusion policies. In doing so, important tasks from policy documents, not discussed in the journals can be filtered out. Beyond that, Bohnsack’s documentary method reveals with its three steps of interpretation not just what kind of discourse or knowledge is imparted but also how it is communicated (Bohnsack, 2009). This will help revealing altered specifications of school principals’ autonomy.

Since this study is still in its early stages of development, no results can be presented here. However, by the time of the conference, a more detailed conclusion and results will be available. Anyway, on account of the analysis, the study presents how different Education Acts and regulations are received from school leaders over time and place. The results show what policies in various times and contexts implies for school principals in the implementation of schools for all children. Since the analysis is furthermore not just conducted over time but also during an acute crisis like the COVID-19-pandemic, it will reveal challenges principals are facing in their leadership autonomy on long- and short-term issues between autonomy and accountability. The study can finally present an important source for the education of principals and collaboration between school authorities and school leaders and will therefore lead to further research.

Abrahamsen, H. N. & Aas, M. (2019). Mellomleder i skolen. Fagbokforlaget. Badstieber, B. (2021). Inklusion als Transformation?! Eine empirische Analyse der Rekontextualisierungsstrategien von Schulleitenden im Kontext schulischer Inklusion. Julius Klinkhardt. Badstieber, B. & Moldenhauer, A. (2016). Schulleitungshandeln in inklusionsorientierten Schulentwicklungsprozessen. In U. Böing & A. Köpfer (Eds.), Be-Hinderung der Teilhabe. Soziale, politische und institutionelle Herausforderungen inklusiver Bildungsräume (pp. 209 - 219). Verlag Julius Klinkhardt. Bohnsack, R. (2009). Dokumentarische Methode. In R. Buber & H. H. Holzmüller (Eds.), Qualitative Marktforschung. Konzepte – Methoden – Analysen (pp. 319-330). Springer. Bohnsack, R., Pfaff, N., & Weller, W. (2010). Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research. B. Budrich. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative research journal, 9(2), pp. 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 Brauckmann, S. & Schwarz, A. (2012). No time to manage? The trade-off between relevant tasks and actual priorities of school leaders in Germany. International journal of educational management. 29(6), pp. 749-765. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2014-0138 Dahle, C. (2023). Leadership Autonomy in Inclusion Policies – Principals’ Task Allocations in Policy Documents in Germany and Norway [Manuscript in preperation]. Moos, L., Nihlfors, E. & Paulsen, J. M. (2016). Nordic Superintendents: Agents in a Broken Chain. Springer International Publishing. Møller, J. & Skedsmo, G. (2013). Modernising Education: New Public Management reform in the Norwegian education system. Journal of educational administration and history, 45(4), pp. 336-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2013.822353 Prøitz, T. S. (2015). Learning Outcomes as a Key Concept in Policy Documents throughout Policy Changes. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 59(3), pp. 275-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2014.904418 Stenersen, C. & Prøitz, T. S. (2022). Just a Buzzword? The use of Concepts and Ideas in Educational Governance. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 66(2), pp. 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1788153 Taddicken, M. (2019). Analyse von Zeitungsartikeln und Online-Nachrichten. In N. Baur & J. Blasisus (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 1547-1553). Springer. Wermke, W. & Forsberg, E. (2017). The changing nature of autonomy: Transformations of the late Swedish teaching profession. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 61(2), pp. 155-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1119727 Wermke, W., Jarl, M., Prøitz, T. S. & Nordholm, D. (2022). Comparing principal autonomy in time and space: modelling school leaders' decision making and control. Journal of curriculum studies, pp. 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2022.2127124 Wermke, W. & Prøitz, T. S. (2021). Integration, fragmentation and complexity - governing of the teaching profession and the Nordic model. In J. E. Larsen, B. Schulte & F. W. Thue (Eds.), Schoolteachers and the Nordic Model: Comparative and Historical Perspectives. Routledge.