Educational Leadership in a Changing World Edited by Anita Trnavčević Antonios Kafa Faculty of Management Monographs Series Educational Leadership in a Changing World Challenges, Practices, Contexts and Insights Edited by Anita Trnavčević Antonios Kafa Educational Leadership in a Changing World: Challenges, Practices, Contexts and Insights Edited by Anita Trnavčević and Antonios Kafa Rewievers · Silva Bratož and Ana Grdović Gnip Copy Editor · Susan Cook Technical editing · Tajda Senica Design and layout · Alen Ježovnik Cover photo · Freepik Published by · University of Primorska Press Titov trg 4, 6000 Koper · hippocampus.si Editor in Chief · Simona Kustec Managing Editor · Alen Ježovnik Koper, 2025 © 2025 Authors Free Electronic Edition https://www.hippocampus.si/ISBN/978-961-293-504-7.pdf https://www.hippocampus.si/ISBN/978-961-293-505-4/index.html https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-504-7 Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (c i p) pripravili v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani cob i s s . s i -i d 258335235 i s b n 978-961-293-504-7 (p df) i s b n 978-961-293-505-4 (h t m l) Contents Preface Antonios Kafa and Anita Trnavčević · 7 1 Current Challenges of Educational Leadership: Research Results and Analysis of Good Practices Marta Ambite, Luna Galván, Alicia Hernández-García, Helena López-Alonso, Laura Camas-Garrido and Juan Luis Fuentes · 11 2 Unearthing Context: How Socioeconomic Status Shapes the Leadership-Science Achievement Nexus Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači¯ unien˙e and Antonios Kafa · 35 3 School Leadership and Educational Quality: A Review of Selected Global Models Carolina Marlen Luna Perez and Jennifer Ana Domínguez Rodríguez · 57 4 Linking School Principals’ Leadership Styles and Teacher Professional Well-Being: Systematic Literature Review Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Vilma Žydži¯ unait˙e · 79 5 Navigating between Principalship, Leadership and Management Martina Kovačič and Anita Trnavčević · 101 6 Educational Leadership in Transition: Reflections, Integrations, and Paths Forward Antonios Kafa and Anita Trnavčević · 121 5 Preface Antonios Kafa Open University of Cyprus, Cyprus Anita Trnavčević University of Primorska, Slovenia © 2025 Antonios Kafa and Anita Trnavčević https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-504-7.0 In an era marked by global disruption, growing inequality, and rapid transformation in education systems, the role of school leaders – and educational leadership more broadly – has become increasingly com-plex, multifaceted, and urgent. This edited volume, Educational Leader- ship in a Changing World: Challenges, Practices, and Innovations, brings to-gether international perspectives and original research that illuminate various dimensions of educational leadership, with a particular focus on school leadership. Although school leadership has been extensively theorized and em- pirically studied in recent years, foundational concepts remain the sub- ject of ongoing debate, as leadership is inherently shaped by its context. From a policy standpoint, globalization and internationalization have fostered a certain degree of ‘sameness,’ reflected in both terminology and theoretical approaches. The international authorship represented in this volume underscores a shared commitment to improving schools and advancing school lead- ership. The chapters offer a timely and critical exploration of educa-tional leadership in a rapidly changing world. They address pressing is-sues related to policy, practice, and equity, while providing grounded examples of innovation, resilience, and reflective practice across diverse contexts. This book fills the void by providing knowledge on the complex, context-sensitive, and ethically grounded nature of educational lead-ership in diverse global settings. At a time when educational leaders are expected to address challenges, there is a pressing need for schol- Trnavčević, A., & Kafa, A. (Eds.). (2025). Educational leadership in a changing world: Challenges, practices, contexts and insights. University of Primorska Press. Antonios Kafa and Anita Trnavčević arship that bridges theory, practice, and context through a variety of perspectives and evidence-based policies. More specifically, this book provides: • Empirical insights into a variety of topics, including challenges, contextual elements, quality issues, professional well-being, and the leadership aspects of management and principalship. • Theoretical and conceptual frameworks that highlight diverse top- ics, including challenges, contextual elements, quality issues, pro- fessional well-being, and the leadership aspects of management and principalship. • Actionable implications for policymakers, researchers, and prac- titioners on promoting the support of challenges, contextual ele- ments, quality issues, professional well-being, and the leadership aspects of management and principalship. Chapter 1 is authored by Juan Luis Fuentes and Laura Camas Gar- rido. They set the stage by exploring the emotional, inclusive, and eth-ical foundations of educational leadership. Drawing on care ethics and moral exemplarity, the authors argue for a human-centred approach to school leadership – one that embraces empathy, cultural responsive-ness, and ethical guidance as essential components of effective practice. Their chapter provides both a conceptual grounding and a critical lens through which the subsequent contributions can be understood. In Chapter 2, Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e and Antonios Kafa in- vestigate the influence of socioeconomic status on the relationship be-tween leadership practices and student science achievement in the con-text of the o e c d p i s a study. Through a robust quantitative analysis, the authors reveal how economic, social, and cultural status (e s c s) mediates and moderates the effects of instructional leadership and school autonomy. Their findings underscore the importance of context- sensitive leadership and the risks of one-size-fits-all approaches to school improvement. In Chapter 3, Carolina Marlen Luna Perez and Jennifer Ana Domín- guez Rodríguez offer a comparative analysis of global leadership mod-els, examining how different nations conceptualise and implement ed-ucational leadership in pursuit of quality and equity. Their work high- lights both convergences and divergences across systems and encour-ages readers to reflect critically on the applicability and transferability of leadership frameworks across borders. 8 Preface Chapter 4, authored by Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Vilma Žy- dži ¯unait˙e, presents a systematic literature review on the link between leadership styles and teacher professional well-being. Synthesising a wide range of studies, they demonstrate how leadership practices sig-nificantly affect teacher motivation, stress, job satisfaction, and emo-tional resilience. Their chapter makes a compelling case for leadership that prioritises the well-being of educators as a strategic investment in school effectiveness. Chapter 5, authored by Martina Kovačič and Anita Trnavčević, ex- plores the nuanced interplay between principalship, leadership, and management. Drawing from empirical evidence and theoretical reflec-tion, the authors challenge the tendency to treat these roles inter- changeably. Instead, they advocate for a more differentiated under-standing of leadership that acknowledges the multiple identities and expectations school leaders must navigate daily. This book is concluded with Chapter 6, where the editors, Anita Tr- navčević and Antonios Kafa, provide a look forward and a reflective syn-thesis of the insights and pathways that emerge across the chapters. They argue for a leadership paradigm that is not focused only on strate-gic questions and accountability but is also deeply ethical, relational, and inclusive. Their concluding discussion invites readers to reimagine educational leadership as a collaborative and transformative practice anchored in care, justice, and context-sensitive responsiveness. Authors come from different contexts and provide insights into lead- ership challenges, contextual elements, quality issues, professional well-being, and the leadership aspects of management and principal-ship. This book can be of great interest to: (1) scholars worldwide who are interested in the topic of educational leadership; (2) educational poli-cymakers, Ministries of Education, and professional development con- tributors; and (3) to students and graduates who immerse themselves to rethinking leadership for a more just and sustainable educational fu-ture. We acknowledge the work of scholars and practitioners working in the field of educational leadership. We hope this book will also trigger their attention and open the space for further discussions. Finally, we extend our heartfelt thanks to all the contributors for their outstanding collaboration and the richness of their chapters, which have greatly enhanced the depth and diversity of this volume. Their insights and dedication have been instrumental in shaping a 9 Antonios Kafa and Anita Trnavčević meaningful and timely exploration of educational leadership. We are also deeply grateful to the University of Primorska Press for their unwa- vering support and commitment throughout the publication process. Their support has been invaluable in bringing this book to light. 10 1 Current Challenges of Educational Leadership: Research Results and Analysis of Good Practices Marta Ambite Complutense University of Madrid, Spain Luna Galván Complutense University of Madrid, Spain Alicia Hernández-García Complutense University of Madrid, Spain Helena López-Alonso Complutense University of Madrid, Spain Laura Camas-Garrido Complutense University of Madrid, Spain Juan Luis Fuentes Complutense University of Madrid, Spain © 2025 Marta Ambite, Luna Galván, Alicia Hernández-García, Helena López-Alonso, Laura Camas-Garrido and Juan Luis Fuentes https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-504-7.1 Introduction Educational leadership plays a crucial role in shaping learning experi-ence, ensuring equitable access to quality education, and fostering en- vironments that support students and educators. In an ever-evolving educational landscape, leaders must navigate complex challenges, in-cluding emotional well-being, cultural responsiveness, and ethical com- mitment. The role of the educational leader is not simply to manage institutions but to act as a catalyst for positive change, fostering an environment where students and teachers alike can thrive. This chap- ter explores the complexities of educational leadership, offering a de-tailed analysis of contemporary challenges, research findings, and ex-emplary practices that contribute to effective leadership in educational settings. Education, as framed through a Deweyan perspective, is an inherently relational and life-embedded process that extends beyond mere knowledge acquisition, involving the socio-emotional and ethical Trnavčević, A., & Kafa, A. (Eds.). (2025). Educational leadership in a changing world: Challenges, practices, contexts and insights. University of Primorska Press. Marta Ambite et al. dimensions of both teaching and learning. As such, the chapter empha-sizes three key elements: (1) the essential role of the emotional dimen- sion in the educational relationship, (2) the necessity of inclusive and culturally responsive leadership, and (3) fundamental qualities that any leader should have today for fostering meaningful and transformative learning environments. The first part examines the role of emotionality in education. To what extent does the emotional dimension of educational leadership influ-ence student engagement and academic success? The ability to care is not merely an additional trait of educators but a core responsibility that directly impacts students’ academic achievement and overall well-being. In this part, we delve into how care pedagogies serve as a foun- dation for creating supportive learning environments that foster trust, motivation, and resilience. Adopting Noddings’ perspective, care is a multidimensional concept that encompasses physical, emotional, and psychological support. Particularly, care ethics, as an approach to ed-ucational leadership, emphasize relational interdependence and moral responsibility, advocating for pedagogical strategies that prioritize stu- dent engagement, inclusivity, and the emotional well-being of both students and teachers. Implementing care-centred approaches within schools has been shown to not only improve academic outcomes but also to contribute to the emotional and psychological sustainability of educational institutions. This necessitates systemic changes that in-clude teacher support structures, professional development opportu- nities, and leadership models that mitigate burnout and promote long-term professional fulfilment. By fostering organizational environments that value emotional engagement, educators can create learning spaces that are both intellectually stimulating and emotionally nurturing. Beyond emotional engagement, educational leadership must also ad- dress the challenges of diversity, inclusion, and social justice, character- istic of our times. In contemporary educational settings, ensuring eq-uitable access to learning opportunities requires a transformation in leadership practices. Drawing upon research on culturally responsive pedagogy, the second part emphasizes the ways in which educational leaders can implement strategies that acknowledge and celebrate cul-tural diversity. Specifically, the notion of culturally responsive school leadership (c rs l) is explored in-depth, emphasizing the need for lead-ers to cultivate critical self-awareness, develop inclusive curricula, and foster school environments that actively support minoritized students. 12 Current Challenges of Educational Leadership How does culturally responsive leadership contribute to fostering inclu-sive and equitable learning environments? Effective leadership in this context involves not only structural and curricular adaptations but also a fundamental shift in the philosophical approach to education, moving away from neoliberal frameworks that prioritize economic utility over humanistic and inclusive educational values. By engaging with commu- nities, resisting deficit narratives, and advocating for policies that en-sure true educational equity, leaders can create institutions that gen-uinely reflect and embody principles of social justice and inclusion. At the heart of high-quality educational leadership lies a strong eth- ical and moral foundation. But what role do ethical and moral prin-ciples play in shaping good educational leadership? The final compo- nent of this chapter explores the moral responsibilities of educational leaders, emphasizing the role of teachers and administrators as exem-plars who inspire and guide students toward learning, autonomy and self-improvement. Drawing from philosophical perspectives, including those of David Carr, Linda Zagzebski, and José Manuel Esteve, the dis-cussion examines the concept of moral leadership as an essential char- acteristic of good educators. The ability to lead by example, fostering a sense of admiration and reflective imitation among students, is pre-sented as a critical factor in ethical education. Rather than enforcing compliance through authority, true educational leadership is framed as a liberating force that encourages students to engage in critical self-reflection and personal development. The role of dialogue, prudential advice, and reciprocal trust between teachers and students is explored as a means of reinforcing ethical learning environments that respect in-dividual autonomy while guiding learners toward moral and intellectual growth. This exploration of ethical leadership also engages with contempo- rary critiques that question the potential limitations of moral exem- plarity in education. Concerns regarding autonomy and critical think-ing are addressed by emphasizing that the admiration and imitation fostered by exemplary leadership must be reflective rather than pas- sive. This distinction ensures that students actively engage with ethical principles rather than merely conforming to external expectations. By framing ethical leadership as a dynamic and reciprocal process, it un- derscores the importance of adaptability, context-awareness, and gen-uine commitment to student empowerment. Recognizing that educa-tional leadership does not exist in a vacuum, but rather within complex 13 Marta Ambite et al. social and institutional frameworks, the discussion acknowledges the challenges leaders face in balancing ethical integrity with the practical demands of policy implementation and institutional accountability. As the chapter concludes, it reinforces the interconnectedness of emotional, inclusive, and ethical dimensions in educational leader-ship. To cultivate caring and sustainable educational environments, leaders must integrate care ethics into their pedagogical approaches. They should promote culturally responsive school practices that ad-dress structural inequities, and embody moral principles that inspire and empower learners. By embedding these principles into both daily practice and institutional frameworks, educational systems can become more equitable, resilient, and attuned to the holistic needs of learners. In an era of rapid social and technological change, the transformative power of education lies in its ability to bridge intellectual rigour