Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

Purpose: The aim of this systematic review is to map and synthesize the literature of school leader autonomy (SLA) worldwide.

Approach: The analytical work followed the PRISMA- model for conducting and reporting systematic reviews, generating 113 articles (n = 113) for final analysis. Realist synthesis protocols were also developed for each article to attain rigor in the analytical work.

Findings: Aside from descriptive details of the current body of research, the analysis reveals that some decisions by administrators and school leaders (e.g., on curriculum, instruction, administration, budgeting, organization) are addressed more frequently, while others (e.g., on values, democracy, racism, student well-being) have been more sparsely addressed. In research focused on actors and their relations, principals are the most researched actors while few studies have focused explicitly on superintendents. A significant amount of research has instead approached SLA as a relational phenomenon that takes place between principals and other actors. Research has also addressed contextual particularities, but the number of articles that systematically consider the relationship between such particularities and SLA is limited. Additionally, few studies employ statistical modeling allowing robust knowledge of the impact of increased SLA. Instead, most use school leaders’ perceptions.

Implications: Global trends have transformed school systems into ones characterized by decentralization combined with increased inspection and accountability mechanisms, constituting a complex landscape for school leaders across national, regional and local contexts to navigate. This article demonstrates that SLA is a key concept for understanding the complex relations between education policy and education practice.

This article focuses on the role of the principal in facilitating inclusive education policies in Swedenand Finland since 1990. It does so by analysing education union journals in both countries. Thesejournals are taken to represent principals’ collective professional voice concerning the dynamicsof major educational reforms. The findings show surprisingly similar attitudes towards inclusiveeducation in both Sweden and Finland. According to the journals, inclusive education can only beaccommodated by defining student disabilities and disadvantages and training special educators totake charge of separate special education environments. During the 1990s, resistance to inclusiveeducation within the journals was very explicit. More recently their arguments have softened.Inclusive education is in principle a worthy aspiration, but the realities of school systems do notallow for it. These findings are explained by the classic special education theory of Thomas Skrtic,who argues that general education builds on various types of bureaucracies aiming to maintainthe stability of their organisation at scale. In summary, the journals discussions regarding inclusiveeducation can be generalised in three specific concerns: the student should be in focus, theorganisational form of inclusive education is crucial, and responsibilities and resources must beclearly articulated.