Principals in Sweden as well as internationally face a complex reality with many different policy expectations. As pedagogical leaders and heads of schools, principals are to meet policy demands for improved school results and to be accountable for students’ and teachers’ performance. A leadership which directly or indirectly enhances students’ performance and school results is thus expected. However, for teachers to talk about curriculum and instruction is a rarity in many schools (Glickman, 2009). In Sweden, principals and teachers by tradition have a ‘silent agreement’  where the teachers autonomously manage their own performances and classroom activities while principals administer more general issues. Teachers claim that they lack professional feedback and conversations with their principals about teaching and learning issues (Ärlestig, 2008). Principals’ scarce involvement in classroom quality is often explained by too much administrative work. An alternative explanation might be a lack of knowledge and training in acting as a pedagogical leader. This suggests that with more and new knowledge principals may be able to increase their capacity as pedagogical leaders and implicitly contribute to students outcomes to a higher extent. Pedagogical leadership is a Nordic leadership concept with many definitions. Most of them include a focus on curriculum, learning and a dialogical approach ( Møller, 2007, Törnsen, 2009, Ärlestig, 2008). 

School leadership is the second most important variable inside school that explains students’ success. Principals have an indirect effect on student learning and outcomes through influencing the state of things inside schools. Only teachers have a greater influence on students’ results. An OECD-report‘Improving school leadership’, as well as national reforms currently point towards a changed leadership role where principals are supposed to actively work with the quality of teaching and learning. In the report a need is identified to redefine the school leadership responsibilities for improved learning. This is to be achieved by ensuring that roles and responsibilities associated with improved learning outcomes are at the core of school leadership practice. Principal leadership in relation to teacher capacity and the instructional core of schooling taking place in classrooms are productive ways for principals to have an impact on student learning and achievement.  Elmore claims that ‘necessary conditions for school leaders’ success in the future will be their capacity to improve the quality of instructional practice’ (Elmore, 2008, p. 42). According to Robinson (2008), instructional leadership makes a significant difference in student outcomes through the focus on teachers and the quality of instruction and thereby pays attention to the core of schooling. In sum, supporting teachers in their work with student requires enhanced skills as supervisor and pedagogical leader.

Elmore, R. F. (2008). Leadership as the practice of improvement. In B. Pont, D. Nusche & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Improving School Leadership Case studies on system leadership (Vol. 2): OECDpublishing. Glickman, C. D. (2004). Supervision of instruction: a developmental approach (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Maltén Møller, J., Eggen, A., Fuglestad, O. L., Langfeldt, G., Presthus, A.-M., Skrovset, S., et al. (2007). Successful leadership based on democratic values. In C. Day & K. Leithwood (Eds.), Successful Principal Leadership in Times of Change an international perspective. Dordrecht: Springer. Robinson, V. M. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 653-674.Nestor Törnsén, M. (2009), Successful Principal Leadership: Prerequisites, Processes and Outcomes. Pedagogiska institutionen, Umeå universitet, Umeå. Ärlestig, H. (2008). Communication between Principals and Teachers in Successful Schools. Umeå Univesity, Umeå.