with emotional depth, cultural inclusivity, and ethical leadership, ultimately shaping future generations with the values of empathy, justice, and lifelong learning. The Emotional Dimension of Educational Leadership: The Ability to Care Examining the multifaceted nature of education presents a critical chal- lenge requiring a nuanced perspective on human development and the transmission of knowledge. To face this reality, framing education through a Deweyan lens helps to broaden the understanding of peda- gogical practice as an inherently life-embedded process fundamentally shaped by relational dynamics (Dewey, 1930). Therefore, the holistic role of education highlights the socio-emotional context in which it is created, emphasizing its interpersonal nature (Habimana, 2024). Thus, to institutionalize emotionality as a fundamental aspect of pedagogical accountability, it is essential to recognize and strengthen the role of ‘care’ in educational practice. This can be achieved by im-plementing care pedagogies and strategies that cultivate supportive organizational environments, mitigate burnout, and prioritize teach- ers’ emotional well-being (Duffy, 2018; Hawkes & Dedrick, 1983; Webb et al., 2009). Care is a fundamental, cross-cutting factor that influences both stu- dents’ academic performance within the educational system and their overall well-being. It is often positioned in the persistent educational dichotomy between the holistic nurturing of student development, pri- 14 Current Challenges of Educational Leadership marily associated with early education, and the formal transmission of knowledge, which is more prominently emphasized in higher educa- tional stages (Noddings, 2013). Nevertheless, inequality or resistance in the distribution of care practices in education constitutes a lack of socio-emotional institutionalization. Therefore, the framework of care ethics as a moral responsible approach that states relationality and in- terdependence among individuals is appropriate to address this issue, especially due to its resilient nature, which fosters adaptation to unfore-seen circumstances by prioritizing well-being and engagement, thereby preserving the integrity of education (Kolarić & Taczyńska, 2022). Specifically, embedded in this context, care can be defined as ‘a mul- tidimensional concept that involves both the provision of physical, emotional, and psychological support, and the active maintenance of the well-being of others, often within intimate relationships or pro-fessional roles’ (Tronto, 1993, p. 103). Nevertheless, the recognition of ‘care’ within educational practice can be acknowledged in care peda-gogies. These pedagogical approaches and teaching strategies are of-ten characterized as care-informed practices that foster reciprocal and transpersonal relationships within safe, inclusive and responsive learn-ing environments (Duffy, 2018). The materialization of this approach can range from the acknowl- edgement of the individuality of the learner, to the adoption of didactic models and policies that place care at the centre of the agenda. For in-stance, when teachers develop a deep understanding of students’ back- grounds, cultural identities and linguistic knowledge, while intention-ally avoiding deficit-based perspectives, they create an affirming learn-ing environment that validates students’ identities and fosters their overall development (Soto, 2005). Similarly, implementing pedagog-ical approaches that emphasize students’ interest-driven, real-world problem-solving, such as service-learning projects, cultivates recipro- cal caring relationships. This fosters a sense of social responsibility by actively engaging students in meaningful, community-centred projects (Park et al., 2023). The multiple benefits of care pedagogies entail the development of a positive self-concept enhancing motivation and learning engagement. Additionally, they cultivate positive self-esteem and emotional well- being, encouraging active participation, intellectual risk-taking, and perseverance in the face of challenges. Furthermore, they cultivate trust and confidence, strengthening self-efficacy and fostering key values 15 Marta Ambite et al. such as intrinsic motivation, perseverance, and resilience (Noddings, 2013). On another note, care pedagogy could be interpreted as an equi- table approach towards learning, especially during times of crisis, since it emphasizes mutual respect, fostering resilience through significant dialogue and adaptability (Mehrotra, 2021). Finally, caring relationships in the academic environment promote a sense of community. However, when implemented through cooperative learning activities, they en-hance social and emotional learning components in the curriculum, de-veloping prosocial behaviours and supportive classroom environments (Owusu-Ansah & Kyei-Blankson, 2016). While caring pedagogies emphasize the importance of establishing relationships based on reciprocity, as well as sensitive learning environ- ments, it is of great importance to recognize the need to support and care for teaching staff in order to develop their functions effectively, since the ability to care is closely linked to personal and professional well-being, highlighting the need to implement care strategies that pri-oritize caregivers (Travers & Cooper, 1997). The concept of ‘caring for the caregiver’ is framed by the idea that the well-being of teachers influences both their individual performance and their relationship with their students; experiencing high levels of stress, lack of recognition, or burnout affects their ability to optimally engage in caring pedagogical practices (Hawkes & Dedrick, 1983). One of the major challenges facing teachers is burnout syndrome, which is characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a sense of low personal accomplishment (Maslach et al., 2001). Factors such as excessive workload, lack of support, and high expectations can lead to burnout, as well as reduce the ability to meet the needs of stu- dents (Herman et al., 2018). To mitigate the impact, it is essential that educational institutions adopt strategies that prioritize the well-being of teachers. Among these measures is school leadership that promotes environments of trust, support and collaboration among teachers, thus strengthening their comfort and job stability. Likewise, the implementation of collaborative work can contribute to reducing professional isolation, fostering moti-vation and increasing job satisfaction. This shows that the combination of effective professional development and a trust-based environment has a positive impact on teacher motivation and commitment. When teachers have access to continuous learning opportunities and the au-tonomy to apply their knowledge without excessive supervision, their 16 Current Challenges of Educational Leadership involvement in the educational process is strengthened. In this sense, achieving a balance between performance evaluation and promoting a work environment that values teacher professionalism would not only reduce unnecessary administrative burdens, but would also foster in-novative pedagogical practices focused on learning (Webb et al., 2009). Another key in teacher care is the promotion of personal autonomy, as well as the recognition of work done, since these are fundamental in order to promote deeper learning and greater persistence in their tasks, favouring development and performance as opposed to burnout (Deci & Ryan, 2008). This should not be exclusive among teachers, but should involve the different actors in the educational community, from man-agers and teachers to students, since supportive relationships between teachers and students, social cohesion and a sense of belonging in the school contribute to the participation and emotional commitment of students in their learning (Ulmanen et al., 2016). In summary, while care pedagogies prioritize the creation of safe and responsive learning environments, equal attention must be given to the well-being of teachers and the broader educational community to fos- ter an education that fully acknowledges the emotional dimension of development (Soto, 2005; Webb et al., 2009). Education should not be seen solely as an intellectual pursuit but as a deeply human experience shaped by care, trust, and relational interdependence (Noddings, 2013). Therefore, by embedding care into both pedagogical practices and insti-tutional frameworks, educational systems can become more equitable and sustainable, ultimately reinforcing the transformative power of ed-ucation in society (Mehrotra, 2021; Ulmanen et al., 2016). Inclusion for All? Lessons from Culturally Responsive School Leadership The Eurydice report (European Commission, 2023), titled Promoting Di- versity and Inclusion in Schools in Europe, states that all European educa-tion systems have established comprehensive policy frameworks – leg-islation, strategies, and action plans – aimed at eliminating educational barriers and fostering equality and inclusion at a systemic level. How-ever, in countries like Spain, 63 of Roma students do not finish com-pulsory education, compared to 4 of non-Roma students (Fundación Secretariado Gitano, 2013). This issue has been similarly observed in other European countries, as evidenced by Rutigliano (2020). Regard-ing immigrant students, after analysing the evolution in the achieve- 17 Marta Ambite et al. ment gap between native students and students with an immigrant background in 2009–2018 pis a results, Porcu et al. (2023) show how dif- ferences are narrowing but still present in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain. Echoing the Salamanca Statement and Framework (u n e s co, 1994), the 2017 u n e s c o Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Educa- tion, defines inclusion as ‘a process that helps to overcome barriers lim-iting the presence, participation and achievement of learners’ (p. 7) and inclusive education as ‘the process of strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners’ (p. 7, emphasis added). However, once these goals are established, responding to them as edu-cational leaders can take multiple forms, as Thrupp (2003) identifies in his tripartite division of writers’ reactions to education policy: • ‘Problem-solvers’ are apolitical: it is difficult to tell whether they know that schooling occurs in a context of neoliberal reforms and structural inequality as they barely refer to either in their reform processes. This type of leader would, for example, implement after- school tutoring programmes for low-performing students without analysing the structural barriers behind their difficulties. ¹ • ‘Overt apologists’ are supportive of contemporary policy without critically examining its implications. An example of a reform they may promote could be adapting teaching to prioritize success for all in skills demanded by the labour market without questioning whether these demands benefit or harm certain groups of stu- dents. • ‘Subtle apologists’ do acknowledge problems around social justice and might critique the reform, but still fail to deeply interrogate the causes of these problems. An example of this might be criti- cizing the process to access tertiary education and starting initia- tives that help some disadvantaged students enter university with- out understanding or advocating to transform the structures that make access difficult in the first place. If the dominant neoliberal perspective views education primarily as a means to develop human capital that will sustain economic growth (Choo, 2020; Qvortrup, 2009), the necessary shift toward inclusion ¹ Although, in this sense, we could call this view ‘apolitical,’ we believe that not engaging with politics or the social context is, in itself, a deeply political stance. 18 Current Challenges of Educational Leadership and equity is not merely a technical or organizational adjustment but rather a transformation rooted in a distinct philosophical perspective (Fulcher, 1989, cited in u n e s c o, 2017), that also involves moral and political reasoning. To expand on this vision of an educational leadership that fosters inclusive education through a critical lens that is justice and equity- oriented, we will engage with research on culturally responsive peda-gogy, and its contributions to the inclusion paradigm. Culturally Responsive School Leadership (c r s l) Culturally relevant and responsive pedagogies emerged at the end of the twentieth century (Gay, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 1995) and aim to reform all elements of the educational system to respond to the spe- cific educational needs of minoritized students, especially those who are marginalized in most school settings (Gay, 2010). In the synthesis of the existing literature made by Khalifa et al. (2016), 4 major strands of behaviour of c rs l emerged: 1. Critical self-awareness or critical consciousness: leaders must know who they are as people, understand the context in which they lead and closely explore their own assumptions and biases related to race, class, ethnicity, gender and culture, and how these affect the school environment, actively challenging hegemonic, white- and western-centred leadership practices. 2. Culturally responsive curricula and teacher preparation: provide resources and curricula that reflect cultural responsiveness, men- tor and model culturally responsive teaching, and offer profes- sional development opportunities. This would also include encour- aging courageous conversations where educators speak up against or critically examine their assumptions about marginalized groups and counselling out teachers who acknowledge that this work is not for them. 3. Culturally responsive and inclusive school environments: create a culturally affirming school climate by, for example, using student’s voices or challenging policies and behaviours that do not meet an equity and social justice stance, which might sometimes look like ‘creative noncompliance’² (Meier & Gasoi, 2017). ² Creative noncompliance is defined by Meier and Gasoi (2017) as avoiding adherence 19 Marta Ambite et al. 4. Engaging students and parents in community contexts: designing environments that are both supportive, caring communities, and learning organizations by, for example, validating and including different cultures and knowledge in the school, resisting deficit im- ages of students and families by maintaining high expectations in all areas, advocating for community-based causes, or sharing re- sources with families. As we can see, culturally relevant leadership is considered an ethical stance that educational leaders need to adopt, rather than a fixed collec-tion of strategies designed for minoritized students (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Developing true critical awareness and creating opportunities to dialogue about gender, race, or class, together with shifting the percep-tion of families and students from passive recipients of school services to active participants in the educational process, appear to be strong antidotes to overlooking the structural causes of inequality and repro-ducing neoliberal patterns of oppression. Some limitations of these practices, gathered by Schmeichel (2012) would include teachers’ difficulty in applying c rs l due to large class sizes, insufficient support, and a focus on standardized testing and completing the curriculum (Morrison et al., 2008), which could lead to well-intentioned educators with a lack of time and an excess of pa-perwork to reduce culturally relevant pedagogy to recognizing ethnic holidays, incorporating popular culture into lessons, or using informal language (Irvine, 2010), ultimately using students’ culture as a perfor-mative and superficial hook or as a tool of assimilation (Evans et al., 2020). Additionally, developing awareness of their cultural biases and blind spots is a gradual process that takes time and effort for teachers and leaders – it does not happen overnight. Effective (and not structural) change, and an idea of continuous improvement is not the same as a process of genuine and profound transformation (Ward et al., 2015), which takes time and could be equated to a marathon more than a race. Ward et al. (2015), facing the fact that leaders normally have a rather limited scope of action, proposed three options: exit, voice and loy- to external mandates when they hinder our ability to address the genuine needs and interests of the children in our care. The Civil Rights Movement activist John Lewis refers to similar actions when he speaks of causing ’good and necessary trouble’ by speaking up, speaking out, and getting in the way. 20 Current Challenges of Educational Leadership alty (Hirschman, 1970). When exit is not an ethical choice and loyalty has consequences on students’ lives, voice is all that remains: school leaders retain the power to inform themselves and others, to speak up about the needs of all their students, without exception, and, slowly but surely, to make inclusion a reality in their schools. Fundamentally, since the educational system has historically marginalized minoritized students – deliberately or unintentionally – c rs l serves as a source of inspiration and guidance to ensure that inclusion is both truly inclusive and just. Core Qualities of the Educational Leader: Foundations for Ethical and Moral Guidance The early years of the twenty-first century are facing a profound moral crisis, marked by individualism, violence, radicalization and political polarization, which urgently calls for the search for effective methods for the