1. Introduction In an era characterized by continuous economic, technological and demographic changes in Europe, school leaders' role is evolving too. Principals are expected to be managers and leaders at the same time, called on to lead the redesign of their school and of school system in general, interacting with a wider range of stakeholders and creating socially integrative learning environments (learning communities). The existing literature confirms direct or indirect positive impacts on student outcomes coming from both the quality of school principal and the development of learning communities (Tinto, 1997; Gordon et al, 2001; Minkler, 2002; Price, 2005). So, professional development and training of school leaders should focus on learning communities and should be extended promoting ongoing learning opportunities, according to the lifelong learning goal promoted by the Recommendation 2006/962/CE. This article shows the output of a two-years research financed by EACEA (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency of European Commission) called School Governance to build a Learning Community (SGoLC)--with the involvement of Italy, Greece, Romania, Sweden and The Netherlands--oriented to design, test, improve and disseminate an European Training Path for school leaders looking at the development of learning communities. The project joined together a theoretical research on school governance, on-the-field research in the partner countries and an European training proposals for principals who desire to create learning communities within and around their school. In spite of differences in school governance systems and various degrees of school reforms enforcement, the competences demanded for school leaders involved in learning communities are similar and refer to three areas (leadership, management and pedagogy). This result confirmed our intent for a bottom-up European training path for educational leaders in the European 2020, oriented to pursue a strategy for an inclusive growth, sharable in the EU but, at the same time, differentiable on each countries' particular needs. 2. Literature Review Over the recent decades the landscape of schools is widely changed (OECD, 2008): decentralization coupled with more school autonomy; more accountability for school and student results is requested; the need to a better use of the knowledge based education is felt, widespread immigration, a broader responsibility for contributing to and supporting the local community around the school are issues to consider. Changes in the school systems are part of the trend in the management of public service organizations, characterized by the decline of the older public administrative models and the rise of the public governance paradigms (Kickert, 1997; Stoker, 1998, pp.23-24; Osborne, 2010). In this context, social impacts are mainly referable to individual hands-on decision-making processes made easier by the creation of networks among institutions and/or individuals. The networks are based on the certainty that public educational services work better if they are conceived and achieved in partnership with other stakeholders (citizens, enterprises, organizations of civil society and so on), in order to attract their approval, energies, experiences, cultural background and ambitions. In particular, the co-planning and the co-production of educational services transform the relationships between service users (pupils, students, families) and service providers (first of all teachers and principals, but also policy-makers and other institutions cooperating with schools), enriching both of them with mutual experience and fostering > (UNESCO, 2008, p.4). Some studies highlight the positive relation between learning outcomes by students and school climate characterized by interaction and collaboration among members (among others, Tinto et al, 1994; Tinto, 1997; Gordon et al, 2001; Minkler, 2002; Price, 2005). …