This paper explores the complexity of local educational leadership interactions in Sweden, by asking: 1. What do different leadership actors identify as challenges? 2. How are these challenges handled within the larger school organization? Building on research identifying general key aspects of successful school leadership (Leithwood et al., 2019), it takes a more holistic perspective on school leadership, considering the larger context (Hallinger, 2018) and its multifaceted nature. The study analyzes the multifunctionality of school actors, who navigate dynamic subsystems (Bergh & Forsberg, 2024) while adapting to changing conditions. Focus is placed on the actions of interlinked local school leaders and how they together enact the national laws and curricula in their local setting. Sweden’s educational system combines strong national regulations with local responsibility through Local Education Authorities (LEAs), encompassing superintendents and other leaders at the municipality level, and principals and teacher leaders at the school level (Grimm, 2020; Nordholm et al., 2023). The local work of these identified actors is to be systematically performed (Adolfsson & Håkansson, 2024) which is nationally inspected (Carlbaum, 2016 ). Hence, while the structural framework is consistent nationwide, the enactment is performed locally. The focus in the study is on the collective local leadership enactment, within a large municipal area, where multiple school leaders manage around 20 schools across diverse socioeconomic and performance settings. The paper builds on digital interviews with school leaders from various levels and local school contexts. They were recorded and transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically, narratively and from a theoretical perspective. In the analysis the study integrates Lambert’s concept of leadership capacity with curriculum theory to capture local processes among interlinked school leaders. Using the concept of "code" (akin to a chord’s sound, reflecting system levels and temporal changes), it highlights that local curriculum processes have evolved over time and that this has changed the local tone of the larger chord, changing the sound from static and disharmonic to dynamic and harmonic - through synchronized leadership and skill development, aligning with Lambert’s school type 4. This challenges the assumptions about one constant and homogeneous “Swedish code” (Forsberg et al, 2017) and suggests that the sound of the local work needs to be taken into more deeply consideration within comparative research.

Adolfsson, C. H. & Håkansson, J. (2024). Local quality management for developing schools’ capacity building. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 9(4), 550-583. Bergh, A. & Forsberg, E. (2024). Differentiation of education through juridification. Journal of curriculum Studies. 56(2), 146–159. Carlbaum, C. (2016). Equivalence and performance gaps in Swedish school inspection: context and the politics of blame. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. 37(1),133-148. Forsberg, E., Nihlfors, E., Pettersson, D.& Skott, P. (2017). Curriculum code, arena and context: Curriculum-and leadership research in Sweden. In Leadership and Policy in Schools. 16(2). Grimm, F. (2020). The first teacher as the elephant in the room – forgotten and hidden teacher leadership perspectives in Swedish schools. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 5(2), 454-483. Hallinger, P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 5-24. Leithwood, K. et al. (2019). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. Nordholm et al (2023). In the eye of the storm? Mapping out a story of principals' decision making in an era of decentralisation and re-centralisation. Journal of Educational Administration & History, 55(4), 420-440.