moral and ethical development of society. Since moral learning is largely dependent on the influence of others (Carr, 2023), the teacher’s role as a formative agent takes on a central role due to their continu- ous contact with students. Therefore, this last section explores the core qualities an educational leader must possess to contribute to the holis-tic development and human flourishing of scholars. Throughout history, several authors in the field of philosophy of ed- ucation and from different cultural and geographical contexts have re-flected on the effects of exemplars in societies. For instance, Plato was worried about the influence of the gods of Greek mythology on the ed-ucation of young people, because it could constitute a grave danger as they embodied ways of life contrary to good and human flourishing. Similarly, in last decades, some prominent voices from the international sphere, such as David Carr from the United Kingdom, José Manuel Es-teve from Spain, Linda Zagzebski the from United States, or Kristján Kristjánsson from Iceland, have made significant contributions that fa-cilitate an understanding of the role of educators as a guide in the eth-ical education of students, with relevant consequences for educational leadership. First, Zagzebski (2017) argues that in every community there are in- dividuals who are admired because they show excellence in a specific area, which inspires others to improve, which she calls ‘role models’ or ‘exemplars’ (p. 153). Therefore, the very first trait of an educational leader could be to possess an excellent quality that elicits that need for 21 Marta Ambite et al. improvement in the learner. Carr (2002) goes even further, claiming that the educational leader must be ‘an example of the best values and virtues found in a particular way of life’ (p. 117). For him, this is so be-cause no one can teach well what one does not know deeply, and a theo-retical knowledge is not enough to fully comprehend some educational contents, specifically, those related to ethics, which are essentially prac- tical. Therefore, an educator cannot teach something that they do not live. In other words, the leader must be a moral exemplar to which the students aspire, which necessarily requires the cultivation of virtuous character in the teaching profession. Given that the teacher embodies an excellence that the student still lacks, Esteve (1977) maintains that there is a distance between them, derived from the superiority that the educational leader holds over the student. However, according to the author, this excellence must be rec-ognized by the student for the leader to be considered an authority. In this sense, Zagzebski (2017) adds that the recognition of a superior quality in the other causes admiration, which drives the desire to imi-tate the other to achieve that better self. Henderson (2024) reinforces this idea by explaining that such admiration arises precisely from the lack of that excellence, as it is perceived as a moral ideal worthy of at-tainment. By recognizing this ideal, the learner freely and consciously accepts the teacher’s influence to imitate them. Nonetheless, the leader’s supe-riority is not exercised for personal benefit – which would distinguish it from models such as authoritarianism – but rather directed towards guiding the learner in achieving their best self (Esteve, 1977), thus re-ducing the distance between them, which ultimately tends to disappear. For this reason, Esteve (1977) defines this relationship as a ‘liberating authority’ (p. 187). Therefore, another quality of educational leaders lies in the ability to inspire and guide students, not only through their ex- ample as a role model, but also by placing their excellence at the service of the moral development of the students, driving them towards the best version of themselves. Esteve (1977) notes that another fundamental trait of the educational leader is the use of open dialogue and prudential advice as an essen-tial means of communication with learners. In this leadership model, there is no room for the imposition of commands, as teacher and stu-dent progress together towards a shared goal. Rather than imposing a set of beliefs, the educational leader respects students’ freedom by fos- 22 Current Challenges of Educational Leadership tering an environment where they can independently discover and ex-plore their own convictions. As this author asserts, true leaders must encourage learners’ initiative, given that actively exercising freedom is the only way for its full development. The last key attribute of the educational leader that will be discussed here is the ability to embody consistent exemplarity while responding to the needs of the group they serve. According to Zagzebski (2017), ad-miration for a fleeting quality lacks true excellence; thus, ‘reflective ad-miration is the test of exemplarity’ (p. 63). In this regard, Esteve (1977) maintains that a leader’s authority endures only if they effectively ad-dress the needs and interests of their community; otherwise, admira-tion fades. Carr (2002) reinforces this idea, emphasizing the importance of teachers understanding and addressing the specific demands of their group. This conception of the educational leader as a moral role model has been subject to criticism, especially around the concern of whether imi-tation of others might limit autonomy, an aspect of particular relevance in education. For example, Kant (1997) argues that true autonomy is based on acting according to one’s own principles, not relying on exter-nal models. Similarly, Taylor (1992) stresses that moral models are only valuable if critically reflected upon and internalized by the individual. To address this concern, Zagzebski (2017) offers a fundamental contri-bution, stating that when admiration arises from critical reflection, the individual consciously recognizes that imitation benefits their own de- velopment. In this sense, the decision to imitate an exemplary figure is not an external imposition, but the result of autonomous judgement. The disciple, then, freely trusts that the orientations of the educational leader are a suitable path for their improvement (Esteve, 1977). There-fore, the person who makes this decision is autonomous, as it is the result of the exercise of their own freedom. Moreover, as previously noted, the genuine educational leader not only respects the learner’s freedom, but also facilitates it. Hence, the leader does not seek to generate submission or dependence, but to ac- company the student to achieve a common goal: the autonomy and free-dom inherent to the rational being (Esteve, 1977). Thus, far from re-stricting the autonomy of the student, the educational leader actively contributes to its achievement. This demonstrates, once again, the close interconnection between the terms ‘educational leader,’ ‘freedom’ and ‘autonomy.’ 23 Marta Ambite et al. Lastly, as Kristjánsson (2006) notes, young people’s attention has been diverted to social network sites, which reflect a society in moral decay. Thus, a major challenge facing this leadership model is to shift students’ attention away from these questionable models and redirect it towards the figure of the educational leader, in order to meet today’s ethical and moral challenges, respecting human dignity and contribut- ing to human improvement. An exemplary figure of educational leadership that is being studied again today is Janusz Korczak (Liebel & Markowska-Manista, 2019; Tsabar, 2021), a Polish pedagogue, doctor and writer who devoted his life to the care of orphans in Warsaw. His pedagogy was grounded in respect for the dignity of the child, the promotion of autonomy, and moral education through personal example (Fuentes & García Bermejo, 2024). Korczak’s leadership was not based on the imposition of rules, but rather on the ethical conduct he modelled, which inspired chil- dren to imitate him in a thoughtful and autonomous manner. In fact, his orphanage became a democratic community, where children prac-ticed self-government through their own parliament, court and news- paper (Efron, 2005). This model enabled them to cultivate a sense of justice, responsibility and self-discipline, thereby illustrating that ef-fective leadership does not restrict autonomy, but rather strengthens it by fostering a reflective admiration that motivates students to reach their fullest potential. Korczak also embodies Carr’s (2002) idea regarding the need for ed- ucational leaders to cultivate virtuous character. Korczak himself em-phasized that the educator’s responsibility is to continuously improve to become a force for change and a leader capable of transforming chil- dren’s lives (Efron, 2005). Undoubtedly, his life proves that the true ed-ucational leader does not dominate, but accompanies; does not impose, but inspires; and does not restrict, but liberates. Some Final Thoughts In this chapter, we have attempted to answer the research question regarding the current challenges of educational leadership through a panoramic review of recent research on three key themes: the emo-tional dimension of leadership, especially related to the capacity for car- ing; the responsibility to promote culturally inclusive contexts through the effective recognition of the value of diversity; and attention to the ever-complex nature of the leader, as the primary cause and foundation 24 Current Challenges of Educational Leadership of positive influence on others. Thus, a critical synthesis is provided of some of the most significant contributions of recent years on the three themes addressed, in dialogue with established voices in educational research. The first conclusion to be drawn from the review conducted, indicates that educational leadership entails great responsibilities that largely co- incide with some of the most important social and cultural challenges of our time, which places it at the forefront of society. This is good news insofar as education, in general, and the school, in particular, is not iso- lated from the society in which it operates, but is directly linked to it, as Dewey (1899) pointed out, and can respond to the social challenges it poses. At the end of the nineteenth century, the American pedagogue argued that the radical change taking place in education at that time required a radical change in education itself, such that schools would become the natural social unit they should aspire to be. More specifi- cally, he warned that ‘Travel has been rendered easy; freedom of move-ment, with its accompanying exchange of ideas, indefinitely facilitated. The result has been an intellectual revolution. Learning has been put into circulation’ (p. 40). These words seem to accurately define some of the most characteristic features of recent decades, where learning as a capacity for adaptation has become an essential activity where the in- tellectual has adopted a renewed vision in the complex interpretation of reality in continuous relationship with the emotional. However, this intellectual revolution cannot be supported solely by schools; rather, it must, in a certain sense, be led by education. In other words, between the social isolation of schools and complete subordi-nation to social trends, there is a place where it is possible to balance educational autonomy with an eye toward the emerging demands of so-ciety. Indeed, educational leadership cannot uncritically subject schools to passing trends and dominant fads (Esteban & Fuentes, 2020). Unlike other occupations, the task of education entails a high level of auton-omy in decision-making and personal initiative (Carr, 2002), which goes beyond the mere application of a series of teaching techniques, or the reproduction of procedures designed by agents outside the school en-vironment. This has direct consequences for the training of future ed-ucators and gives meaning to their development in higher education institutions, where intellectual demands and autonomy are prominent signs of identity. A recent example of this can be found in the processes of integrat- 25 Marta Ambite et al. ing technology into schools, which have captured the attention, ef-forts, and resources of many educators, researchers, administrators, and politicians in recent years, relegating other fundamental issues of education to the background. However, there seems to be a decline, or at least a slowdown, in the placement of technology at the centre of learning. It does not seem reasonable to follow the pendulum’s logic and make an anti-technology shift, but rather to warn of the need for a thoughtful reflection on the role of education in society. Perhaps the third challenge examined here allows for the introduction of this ele- ment of balance into the debate on educational leadership, by raising a controversial and even uncomfortable issue due to its complexity, but one that raises profound questions as necessary as those posed by the previous two. Secondly, we have studied the emotional aspect of educational lead- ership as an essential task for generating a sense of belonging to a com- munity among group members, as it promotes a deeper and more stable interpersonal commitment to the common good than strictly instru-mental and utilitarian reasons. Considering this, two reflections can be raised. On the one hand, there is a risk of placing emotions at the cen-tre of education as a priority reference in decision-making. There is no doubt that an emotionally safe and comfortable environment provides well-being and fosters the mental health of individuals, as well as the development of numerous capacities linked to creative thinking (Csik-szentmihalyi, 2013). Furthermore, attention to emotions allows for the complementing of other essentially intellectual capacities such as crit-ical thinking, generating what has been called an extended reason, as an essential resource against current forms of indoctrination (Ibáñez- Martín, 2021). However, we have once again swung towards a context where emotions seem to be against academic rigour as two antagonis-tic poles, whose confrontation can lead to a clearly anti-pedagogical position, especially serious in childhood. Authors such as Kristjánsson (2015) warn of the consequences of what has been called The Vulner-able Child Paradigm, as an effect of an excessive psychologization and subjectivation of well-being and education. In his own words: ‘The core rationale here turned on the need for schools to mend children’s fragile emotional selves and boost their self-esteem – under the banners of ef- ficiency and adaptability – thereby furnishing them with the requisite motivation and self-efficacy to behave pro-socially’ (Kristjánsson 2015, p. 10). This shift has also been accompanied at the social level by a sen- 26 Current Challenges of Educational Leadership timentalist culture (Barrio Maestre, 2022) that has led to an emotivism where emotions serve as the perfect tool for political and social manip- ulation (Menéndez Álvarez-Hevia, 2018), as tragically reflected in the series of dystopian novels written by American author Suzanne Collins, The Hunger Games, where spectacle is elevated to the category of po-litical weapon in the purest style of the man considered the founder of modern political theory, Niccolò Machiavelli. Namely, in his key work The Prince, where he collects his first-hand experiences as a diplomat and military commander in the Florentine Republic, he asserts that ef- fective leaders must consider questions such as ‘whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both’ (2021, p. 77). His explanation consists of affirming that both are useful for governing and, as is his custom, he understands them to be necessary means justified by the end. Further-more, he asserts that if he has to choose, it is better to be feared than loved, because (Machiavelli, 2014, p. 78): [M]en have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation, which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment, which never fails. Nevertheless, a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred because he can endure very well being feared while he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citi- zens and subjects and from their women. It is worth noting in the language used by Machiavelli the primacy of emotions in the exercise of leadership, as well as the risk involved in considering them as tools for an end, which, however lofty, is not necessarily legitimized to fully justify the means. On the other hand, human emotions cannot be described as mere factors or processes to be controlled by leaders, regardless of the educa-tional, social, or political context. They are a constitutive part of human beings, defining us as people and differentiating us from other beings and even from machines with artificial intelligence. Without emotions, it would not be possible to explain fundamental human experiences such as gratitude or forgiveness, which lie beyond mere reason (Caro & Fuentes, 2021), nor would it be possible to live virtues such as optimism or experience the deep and renewing satisfaction of hope (González 27 Marta Ambite et al. Martín & Fuentes, 2012). This is why expressions widely used in the discourse of emotional intelligence, such as emotional management or emotional control, can lead us to become true emotional manipulators when they are not subject to some higher and less instrumental cri-terion than that of effectiveness. Nor can the criterion of subjective emotional well-being be sufficient insofar as it limits us to individuality that forgets the essential ties with others, not only to survive, but as Aristotle (1836) points out, to achieve plenitude, and that allow us to understand ourselves from a broader and shared perspective, far from self-absorption and selfishness. In this sense, the Self-Determination Theory developed by Ryan and Deci in recent decades (2017), has made it possible to delve deeper into this idea in different cultural and interpersonal contexts such as busi-ness, sports, family, and education, at least in two different senses. It has allowed us to identify three basic anthropological needs shared by all human beings and which refer to autonomy, interrelation, and com-petence. In this way, such theory has overcome other subjectivist ap-proaches and unites the contributions of two disciplines traditionally distant due to disagreement over what can be considered objective: psy-chology and philosophy. Thus, at the same time, the reality of the ob-jective implies a limit beyond oneself, a goal to be oriented toward that implies ethical elements. Ethics is none other than the dam that allows us to establish a limit and a direction for emotions and their manage-ment. Along with the emotional dimension of educational leadership, in this chapter we have analysed the challenge of cultural diversity. Many issues arise in this regard that cannot be fully addressed here, so we will highlight two. Beyond the necessary respect that citizens of a demo-cratic society must have for everyone’s right to choose their own cul-ture, concern for the treatment of diversity in schools implies promot- ing the idea that educational institutions have the responsibility to gen-erate opportunities for their students to advance their social standing. In other words, to open new and higher horizons in which individu- als, regardless of their cultural background, have opportunities not only to access greater levels of well-being and higher economic income than their families of origin, but also to access life prospects in which they could develop their full capabilities and providing meaningful purpose to their existence. This implies perceiving society as an open space for participation, in which the individual possesses the autonomy to inter- 28 Current Challenges of Educational Leadership vene, overcoming basic limitations and granting a more genuine mean-ing to freedom of choice. Furthermore, the development of this capacity also implies an ethical development on the path to human fulfillment or flourishing, in that one not only attends to one’s own affairs, but is also capable of assuming shared responsibilities of a political nature, based on the central axis of the common good (Aristotle, 1894). The second idea we wish to emphasize relates to the fact that the ed- ucational treatment of cultural diversity does not necessarily imply a relativization of the pillars of any culturally grounded approach to life, but rather their recognition and consideration as contributions to the discovery of a more fulfilling way of life in common, that is receptive to different sensibilities (Fuentes, 2014). Indeed, it would be a contra- diction if, when we speak of educational inclusion, we meant the ex-plicit or implicit exclusion of the principles and values of members of the educational community, which includes not only students but also their families and local communities of reference. This does not, how-ever, mean renouncing the school’s potential to contribute to this idea of good. In other words, the school and its members are not excluded from intercultural dialogue about the cultural elements that enable the best forms of human cultivation. A cultivation that is precisely part of the word culture, which comes from the Latin cultus and derives from the verb colere, meaning ‘to cultivate.’ And like all crops, it can be di-verse, but not infinite, since not all fruits or products of the field are beneficial to humans. Finally, we have identified the ethical character of the educator as a challenge for educational leadership. There is no doubt that from Socrates to Korczak, our history is shaped by figures of extraordinary worth who, for various reasons, have guided and continue to guide our existence. Their ways of living, and even dying, have shaped our cul-tures and have served as a reference for our decision-making, both in matters of everyday life and in more profound ones that help us answer the big questions. We not only remember their ideas or their words, but we also remember the people who said them. Thus, idealism is not only a system of thought or philosophical theory; it is also Plato, Kant, and Hegel, whose names and texts remain alive after centuries or millen-nia. The educational relevance of these exemplars remains alive today, among other reasons because they embody ideas that are brought to a level of understanding accessible by their similarity to other human beings. 29 Marta Ambite et al. Dewey pointed out that ‘The task of teaching certain things is dele- gated to a special group of persons’ (1930, p. 9), among which, in our view, could be the leadership of people. More specifically, exemplarism is linked to educational leadership, in that leaders are likely to provoke admiration and desires for emulation in others, due to their excellent characteristics in different domains. However, at the same time, there are a series of associated risks derived from the capacity for imitation of negative exemplars. In other words, exemplarism can become a pro-cess that reproduces evil in that it exposes profiles with at least one of its pernicious characteristics to groups of individuals, provoking desires for imitation in some of them and, therefore, causing the continuation of evil. This is especially worrying in the educational field, where teach- ers are role models who act in a setting that, in most cases, involves children, adolescents, and young people. Therefore, their capacity to influence others in their training process is very high (Ibáñez-Martín, 2017). It is worth asking what motivates individuals to admire figures whose lives are far from being completely exemplary. To this end, Carr (2024) and Croce and Vacarezza (2017) respond that the complexity of the figures, the combination of factors, or mixed traits are aspects that attract others, to the extent that the exemplary figures are perceived as closer to their own reality. However, their explanation and normaliza- tion do not exempt them from the obvious educational risks and draws attention once again to the educational leader of reference, to the eth-ical character of the educator, as they constitute the closest reference figure. It is obvious that planting a seed is not enough to grow a plant. With it, a plant sprouts, sometimes with significant initial strength, but the task of cultivation continues afterward. In this sense, the clas-sic metaphor of education as cultivation and school as a garden, which is still preserved in the names of educational institutions in some lan- guages, takes on renewed meaning regarding educational leadership, which requires a permanent responsibility over time. Such stability can be rooted in its ethical foundation, which, as we have seen in this chap- ter, is present in some of the most important challenges facing educa-tional leadership today. This leads us to understand that leading peo-ple and communities in our field of knowledge is more than a techni- cal matter, reduced to the acquisition of practical skills. While these are obviously relevant, the humanity inherent in educational action and its purposes deeply permeates the nature of leadership today. 30 Current Challenges of Educational Leadership References Aristotle. (1836). The Nicomachean ethics. Slatter. Aristotle. (1894). The politics of Aristotle: Books I–V; A revised text. Macmillan. Barrio Maestre, J. M. (2022). La verdad sigue siendo muy importante, también en la Universidad. Teoría de la Educación, 34(2), 63–85. Caro, C., & Fuentes, J. L. (2021). La gratitud: una virtud para ser educada en la familia. In J. Ahedo, C. Caro, & J. L. Fuentes (Eds.), Cultivar el carácter en la familia: una tarea ineludible (pp. 103–118). Dykinson. Carr, D. (2002). Making sense of education: An introduction to the philosophy and theory of education and teaching. Routledge. Carr, D. (2023). The hazards of role modelling for the education of moral and/or virtuous character. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 30(1), 68–79. Carr, D. (2024). Satan’s virtues: On the moral educational prospects of fictional character. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 82(287), 5–16. Choo, S. S. (2020). Reframing global education in teacher education from the perspective of human capability and cosmopolitan ethics. In I. Menter (Ed.), The palgrave handbook of teacher education research (pp. 1–24). Sprin- ger. Croce, M., & Vaccarezza, M. S. (2017). Educating through exemplars: Alterna- tive paths to virtue. Theory and Research in Education, 15(1), 5–19. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Perennial. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182–185. Dewey, J. (1899). The school and society. University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1930). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1930). Democracy and education. MacMillan. Duffy, J. R. (2018). Quality caring in nursing and health systems: Implications for clinicians, educators, and leaders (3rd ed.). Springer. Efron, S. (2005). Janusz Korczak: Legacy of a practitioner-researcher. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(2), 145–156. Esteban, F. E., & Fuentes, J. L. (2020). Swimming against the tide in curnt ed- ucational practice: Thoughts and proposals from a communitarian per- spective. Educational Forum, 85(2), 114–127. Esteve, J. M. (1977). Autoridad, obediencia y educación. Narcea. European Commission. (2023). Promoting diversity and inclusion in schools in Eu- rope: Eurydice report. Publications Office of the European Union. Evans, L. M., Turner, C. R., & Allen, K. R. (2020). ‘Good teachers’ with ‘good 31 Marta Ambite et al. intentions’. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 15(1), 51– 73. Fuentes, J. L. (2014). Identidad cultural en una sociedad plural: propuestas ac- tuales y nuevas perspectivas. Bordón: Revista de Pedagogía, 66(2), 61–74. Fuentes, J. L., & García Bermejo, T. (2024). El señor Scrooge y el Aprendizaje- Servicio: entre la capacidad transformadora de las experiencias éticas y el asombro. In E. Balduzzi, J. L. Fuentes, & E. Miatto (Eds.), Misión so-cial de la universidad y Aprendizaje-Servicio: referencias teóricas y líneas de investigación emergentes (pp. 101–123). Eunsa. Fulcher, G. (1989). Disabling policies? A comparative approach to education policy and disability. Falmer. Fundación Secretariado Gitano. (2013). El alumnado gitano en Secundaria: un studio comparado. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte and Fun- dación Secretariado Gitano. Gay, G. (1994). Coming of age ethnically: Teaching young adolescents of color. Theory Into Practice, 33(3), 149–155. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, tesearch, and practice (2nd ed.). Teacher College Press. González Martín, M. R., & Fuentes, J. L. (2012). Los límites de las modas educa- tivas y la condición humana: un hueco para la educación de las grandes experiencias; el perdón. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 70(253), 479–493. Habimana, I. R. (2024). Holistic education approaches: Nurturing the whole child. Research Output Journal of Education, 3(3), 11–15. Hawkes, R. R., & Dedrick, C. V. (1983). Teacher stress: Phase i i of a descriptive study. NASSP Bulletin, 67(461), 78–83. Henderson, E. (2024). The educational salience of emulation as a moral virtue. Journal of Moral Education, 53(1), 73–88. Herman, K. C., Hickmon-Rosa, J., & Reinke, W. M. (2018). Empirically derived profiles of teacher stress, burnout, self-efficacy, and coping and associ- ated student outcomes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(2), 90–100. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations and states. Harvard University Press. Ibáñez-Martín, J. A. (2017). Horizontes para los educadores: las profesiones educa- tivas y la promoción de la plenitud humana. Dykinson. Ibáñez-Martín, J. A. (2021). Teaching philosophy and cultivating intelligence: A second look at critical thinking and indoctrination. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 79(278), 33–50. Irvine, J. J. (2010). Culturally relevant pedagogy. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 75(8), 57–61. 32 Current Challenges of Educational Leadership Kant, I. (1997). Critique of practical reason (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Re- search, 86(4), 1272–1311. Kolarić, A., & Taczyńska, K. (2022). Pedagogy of care: Building a teaching and learning community. Slavia Meridionalis, 22, 2890. Kristjánsson, K. (2006). Emulation and the use of role models in moral educa- tion. Journal of Moral Education, 35(1), 37–49. Kristjánsson, K. (2015). Aristotelian character education. Routledge. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in u s schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. Liebel, M., & Markowska-Manista, U. (2019). Resistir a la desesperación y la impotencia con la esperanza: una lectura de los diarios de Janusz Kor- czak. Revista Digital de Ciencias Sociales, 6(11), 415–442. Machiavelli, N. (2014). The prince (D. Donno, Trans.). Open Road Integrated Media. Maslach C., Schaufeli W. B., & Leiter M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. Mehrotra, G. R. (2021). Centering a pedagogy of care in the pandemic. Quali- tative Social Work, 20(1–2), 537–543. Meier, D., & Gasoi, E. (2017). These schools belong to you and me: Why we can’t afford to abandon our public schools. Beacon. Menéndez Álvarez-Hevia, D. (2018). A critical approach to emotional intelli- gence as a dominant discourse in the field of education. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 76(269), 7–23. Morrison, K. A., Robbins, H. H., & Rose, D. G. (2008). Operationalizing cultur- ally relevant pedagogy: A synthesis of classroom-based research. Equity and Excellence in Education, 41(4), 433–452. Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education (2nd ed.). University of California Press. Owusu-Ansah, A., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2016). Going back to the basics: Dem- onstrating care, connectedness, and a pedagogy of relationship in edu- cation. World Journal of Education, 6(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/wje .v6n3p1 Park, C., Glass, D., & Rhee, J. (2023). Teaching using caring pedagogy: An ap- proach to environmental education in higher education. Journal of Edu- cation and Learning, 12(4), 45–60. 33 Marta Ambite et al. Porcu, M., Sulis, I., Usala, C., & Giambona, F. (2023). Will the gap ever be bridged? A cross-national comparison of non-native students’ educa- tional achievements. Genus, 79, 19. Qvortrup, J. (2009) Are children human beings or human becomings? A critical assessment of outcome thinking. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 117(3–4), 631–653. Rutigliano, A. (2020). Inclusion of roma students in europe: A literature review and examples of policy initiatives. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford. Schmeichel, M. (2012). Good teaching? An examination of culturally relevant pedagogy as an equity practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(2), 211– 231. Soto, N. (2005). Caring and relationships: Developing a pedagogy of caring. Villanova Law Review, 50(4), 859–870. Taylor, C. (1992). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cam- bridge University Press. Thrupp, M. (2003). The school leadership literature in managerialist times: Ex- ploring the problem of textual apologism. School Leadership and Manage- ment: Formerly School Organisation, 23(2), 149–172. Travers C., & Cooper C. (1997). El estrés de los profesores, la presión en la actividad docente. Paidós. Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. Routledge. Tsabar, B. (2021). Trust, respect, and forgiveness: The educational philosophy of Janusz Korczak. Educational Theory, 71(5), 609–629. Ulmanen, S., Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2016). The anatomy of ado- lescents’ emotional engagement in schoolwork. Social Psychology of Edu- cation, 19(3), 587–606. u n e s c o. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. u n e s c o. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. Ward, S. C., Bagley, C., Lumby, J., Woods, P., Hamilton, T., & Roberts, A. (2015). School leadership for equity: Lessons from the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(4), 333–346. Webb, R., Vulliamy, G., Sarja, A., Hämäläinen, S., & Poikonen, P. (2009). Pro- fessional learning communities and teacher well-being? A comparative analysis of primary schools in England and Finland. Oxford Review of Ed- ucation, 35(3), 405–422. Zagzebski, L. (2017). Exemplarist moral theory. Oxford University Press. 34 2 Unearthing Context: How Socioeconomic Status Shapes the Leadership-Science Achievement Nexus Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači¯ unien˙e Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania Antonios Kafa Open University of Cyprus, Cyprus © 2025 Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e and Antonios Kafa https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-504-7.2 Introduction The relationship between school leadership and student achievement has been a subject of extensive research, particularly in the context of large-scale educational assessments such as the Programme for Inter- national Student Assessment (p i s a). Successful school leaders have a critical role in promoting school effectiveness and adapting their leader-ship practices to their school environment (Gurr et al., 2021; Leithwood et al., 2020). In fact, when we are referring to school leadership and student academic outcomes, instructional leadership could act as an impor- tant leadership practice. Yet, this leadership perspective is presented through indirect pathways in which school leaders influence teaching and learning and supporting students, through curriculum manage- ment, teacher support, and fostering a learning-focused school culture (Hallinger, 2016; Robinson et al., 2008). Additionally, the level of school autonomy is an important factor to take into consideration, influencing student academic outcomes. School autonomy refers to the extent to which school leaders have decision-making power over key aspects of school management, includ- ing curriculum design, resource allocation, and personnel decisions. In fact, granting more school autonomy could allow school leaders to adopt more context-specific leadership practices (Hanushek et al., 2013). Therefore, the relationship between school leadership and student academic outcomes highlights the indirect influence that school leaders Trnavčević, A., & Kafa, A. (Eds.). (2025). Educational leadership in a changing world: Challenges, practices, contexts and insights. University of Primorska Press. Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e and Antonios Kafa have on their students (Day et al., 2020). This indirect effect on student outcomes may be observed through school leaders’ practices and styles that could include support for teachers’ professional development, en-gagement with external stakeholders, supporting the overall teaching and learning process, fostering a participative leadership among the in-ternal stakeholders, etc. (Brauckmann & Pashiardis, 2011). Nevertheless, the impact of school leadership practices on student achievement can be influenced by a range of contextual factors, in-cluding the economic, social, and cultural status (e s c s) of students (Hallinger, 2016). Therefore, exploring how these particular factors in-teract with school leadership practices are important for developing policies that support students and school effectiveness in general. Having said that, this chapter seeks to examine the role of e s c s in the relationships between instructional leadership, school autonomy, and students’ science achievement in o e c d’s latest p i s a cycle. Specif- ically, the research seeks to determine (1) whether e s c s moderates the effects of instructional leadership and school autonomy on student per-formance and (2) whether e s c s mediates these relationships. By high- lighting the mediating and moderating roles of e s c s, this study offers valuable insights for policymakers and educators striving to enhance student learning outcomes through contextually informed leadership practices. Theoretical Background The Role of Contextual Factors and School Leadership In general, it is highly important to recognize the complexities of the context in which school leaders operate, as these factors can signifi- cantly shape their perception and implementation of their leadership practice. Hallinger (2016) identified various contextual areas that affect school organizations and play a significant role in shaping and influenc- ing school leaders’ practices, including the institutional and community contexts. The institutional context, in particular, is defined by factors such as school size and the degree of centralization within the education system (Hallinger, 2016). For instance, centralization affects the vision and reforms that effective school leaders aim to implement, together with the school-level autonomy in school organizations. Also, the com- munity context pertains to the actions of school leaders in the vari-ous communities where they lead their school organizations (Hallinger, 2016). Based on the above, school leaders’ practices are affected on these 36 Unearthing Context contextual factors. School leaders’ leadership dimension and practices may depend on factors such as the socioeconomic status of students and the school’s location. In fact, the role of e s c s as both a mediator and moderator in these relationships adds further complexity. Specifically, these kind of fac-tors could shape the relationship between instructional leadership and school autonomy and affect school leaders’ practices. e s c s has long been recognized as a critical determinant of student achievement. e s c s, as measured in p i s a, encompasses family wealth, parental edu- cation, and access to cultural resources, all of which contribute to stu-dents’ educational opportunities (o e c d, 2019). A study by Borgonovi and Pál (2016), suggested that e s c s mediates the effects of school lead- ership on student outcomes by influencing the availability of learning resources, parental support, and students’ aspirations. Therefore, con-textual elements play an important role when leading school organiza- tions. Additionally, e s c s may alternate the effectiveness of instructional leadership and school autonomy in school organizations. For instance, schools in high-e s c s contexts may benefit more from autonomy due to greater parental involvement and resource availability (Schleicher, 2018). Conversely, in low-e s c s settings, school autonomy may have limited positive effects if leaders lack the necessary capacity to navi-gate resource constraints effectively (Leithwood et al., 2020; Pashiardis et al., 2018). Furthermore, Schwarz and Brauckmann (2015) emphasize the impor- tance of context, noting that school leaders’ practices are strongly in-fluenced by their perceptions of their environment. Specifically, they referred to the concept of the ‘area close to the school’ (a c t s) and how it influences school leaders’ leadership and performance (Schwarz & Brauckmann, 2015). Similarly, Hallinger (2016) highlights the signifi- cance of the community context in shaping school leaders’ practices. According to studies conducted in Europe, factors such as the school’s geographical location, parental engagement, financial constraints, and student behaviour affect school leaders’ instructional practices (Brauck-mann & Pashiardis, 2011; Pashiardis, 2014). Therefore, it is important to acknowledge that contextual factors, including e s c s, directly im- pact school leadership effectiveness, making it impossible to separate leadership success from its surrounding environment (Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz & Pashiardis, 2022). 37 Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e and Antonios Kafa Instructional Leadership and Student Achievement Instructional leadership is considered one of the most prominent lead-ership models in education and has been widely examined due to its potential to impact student learning outcomes, as part of the indi- rect role of school leaders in influencing student learning outcomes. Hallinger (2016) emphasized that instructional leadership impacts stu-dent achievement primarily through the development of teacher capac- ity, curriculum management, and the establishment of a school culture that prioritizes learning. However, the strength of this effect has been debated, with some studies indicating that while instructional leader- ship contributes to student achievement, the effect size remains mod-est (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). Empirical evidence suggests that instructional leadership is more effective when mediated through factors such as teacher collabora-tion, professional development, and a structured learning environment (Robinson et al., 2008). Despite this, some studies have reported con- tradictory findings, suggesting that the direct impact of instructional leadership on student achievement is limited and may depend on con-textual factors such as students’ socioeconomic background (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). For instance, Hallinger et al. (1996) found that instructional lead- ership had no direct effect on student achievement but influenced school effectiveness through shaping the instructional climate. Simi-larly, Heaven and Bourne (2016) found a weak correlation between in-structional leadership and student performance in Jamaican schools, suggesting that other factors, such as teacher involvement and school environment, play a role in academic achievement. Also, in another study, Hou et al. (2019) observed that instructional leadership had a significant moderating influence on the relationship between students’ high school entrance scores and college entrance scores. Therefore, while instructional leadership is recognized as a key factor in shaping student achievement, its impact is largely indirect and influenced by mediating variables such as teacher collaboration, in-structional strategies, and school climate. In addition to this, students’ economic, social, and cultural Status (e s c s) adds further complexity. School Autonomy and Student Academic Outcomes Additionally, school autonomy has emerged as a key factor in shaping school leaders’ practices and its impact on student achievement. Yet, we need to consider that contextual factors, as mentioned above, could in 38 Unearthing Context fact affect school effectiveness and student academic outcomes. Specif-ically, a literature review provides some information on school leaders’ level of autonomy and its effect on student academic outcomes. Some research suggests that granting schools greater autonomy can lead to improved student outcomes, as it allows for more context-specific decision-making and resource allocation (Hanushek et al., 2013). Jackson (2023) examined a policy in Chicago that increased school- level control and found that school leaders’ indirect support improved maths and English passing rates. Kemethofer et al. (2023) used p i s a 2015 data to examine the associations between school leadership, au-tonomy, and student achievement. Their findings indicated no direct link between school autonomy and leadership behaviour, but account- ability and leadership were correlated. Additionally, their study found that parental involvement played a significant role in linking leadership to student outcomes. However, Cheng et al. (2016) support previous studies that show re- search on school autonomy often overlooks cultural and structural di-mensions, leading to inconsistent findings. Therefore, they suggest that school autonomy should be analysed in terms of functional, structural, and cultural components to better understand its impact on student learning. Additionally, the literature suggests that the benefits of school au- tonomy depend on the capacity of school leaders to make effective de-cisions and on the level of accountability mechanisms in place (o e c d, 2019). In fact, an important debate in the literature concerns whether school autonomy leads to better academic performance across differ-ent socioeconomic contexts. Some studies indicate that autonomy is beneficial in high-performing education systems where school leaders have the skills and resources to support their independence effectively (Dronkers & Robert, 2007). However, in less resourced contexts, in- creased autonomy without adequate support may exacerbate existing inequalities and lead to divergent outcomes (Woessmann, 2016). Yet, we need to take into consideration that school autonomy allows school organizations to be innovative in teaching and learning and to respond more directly to the needs of the communities they serve (Kemethofer et al., 2023). Concluding Remarks and the Logic of This Study In general, the literature suggests that instructional leadership and school autonomy can influence student achievement, with the role of 39 Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e and Antonios Kafa school leaders being particularly important. However, contextual fac-tors such as the level of autonomy in school organizations, whether cen- tralized or decentralized, along with the economic, social, and cultural status of students, can shape the role of school leaders. Instructional leadership enhances student learning primarily through teacher de-velopment and curriculum management rather than directly affecting student performance. Similarly, the impact of school autonomy on stu-dent achievement varies depending on school leadership capacity, ac-countability structures, and socioeconomic conditions. The economic, social, and cultural status of students plays a crucial role in moderating and mediating these relationships, underscoring the need for context-sensitive leadership approaches. Therefore, based on the literature review, in Figure 2.1 we present the conceptual model of this study. The model illustrates the direct and in-direct effects of instructional leadership and school autonomy on stu- dents’ science achievement, with e s c s serving as both a mediator and a moderator. The mediation pathway suggests that e s c s may partially explain the relationship between instructional leadership, school au- tonomy and student outcomes, while the moderation pathway posits that the strength of these relationships depends on varying levels of e s c s. The following hypotheses are formulated on the basis of this model: h 1 Instructional leadership and school autonomy are significantly associated with students’ science achievement. h 2 Instructional leadership and school autonomy are significantly associated with e s c s. e s c s h 4, h 5 h3 h2 i n s t l e a d/ h 1 s c i e n c e s c h a u t o 7 h , h6 Figure 2.1 A Conceptual Model e s c s of the Study 40 Unearthing Context h 3 e s c s is positively associated with students’ science achievement. h 4 e s c s mediates the relationship between instructional leadership and science achievement. h 5 e s c s mediates the relationship between school autonomy and science achievement. h 6 e s c s moderates the relationship between instructional leadership and science achievement. h 7 e s c s moderates the relationship between school autonomy and science achievement. The following section of the article describes the methodology used to test these relationships. Methodology Data Source and Variables This study examines the relationship between e s c s, school leaders’ in-structional leadership, school autonomy, and students’ science achieve-ment. The study uses secondary data analysis of the latest o e c d p i s a 2022 results. Based on available data, a total of 60 countries and regions were included in the final analysis. These are countries that are mem-bers of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (o e c d) or o e c d partner countries. Independent Variables In this study, we chose as independent variables two scales from the o e c d p i s a 2022 cycle: Instructional Leadership (i n s t l e a d), and School Autonomy (s c h a u t o). Both scales are from the school lead-ers survey. For instructional leadership (i n s t l e a d), school leaders were asked to rate (5-point scale) how often they or other members of their school management team engaged in activities or behaviours re-lated to teaching or instructional leadership during the last 12 months (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2024). Higher scale score values indicate higher frequencies of engagement by the school leader and school management team in instructional leadership activities, and vice versa. Meanwhile, the school autonomy (s c h au t o) scale comprises 12 items (e.g. ‘Appointing or hiring teach-ers,’ ‘Determining teachers’ salary increases’) and principals are asked about who had the main responsibility for various decisions or activities 41 Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e and Antonios Kafa at their school (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Develop-ment, 2024). Higher scale score values indicate that the school leader, teachers or members of the school management team, and the school governing board had a greater level of autonomy in decision-making activities at their school. Lower scale score values indicate that these groups had less autonomy. Dependent Variable As a dependent variable in this study, students science scores in the lat- est o e cd p i s a results were selected. Scientific performance, for p i s a, measures the scientific literacy of a 15-year-old in the use of scientific knowledge to identify questions, acquire new knowledge, explain scien- tific phenomena, and draw evidence-based conclusions about science-related issues (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Develop-ment, 2023a). In the 2022 Programme for International Student Assess- ment (p i s a), the average science score among o e cd countries was 485 points (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2023b). Mediator/Moderator Economic, social, and cultural status (e s c s) was chosen as media-tor and moderator between school autonomy, principal instructional leadership and science achievement. e s c s is the o e c d p i s a 2022 in-dex of economic, social and cultural status. e s c s is a composite score derived, as in previous assessments, from three indicators related to family background: parents’ highest education, in years (pa re d i n t), parents’ highest occupational status (h i s e i) and home possessions (h o m e p o s) (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Develop-ment, 2023a). It must be mentioned that this index is constructed from students’ survey results. The higher the value of e s c s, the higher the socioeconomic status. The e s c s scale has a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1 across o e c d countries (Organisation for Economic Co- Operation and Development, 2023b). Data Analyses To examine the relationships between instructional leadership, school autonomy, Economic, Social, and Cultural Status (e s c s), and students’ science achievement, the analysis of mediation and moderation was 42 Unearthing Context used. For this purpose, the Hayes’ p ro c e s s Procedure for s p s s Ver-sion 4.0 (Hayes, 2022) was chosen. This approach provides a robust framework for testing indirect and interaction effects through boot-strapped confidence intervals, improving upon traditional stepwise re-gression methods (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation were computed before the main analysis to assess variable relationships and potential multicollinearity. Statistical signif-icance was set at p < 0.05. Mediation analysis was conducted using p ro ce s s Model 4 to deter- mine whether e s c s mediates the relationships between instructional leadership, school autonomy, and students’ science achievement. This model estimates: • Path a: The direct effect of instructional leadership and school au- tonomy on e s c s. • Path b: The direct effect of e s c s on science achievement, control- ling for instructional leadership and school autonomy. • Path c: The direct effect of instructional leadership and school au- tonomy on science achievement after controlling for e s c s. • Path c: The total effect of instructional leadership and school au- tonomy on science achievement. The total effect is the sum of the direct and the indirect effect ( c = c + a × b). • Indirect Effect (a × b): Bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples was used to estimate bias-corrected confidence intervals (95 c i) for the indirect effect. Mediation was considered statistically signifi- cant if the bootl l ci and bootu l ci did not include zero (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The mediation model follows the equations: M = β0 + β X 1 + ε, Y = β0 + β2X + β3M + ε, where M represents e s c s, X represents instructional leadership or school autonomy, and Y represents students’ science achievement. The indirect effect (i e) was calculated as β1 × β3. The overall mediation model of this study is presented in Figure 2.2. To assess whether e s c s moderates the relationships between in- structional leadership, school autonomy, and science achievement, we employed p ro c e s s Model 1. This model tests: 43 Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e and Antonios Kafa m (e s c s) Figure 2.2 x (i n s t l e a d/ Conceptual Model y (s c i e n c e) s c h a u t o) of Mediation • The main effects of instructional leadership and school autonomy on science achievement. • The moderating role of e s c s, assessed using an interaction term (X × W). • Simple slopes analysis, examining the conditional effects of in- structional leadership and school autonomy on science achieve- ment at different levels of e s c s. The moderation model follows the equation: Y = β X 0 + β W 1 + β X 2 + β ( 3 × W) + ε, where W represents the moderator (e s c s), and X × W represents the interaction term. Moderation was considered statistically significant if the coefficient β3 was significant (p < 0.05). The conceptual model of moderation is presented in Figure 2.3. In the results section, we present the results of the analysis that ex- amines the role of economic, social, and cultural status (e s c s) as a me-diator and moderator in the relationships between school autonomy (s c h a u t o), instructional leadership (i n s t l e a d), and students’ sci-ence scores in p i s a 2022. Results Prior to conducting the mediation and moderation analyses, Pear- son correlation coefficients were computed to examine the relation- w (e s c s) Figure 2.3 x (i n s t l e a d/ Conceptual Model y (s c i e n c e) s c h a u t o) of Moderation 44 Unearthing Context Table 2.1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of Study Variables Variable Mean s d i n -s c h au t o e s c s s t l e a d i n s t l e a d . . s c h au t o –. . –. e s c s –. . –.* .* s c i e n c e . . –.** .** .** n o t e s N = 60. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). ships between instructional leadership (i n s t l e a d), school autonomy (s c h au t o), economic, social, and cultural status (e s c s), and science achievement (see Table 2.1). The results revealed that school principals instructional leadership was significantly negatively correlated with e s c s (r = –0.300, p < 0.05) and science achievement (r = –0.443, p < 0.01), suggesting that higher instructional leadership was associated with lower ESCS levels and lower student performance in science. Meanwhile, school autonomy was positively correlated with e s c s (r = 0.322, p < 0.05) and science achievement (r = 0.416, p < 0.01), indicating that greater school auton-omy was associated with higher e s c s and better science performance. In this regard, both Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 are confirmed. As expected, e s c s showed the strongest correlation with science achievement (r = 0.703, p < 0.01), confirming that students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds tend to perform better in science. So, Hy-pothesis 3 is confirmed. These findings establish the foundational re- lationships among key variables, providing justification for conducting mediation and moderation analyses to further explore the role of e s c s in explaining and moderating these effects. Testing for the Moderation Effects The first moderation analysis aimed to examine whether e s c s mod-erates the relationship between school principals’ instructional leader- ship and science achievement. As can be seen in Table 2.2, the model ex-plained 56 of the variance in science achievement ( 2 R = 0.56), which indicates a strong explanatory power. The overall model was statisti- cally significant, F (3,56) = 23.34, p < 0.001, suggesting that the included predictors (i n s t l e a d, e s c s, and their interaction) contribute signif-icantly to explaining science scores. 45 Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e and Antonios Kafa Table 2.2 Moderating Effect of e s c s on the Relation between Instructional Leadership and Students’ Science Scores in p i s a 2022 Predictors β (s e) t () () i n s t l e a d –. (.) –.** [–., –.] [–., –.] e s c s . (.) .** [., .] [., .] Interaction . (.) . [–., .] [–., .] n o t e s 95 confidence interval: (1) low limit, upper limit, (2) boot low limit, boot upper limit. 2 R = 0.56, F = 23.34**, N = 60. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Instructional leadership had a significant negative effect on science scores (β = –33.26, p = 0.01). Meanwhile, e s c s had a significant positive effect on science scores (β = 56.32, p < 0.001), suggesting that students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds perform better in science. The interaction effect between instructional leadership and e s c s was not statistically significant (β = 9.96, p = 0.62), indicating that e s c s does not moderate the relationship between instructional leadership and sci- ence scores (see Figure 2.4). The Bootstrap confidence intervals for instructional leadership ([– 58.72, –15.10]) confirm that its negative impact on science achievement is robust, as the c i does not include zero. The interaction effect’s con-fidence interval ([–18.24, 52.83]) contains zero, reinforcing the conclu-sion that moderation is not significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 6 – e s c s moderates the relationship between instructional leadership and sci- ence achievement – is not supported. The moderating role of e s c s in the relationship between School Au- tonomy (s c h au t o) and science achievement was also examined (see Table 2.3). The model explains 56 of the variance in science achievement ( 2 R = 0.56), indicating strong explanatory power. The overall model is sta- tistically significant F (3,56) = 23.67, p < 0.001), meaning the predictors (s ch au t o, e s c s, and their interaction) contribute significantly to ex- i n s t l e a d –33.26** Figure 2.4 Moderating Effect 56.32** of e s c s between e s c s s c i e n c e Instructional Leadership 9.96 i n s tl e a d × e s cs and Science Scores 46 Unearthing Context Table 2.3 Moderating Effect of e s c s on the Relation between School Autonomy and Students’ Science Scores in p i s a 2022 Predictors β (s e) t () () s c h au t o . (.) .* [., .] [., .] e s c s . (.) .** [., .] [., .] Interaction . (.) . [–., .] [–., .] Conditional Effects of School Autonomy at Different e s c s Levels Low (–.) . (.) . [–., .] Average (.) . (.) .* [., .] High (.) . (.) .** [., .] n o t e s 95 confidence interval: (1) low limit, upper limit, (2) boot low limit, boot upper limit. 2 R = 0.56**, F = 23.67, N = 60. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). plaining science scores. Results show that school autonomy had a sig- nificant positive main effect on science scores (β = 14.88, p = 0.03). Sim- ilarly, e s c s had a significant positive effect on science scores ( β = 59.36, p < 0.001), while the interaction effect between school autonomy and e s c s was not statistically significant (β = 23.87, p = 0.08). This result indicates that e s c s does not significantly moderate the relationship between school autonomy and science achievement (see Figure 2.5). Therefore, Hypothesis 7 is not supported. However, the conditional effects analysis suggests that the impact of school autonomy varies across different e s c s levels: • At low e s c s (–0.61), the effect of school autonomy on science scores was negligible and not significant (p = 0.97). • At average e s c s (0.000), school autonomy had a significant posi- tive effect on science scores (p = 0.03). • At high e s c s (0.610), the effect of school autonomy on science scores was stronger and statistically significant (p = 0.01). The Bootstrap confidence intervals for school autonomy ([0.37, 28.19]) confirm that the positive effect is robust. The interaction effect’s confi- s c h a u t o 14.88* Figure 2.5 59.36** Moderating Effect e s c s s c i e n c e of e s c s between School Autonomy 23.87 s c h au t o × e s c s and Science Scores 47 Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e and Antonios Kafa dence interval ([–3.01, 48.92]) includes zero, reinforcing that the mod-eration effect is not significant. Testing for the Mediation Effects The mediating role of e s c s in the relationship between instructional leadership and science scores was investigated. The overall model ex- plains 55 of the variance in science achievement ( 2 R = 0.55), with a significant overall model fit (F (2,57) = 35.36, p < 0.001). As can be seen in Table 2.4, the total effect of instructional leadership on science scores was negative and significant ( β = –54.78, p < 0.001). The first regression equation examined the effect of instructional leadership on e s c s. The results indicated a significant negative rela- tionship (β = –0.41, p = 0.02). The second regression equation exam-ined the effect of e s c s on science achievement while controlling for instructional leadership. The results indicated a significant positive re- lationship ( β = 56.51, p < 0.001), meaning students with higher e s c s scores performed better in science. When controlling for e s c s, instruc-tional leadership remained a significant predictor of science achieve- ment, though its effect was reduced (β = –31.49, p < 0.001). The afore- mentioned statistics are visually presented in Figure 2.6. A bootstrapped confidence interval (c i) was used to test the signif- icance of the indirect effect. The indirect effect of instructional leader- ship on science scores through e s c s was significant and negative ( β = –23.28, b oot s e = 8.97, 95 ci [–40.08,–3.56]). This result indicates that e s c s mediated the relationship between instructional leadership and science achievement. The mediation is partial, meaning instructional Table 2.4 Mediating Effect of e s c s on the Relation between Instructional Leadership and Students’ Science Scores in p i s a 2022 Predictors β (s e) t () () i n s t l e a d–e s c s –. (.) –.* [–., –.] e s c s–Science . (.) .** [., .] i n s t l e a d–Science –. (.) –.** [–., –.] Total effect –. (.) –.**[–., –.] Ind. effect i n s t l e a d– –. (.) [–., –.] e s c s–Science n o t e s 95 confidence interval: (1) low limit, upper limit, (2) boot low limit, boot upper limit. 2 R = 0.55**, F = 35.36, N = 60. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 48 Unearthing Context e s c s Figure 2.6 56.51** Mediating Effect of e s c s between –0.41* Instructional c = −31.49** Leadership and i n s t l e a d s c i e n c e c 54.78** Science Scores = − Table 2.5 Mediating Effect of e s c s on the Relation between School Autonomy and Students’ Science Scores in p i s a 2022 Predictors β (s e) t () () s c h au t o–e s c s . (.) .** [., .] e s c s–Science . (.) .** [., .] s c h au t o–Science . (.) .* [., .] Total effect . (.) .** [., .] Ind. effect s c h au t o– . (.) [., .] e s c s–Science n o t e s 95 confidence interval: (1) low limit, upper limit, (2) boot low limit, boot upper limit. 2 R = 0.55**, F = 35.36, N = 60. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). leadership affects science both directly and indirectly through e s c s. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is partially confirmed. The mediating role of e s c s in the relationship between school au- tonomy and science scores was also assessed (see Table 2.5). The overall model explained 53 of the variance in science achievement ( 2 R = 0.53), with a significant overall model fit (F (2,57) = 32.74, p < 0.001). The total effect of school autonomy on science achievement was significant ( β = 29.26, p < 0.001) suggesting that higher levels of school autonomy were associated with improved science scores. The first regression equation examined the effect of school autonomy on e s c s. The results indicated a significant positive relationship (β = 0.25, p = 0.01). The second regression equation examined the effect of e s c s on science achievement while controlling for school autonomy. The results indicated a significant positive relationship (β = 57.27, p < 0.001), meaning that students with higher e s c s performed better in science. When controlling for e s c s, school autonomy remained a sig- nificant predictor of science achievement, though its effect was reduced (β = 14.86, p = 0.03). The indirect effect of school autonomy on science scores through 49 Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e and Antonios Kafa e s c s Figure 2.7 * 57.27** Mediating Effect 0.25* of e s c s between c = −14.86* School Autonomy s c h a u t o s c i e n c e c = − 29.26** and Science Scores e s c s was significant and positive (β = 14.40, b oot s e = 5.90, 95 c i [5.01, 28.08]). These findings indicate that e s c s partially mediated the relationship between school autonomy and science achievement. The mediation is partial, meaning school autonomy affects science both di-rectly and indirectly through e s c s. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 is partially supported. Overall, our study shows that e s cs has a mediating, instead of moderating, effect between school leaders’ instructional leadership, school autonomy and students’ science achievement. Discussion and Implications This study aimed to analyse the complex relationships between instruc-tional leadership, school autonomy, economic, social and cultural sta-tus (e s c s) and student science achievements. While there is consider- able scientific evidence on the links between e s cs and student achieve-ment, there is little research on how e s c s works and for which groups. Our study shows that e s c s plays a mediating rather than a moder- ating role in the relationship between instructional leadership, school autonomy and student science achievement. Our findings suggest that e s cs partially mediates the effects of both instructional leadership and school autonomy on student achievement. The confirmation of partial mediation suggests that while instructional leadership and school au-tonomy have a direct effect on science achievement, a significant part of their effect is channelled through the mediating mechanism of so-cioeconomic status. This means that the effectiveness of instructional leadership and the benefits of school autonomy depend on the socioe- conomic context in which they are implemented (Chen et al., 2018). The impact of socioeconomic status on academic achievement has been the subject of extensive debate (Carlisle & Murray, 2015; Chen et al., 2018). Socioeconomic status, which reflects the socioeconomic status of fam-ily members, is often considered a key factor influencing children’s aca-demic and cognitive development (Chen et al., 2018). Instructional lead- 50 Unearthing Context ership and school autonomy can be enhanced or diminished depending on the socioeconomic status of students and schools (Carlisle & Murray, 2015). However, the research findings are mixed when it comes to e s c s as a moderator. The rejection of the hypotheses that socioeconomic status is a moderator of the relationships between instructional lead- ership/school autonomy and science achievement suggests that the strength or direction of these relationships does not change signifi-cantly with different socioeconomic statuses. However, this does not mean that social-economic status (s e s) has no effect – on the contrary, its effect is indirect, i.e. it acts as a mediator rather than as a condi-tion that modifies the strength (Munir et al., 2023). At the same time, this implies that the effects of instructional leadership and school au-tonomy on science achievement remain fairly constant across socioe-conomic backgrounds. This finding reinforces a recurring idea in the literature that leadership has a greater effect across schools but does not necessarily reduce s e s differences within schools (Tan et al., 2020; Perry & Mcconney., 2010). Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the relationship between socioeconomic status and academic suc-cess is multidimensional and depends on a variety of factors, with ex-ceptions and differences within and between countries (Munir et al., 2023). The absence of moderating effects does not negate the impor-tance of socioeconomic status but rather suggests that its influence operates primarily through mediating pathways. This nuanced under- standing highlights the need to consider socioeconomic status as an integral part of the educational ecosystem, shaping the indirect effects of leadership and autonomy rather than directly modifying their ef- fects. Another important finding of our study – the negative relationship between instructional leadership and science achievement – also de- serves separate attention in this discussion. This finding contradicts the classical notion that instructional leadership is related with increased students’ achievement (Karadag, 2020). This seemingly illogical find- ing may be related to the specific measures used to assess instructional leadership in this study, or it may reflect a complex interplay of factors that are not fully reflected in this model. As suggested by Eryilmaz and Sandoval-Hernandez (2021), it is the limitations of the indicators used in international studies that may lead to such seemingly illogical re-sults. Simply put, this may mean that the meaning and application of in- 51 Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e and Antonios Kafa structional leadership varies across contexts. In systems where instruc-tional leadership is implemented through formal or top-down mech- anisms (e.g. frequent lesson observations, performance monitoring), it may create unintended pressures or fail to address the true learning needs of students. For example, research has shown that in countries with strong bureaucratic traditions, principals’ instructional leadership may still reflect administrative control rather than pedagogical support (Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e & Jurgil˙e, 2023). In contrast, school autonomy was positively related to achievement and had both direct and indirect effects through e s c s. This is consis-tent with previous research (Hanushek et al., 2013) that greater au-tonomy allows schools to adapt to the needs of their communities, especially where resources and parental involvement are high. How-ever, this advantage may be less available in contexts with low e s c s, where schools lack the capacity to fully exercise decision-making free- dom. Moreover, in the absence of compensatory policies, it may even widen the gap between schools with different levels of social capital (Schleicher, 2018). The findings of this study contribute to a deeper understanding of school leadership and educational equity in the context of interna-tional student achievement assessments, such as p i s a and t i m s s (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study). These as-sessments aim not only to measure student achievement internation-ally, but also to identify key contextual factors – such as leadership practices, school autonomy and socioeconomic status – that determine educational outcomes (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2020; Mullis et al., 2020). The partial mediation effects of e s c s identified in this study are consistent with p i s a data, which consistently show that socioeconomically advantaged students tend to perform better, regardless of the policies of the school itself (Organisa- tion for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2023a). Meanwhile, the fact that the moderation effect was not statistically significant sug-gests that the impact of leadership practices on achievement remains stable across s e s strata. This adds new nuances to the debate on educa-tional equity and highlights the need to analyse the indirect pathways through which social context influences learning (Schleicher, 2018). Furthermore, the negative association between instructional leader-ship and science achievement calls into question the universality of international indices of leadership. Such indices used in the t a l i s 52 Unearthing Context (Teaching and Learning International Survey) and p i s a surveys may not account for cultural and systemic differences in the implementa- tion of leadership across countries (Eryilmaz & Sandoval-Hernandez, 2021). Therefore, these findings reinforce calls for a more context-sensitive interpretation of international assessments and a more cautious ap- proach to generalized global educational recommendations. Particu-larly, some implications for policy and practice could be associated with context-sensitive school leadership development. Educational policy should consider tailored training that informs school leaders about the presence of diverse school environments and socioeconomic contexts in school organizations. Also, given the mediating role of e s c s, edu- cational reforms should incorporate broader socioeconomic interven-tions, such as parental engagement programmes, resource allocation adjustments, and community-based support initiatives, to mitigate the disparities in student achievement. Finally, future research should ex-amine variations in leadership practices across different governance structures and cultural settings to refine school leadership models across the multiple contexts. References Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable dis- tinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and sta- tistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. Borgonovi, F., & Pál, J. (2016). A framework for the analysis of student well-being in the p i s a 2015 study: Being 15 in 2015. Organisation for Economic Co- Operation and Development. Brauckmann, S., & Pashiardis, P. (2011). A validation study of the leadership styles of a holistic leadership theoretical framework. International Jour- nal of Educational Management, 25(1), 11–32. Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, S., & Pashiardis, P. (2022). Entrepreneurial leadership in schools: Linking creativity with accountability. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(5), 787–801. Cheng, Y. C., Ko, J., & Lee, T. T. H. (2016). School autonomy, leadership and learning: A reconceptualisation. International Journal of Educational Man- agement, 30(2), 177–196. Chen, Q., Kong, Y., Gao, W., & Mo, L. (2018). Effects of socioeconomic sta- tus, parent-child relationship, and learning motivation on reading abil- ity. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1297. 53 Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e and Antonios Kafa Carlisle, B., & Murray, C. (2015). Academic performance, effects of socio- economic status on. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 43–48). Elvesier. Day, C., Sammons, P., & Gorgen, K. (2020). Successful school leadership. Educa- tion Development Trust. Dronkers, J., & Robert, P. (2007). Differences in scholastic achievement of pub- lic, private government-dependent, and private independent schools: A cross-national analysis. Educational Policy, 22(4), 541–577. Eryilmaz, N., & Sandoval Hernandez, A. (2021). Improving cross-cultural com- parability: Does school leadership mean the same in different countries? Educational Studies, 50(5), 917–938. Gurr, D., Longmuir, F., & Reed, C. (2021). Creating successful and unique schools: Leadership, context and systems thinking perspectives. Jour- nal of Educational Administration, 59(1), 59–76. Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford. Hallinger, P. (2016). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educa- tional Management Administration and Leadership, 46(1). https://doi.org /10.1177/1741143216670652 Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Ad- ministration Quarterly, 32 (1), 5–44. Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal lead- ership, and student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527–549. Hanushek, E. A., Link, S., & Woessmann, L. (2013). Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from p i s a. Journal of Devel- opment Economics, 104(61), 212–232. Heaven G., & Bourne, P. A. (2016). Instructional leadership and its effect on students’ academic performance. Review of Public Administration and Management, 4(3), 197. Hou, Y., Cui, Y. & Zhang, D. (2019). Impact of instructional leadership on high school student academic achievement in China. Asia Pacific Education Re- view, 20, 543–555. Jackson, C. K. (2023). When does school autonomy improve student outcomes? An- nenberg Institute at Brown University. Karadag, E. (2020) The effect of educational leadership on students’ achieve- ment: A cross-cultural meta-analysis research on studies between 2008 and 2018. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21, 49–64. Kemethofer, D., Weber, C., Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, S., & Pashiardis, P. (2023). Examining the trident: How data from the p i s a study can be used to 54 Unearthing Context identify associations among context, school leadership, and student out- comes. Journal of Educational Administration, 61(2), 162–177. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership and Management, 40(1), 5–22. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496–528. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2020). t i m s s 2019 inter- national results in mathematics and science. International Study Center. Munir, J., Faiza, M., Jamal, B., Daud, S., & Iqbal K. (2023). The impact of socio- economic status on academic achievement. Journal of Social Sciences Re- view, 3(2), 695–705. Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e, R., & Jurgil˙e, V. (2023). Does school principals’ lead- ership vary vis-a-vis cultural differences from west to east or south to north? European Journal of Contemporary Education,12(1), 118–131. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2019). pi s a 2018 results: Volume 1 What students know and can do. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2020). ta l i s 2018 results: Volume 2 Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2023a). p i s a 2022 assessment and analytical framework. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2023b). p i s a 2022 results: Volume 1 The state of learning and equity in education. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2024). pi s a 2022 technical report. Pashiardis, P., Brauckmann, S., & Kafa, A. (2018). Let the context become your ally: School Principalship in two cases from low performing schools in Cyprus. School Leadership and Management, 38(5), 478–495. Pashiardis, P. (Ed.). (2014). Modeling school leadership across Europe: In search of new frontiers. Springer. Perry, L. B., & Mcconney, A. (2010). Does the s e s of the school matter? An ex- amination of socioeconomic status and student achievement using p i s a 2003. Teachers College Record, 112(4), 1137–1162. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. Schleicher, A. (2018). World class: How to build a 21st-century school system, 55 Rasa Nedzinskait˙e-Mači ¯unien˙e and Antonios Kafa strong performers and successful reformers in education. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Schwarz, A., & Brauckmann, S. (2015). Between facts and perceptions: The area close to school as a context factor in school leadership (Schumpeter Discus- sion Papers No. 2015-003). University of Wuppertal. Tan, C. Y., Liu, P., & Wong, W. L. V. (2020). Different patterns of relationships between principal leadership and 15-year-old students’ science learning: How school resources, teacher quality, and school socioeconomic status make a difference. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2257. Woessmann, L. (2016). The importance of school systems: Evidence from in- ternational differences in student achievement. Journal of Economic Per- spectives, 30(3), 3–32. 56 3 School Leadership and Educational Quality: A Review of Selected Global Models Carolina Marlen Luna Perez Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain Jennifer Ana Domínguez Rodríguez Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain © 2025 Carolina Marlen Luna Perez and Jennifer Ana Domínguez Rodríguez https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-504-7.3 Introduction Amongst the current global challenges is the need to ensure inclusive, equitable, equal, and quality education, guaranteeing both universal ac- cess and the fair distribution of opportunities for all. This goal aligns with the fourth Sustainable Development Goal (s d g 4) of the 2030 Agenda, which aims to improve education systems worldwide and re- duce gaps in access and learning (United Nations Sustainable Develop-ment, n.d.). To advance toward this objective, it is essential to consider a range of internal and external factors that impact educational devel- opment, including each country’s context and the commitment of po-litical leaders (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Develop-ment, 2024). At the institutional level, one of the key elements in improving edu- cational quality is school leadership, which has a direct impact on stu-dent learning outcomes and school management (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al., 2008). Various studies have demonstrated that school principals significantly influence the organizational culture of educational institutions, teacher motivation, and the implementation of effective pedagogical practices (Day et al., 2009). In response to this evidence, numerous countries have developed ed- ucational leadership regulatory frameworks that establish standards and guidelines to strengthen school leadership teams and their impact on education. These frameworks aim not only to professionalize school management but also to ensure that leadership contributes to equity Trnavčević, A., & Kafa, A. (Eds.). (2025). Educational leadership in a changing world: Challenges, practices, contexts and insights. University of Primorska Press. Carolina Marlen Luna Perez and Jennifer Ana Domínguez Rodríguez and the improvement of learning outcomes in diverse educational con-texts (Pont et al., 2008). This chapter reviews the educational leadership regulatory frame- works implemented in Chile, Canada, Singapore, and Australia, coun-tries that have developed specific models to guide school leaders in managing their institutions. These frameworks define clear criteria in key areas such as pedagogical leadership, resource management, teacher professional development, and engagement with the educa-tional community. Through this analysis, common elements among these regulatory frameworks can be identified, offering a comprehen-sive perspective on how different countries structure educational lead-ership to enhance school management and learning outcomes. Chile, for example, has developed the Framework for Good School Leadership and Management, which aims to professionalize school administration and promote the development of effective leadership teams (Ministerio de Educación República de Chile, 2015). In Canada, the province of Ontario has implemented the Ontario Leadership Fra-mework, which has been key in reducing educational gaps and promot- ing equity (Ontario Institute for Educational Leadership, 2013). Simi-larly, Singapore has established the Leaders in Education Programme (l e p), a comprehensive programme that strengthens the training of school leaders to improve student performance (Ng, 2013). Finally, Aus-tralia has introduced the Australian Professional Standard for Princi-pals, which sets clear guidelines for leadership development and evalua- tion in schools (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (a i t s l), 2020). Despite contextual differences among these countries, they have all adopted a regulatory approach to educational leadership as a key strat-egy for the continuous improvement of their education systems. This study aims to examine how these frameworks are structured and which leadership dimensions are prioritized in each model. Thus, this research will help to understand the regulatory frame- work on public education, providing evidence on the importance of hav- ing clear guidelines for school management and their relationship with learning improvement. Theoretical Framework Education is a fundamental pillar for the development of societies, and its quality largely depends on the management and leadership of the 58 School Leadership and Educational Quality school leadership teams. In this regard, educational leadership has been widely studied as a key factor in improving learning, equity, and the ef- ficiency of school systems (Leithwood & Day, 2008). Since school lead-ership influences multiple dimensions of the educational system, it is necessary to approach its study from a comprehensive perspective. This theoretical framework analyses the fundamental concepts that under- pin educational management and leadership in schools, in order to un-derstand the impact of regulatory frameworks in the selected countries: Chile, Canada, Singapore, and Australia. To this end, five key thematic areas are presented: Educational Management, Educational Leadership, Dimensions of School Leadership, Public Administration in Education, and Regulatory Frameworks for Educational Leadership, which we will explain below. Educational Management Educational management refers to the processes, strategies, and poli-cies implemented to effectively administer school systems and ensure learning quality. It encompasses the planning, organization, leader-ship, and evaluation of resources and stakeholders involved in educa-tion (Bush, 2020). The quality of education is directly linked to efficient management, which must guarantee access, equity, and excellence in learning outcomes (Fullan, 2020). Strong leadership within educational management translates into better school administration and a posi- tive impact on student achievement (Schleicher, 2021). In this regard, management models vary across countries, depending on factors such as the degree of decentralization and the regulatory framework govern- ing public education. Educational Leadership Leadership is understood as the process of motivating and influencing others to define and achieve common goals (Leithwood et al., 2006). This concept recognizes that leadership is not limited to the princi-pal’s role but is distributed among different members of the educational community. Furthermore, leadership is closely related to management. Although these two concepts have different meanings and scopes, they complement each other to enhance institutional development. Different leadership approaches have been identified, including: • Transformational Leadership. This approach motivates and empow- ers the educational community to achieve institutional goals. It is 59 Carolina Marlen Luna Perez and Jennifer Ana Domínguez Rodríguez Table 3.1 Synthesis of Key Dimensions of Leadership Practices Synthesis of Key Dimensions of Synthesis of Key Dimensions of Leadership Leadership Practices, according to Practices, according to authors Robinson and authors Leithwood et al. () Gray () Setting a direction Set goals and expectations Developing staff Promote and participate in teacher learning and professional development Redesigning the organization Obtain and maintain resources strategically Managing instruction Plan, coordinate, and evaluate curriculum in- struction n o t e s Adapted from Framework for Good School Leadership and Management (p. 12), by the Ministerio de Educación República de Chile (2015). based on a shared vision, the professional development of staff, and the creation of a school environment that fosters academic success (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). • Distributed Leadership. In this model, influence and decision-mak- ing emerge from the interactions among members of the organi- zation rather than relying solely on individual leadership (Harris, 2008). • Instructional Leadership. This approach focuses on improving teach- ing and learning. Educational leaders (such as principals and in- structional coordinators) ensure that teachers receive the nec- essary support, resources, and guidance to implement effective classroom strategies and enhance student outcomes (Robinson et al., 2008). In many countries, educational leadership has been formalized thro- ugh regulatory frameworks that establish standards and expected com-petencies for school administrators. Dimensions of School Leadership School leadership consists of multiple interrelated dimensions that im- pact institutional management and student learning outcomes. Accord-ing to Leithwood et al. (2019), there are five fundamental dimensions of effective school leadership: 1. Setting Goals and Expectations. This involves defining clear and achievable objectives that guide the work of the school commu- nity and align teaching practices with the institutional vision. 60 School Leadership and Educational Quality 2. Strategic Allocation of Resources. This refers to efficiently distribut- ing human, material, and financial resources to optimize teaching and learning processes. 3. Ensuring Teaching Quality. This dimension focuses on three key school leadership practices: developing a coherent instructional framework, monitoring the impact of teaching on student out- comes, and evaluating teachers. • Coherent Instructional Framework. An aligned curriculum, teach- ing strategies, and assessments ensure consistent instruction and access to relevant content, leading to improved student outcomes. • Monitoring and Use of Evidence. School leaders should track performance data and foster a culture that promotes trust in evidence-based practices to enhance teaching effectiveness. • Teacher Evaluation. Teacher assessment should be based on clear evidence of student impact, emphasizing professional de- velopment. The most effective evaluations focus on construc-tive feedback, teacher involvement in the process, and building trusting relationships. 4. Leading Teacher Learning and Development. This focuses on provid- ing continuous professional development opportunities for teach- ers and fostering educational innovation. 5. Ensuring an Orderly and Safe Environment. This dimension aims to establish a positive school climate, reduce conflicts, and ensure op- timal learning conditions. These dimensions have been identified in multiple studies as key factors in improving educational quality and equity in school systems (Robinson & Gray, 2019). Public Administration in Education Public administration in education refers to the management and gov-ernance of educational policies within the public sector. It involves the planning, organisation, and supervision of resources and activities nec-essary to ensure the efficient functioning of educational systems and the effective implementation of policies that promote educational qual- ity. This concept encompasses both administrative management and pedagogical leadership and is essential to ensuring that public policies translate into better educational outcomes for students (Ball, 2008). 61 Carolina Marlen Luna Perez and Jennifer Ana Domínguez Rodríguez According to Gairín Sallán (2024), educational administration within the public framework has evolved toward a distributed leadership mod- el. This approach not only enhances resource management efficiency but also encourages the active participation of all stakeholders, includ-ing teachers, parents, and students, in the decision-making process. This model of leadership is essential to ensuring that policies remain adaptable and responsive to the specific needs of each educational com-munity. Furthermore, transformational and collaborative leadership plays a crucial role in fostering continuous improvement, innovation, and sustainable development within educational systems. In summary, public administration in education involves the gover- nance of educational policies through leadership that integrates both administrative and pedagogical aspects, focusing on equity, inclusion, and continuous improvement. School leaders must be able to adapt policies and educational practices to local needs, manage resources ef- ficiently, and promote the active participation of all members of the school community. Regulatory Frameworks for Educational Leadership Regulatory frameworks for educational leadership are official docu- ments or guidelines established by national and international orga-nizations that define the standards, competencies, and responsibilities of school leaders. Their purpose is to guide school management to im- prove teaching and learning, ensuring quality education based on eq-uity, inclusion, and continuous improvement (Pont et al., 2008). These frameworks not only establish criteria for the training and evaluation of school principals but also provide guidance on how they should man-age their institutions to achieve effective and transformative leadership (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). Key Characteristics of Regulatory Frameworks for Educational Leadership According to specialized literature, regulatory frameworks for educa-tional leadership typically include the following key elements: • Definition of standards and competencies. They establish clear cri- teria regarding what is expected of educational leaders in terms of school management and pedagogical development (Pont et al., 2008). • Focus on pedagogical leadership. They prioritize teaching and learn- ing as the fundamental pillars of school management, promoting evidence-based practices (Leithwood et al., 2017). 62 School Leadership and Educational Quality • Professional development and continuous training. They provide strat- egies to enhance the training of school leaders, ensuring that edu- cational leadership evolves in response to educational demands. • Accountability and evaluation. They incorporate mechanisms to measure the performance of school leaders and their impact on the educational community (Hallinger & Heck, 2011). • Adaptability to context. They are designed to respond to the specific needs of each educational system, allowing their implementation in diverse school settings (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Regulatory frameworks play a crucial role in guiding school principals, establishing practices that strengthen educational quality and foster the continuous improvement of school management processes. Evaluation of School Leadership in Regulatory Frameworks The evaluation of school leadership is a fundamental component within regulatory frameworks, as it allows for the monitoring and improve-ment of school management over time. According to Hallinger and Heck (2011), leadership evaluation should align with school improve-ment goals, ensuring that educational leaders generate a positive im-pact on teaching and learning. Leithwood et al. (2017) argue that regulatory frameworks should evaluate leadership based on its impact on student learning and teacher development, establishing clear performance indicators. On the other hand, Bush (2020) highlights that accountability mechanisms within these frameworks enhance the quality of school leadership and its alignment with educational policies. From a broader perspective, Har-greaves and Fullan (2012) emphasize that leadership evaluation should not be purely punitive but also formative. That is, regulatory frame-works should not only measure outcomes but also support leadership development through feedback processes and continuous support. In this sense, the evaluation of school leadership in regulatory frame- works contributes to: • Enhancing the effectiveness of school principals, ensuring they possess the necessary competencies to lead their institutions. • Strengthening evidence-based decision-making, allowing educa- tional systems to adjust their policies based on real data. • Ensuring educational equity and quality, guaranteeing that all schools benefit from efficient and learning-oriented leadership. 63 Carolina Marlen Luna Perez and Jennifer Ana Domínguez Rodríguez Therefore, regulatory frameworks that incorporate rigorous leadership evaluation processes directly contribute to improving educational sys- tems and fostering the professional development of school leaders. School Leadership Evaluation Policies School leadership evaluation policies establish the criteria, procedures, and tools used to measure the effectiveness and impact of school prin-cipals in their institutions. These policies aim to ensure that leadership in schools contributes to the continuous improvement of educational quality, the professional development of leaders, and compliance with established regulatory frameworks (Pont et al., 2008). The evaluation of school leadership can focus on different aspects, such as: • Student learning outcomes. Analysing the relationship between leadership practices and academic performance. • School climate and culture. Evaluating how leadership influences collaboration, community engagement, and the well-being of stu- dents and teachers. • Management and leadership practices. Examining the implementa- tion of pedagogical and organizational leadership strategies. • Professional development of school leaders. Considering ongoing training and the growth of leadership competencies. According to Murphy et al. (2017), leadership evaluation should be based on professional standards and use multiple sources of informa-tion to ensure improvements in both school management and student learning. At the international level, organizations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development have signed agreements and memoranda to strengthen cooperation in the field of education. One example is the Memorandum of Understanding (m o u) signed on July 10, 2024, between the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and De- velopment and the i i p e-u n e s co, aimed at enhancing institutional ca-pacities in countries to monitor and improve the quality of education in the school sector (International Institute for Educational Planning, 2024). These agreements contribute to capacity-building programmes, benefiting a larger number of countries and promoting accountability and evidence-based decision-making. 64 School Leadership and Educational Quality In this context, school leadership evaluation policies not only seek to measure the effectiveness of school principals but also promote the en- hancement of their competencies and their impact on student learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2022). Comparison of Regulatory Frameworks in Chile, Canada (Ontario), Singapore, and Australia Based on the Analysed Dimensions This section will analyse the educational leadership regulatory frame- works of Chile, Canada (Ontario), Singapore, and Australia. The com-parison will be based on the key dimensions of educational leadership, highlighting how each country has integrated specific school leadership practices and how these have influenced educational outcomes. Chile: Framework for Good School Leadership and Management (m b dl e) In Chile, the ‘Framework for Good School Leadership and Management’ (m b d l e, by its Spanish acronym) has been implemented as a key tool to professionalize school leadership. This framework establishes that principals must be both pedagogi- cal and strategic leaders, capable of making decisions that impact the improvement of educational outcomes. It promotes leadership as a key factor in educational quality while emphasizing team management and community engagement. School leaders guide their work based on ethical principles and uni- versal values, as expressed in the Institutional Educational Project. These principles, such as trust and ethical conduct, shape their lead- ership and management within the school community (Ministerio de Educación República de Chile, 2015). Objective The m b d l e aims to provide a conceptual framework that guides the work of school leaders in Chile, promoting effective leadership practices and fostering the continuous improvement of educational institutions. Structure and Content The Framework for Good Leadership and School Management (mbdl e) is organized around three fundamental components: • Skills. Practical competencies essential for school leadership. 65 Carolina Marlen Luna Perez and Jennifer Ana Domínguez Rodríguez Skills Building and imple- Developing menting professional shared strate- capacities gic vision Leading Managing and monitor- Figure 3.1 school orga- ing teaching ge d nization and learning le m b dl e Foster- P w process o Dimensions rin ing school kn Diagram cip community al le s participation on n o t e s Adapted si es and coex- from Ministerio of istence Pr de Educación República de Chile (2015, p. 19). • Principles. Ethical values and foundations that guide decision- making. • Professional Knowledge. Theoretical and technical foundation in leadership and school management. Based on these components, the m b dl e defines five key dimensions for effective school leadership: • Shared Strategic Vision. Focused on building a common direction that unifies the efforts of the educational community. • Professional Capacity Development. Centred on promoting profes- sional learning and strengthening pedagogical leadership. • Leadership in Teaching and Learning. Related to teacher support and the continuous improvement of pedagogical processes. • Management of School Climate and Participation. Aimed at promot- ing a positive, inclusive, and participatory school environment. • Institutional Management and Organization. Concerning the effi- cient administration of resources and institutional development. These elements help guide the training, selection, and evaluation of leadership teams by establishing clear criteria. 66 School Leadership and Educational Quality Associated Programmes • Training and Professional Development. The m b d l e guides initial training and ongoing professional development for school lead- ers, defining key competencies and promoting effective leadership skills. • Selection and Evaluation of School Leaders. This serves as a reference for selection and evaluation processes, ensuring that the criteria align with the leadership practices defined in the framework. Canada (Ontario): Ontario Leadership Framework (ol f) Ontario has been recognized as a global leader in educational reforms, known for its focus on capacity building and the implementation of strategies aimed at improving teaching. These reforms have been de- signed and driven with the active participation of professionals within the education system, ensuring their relevance and effectiveness (Mori-coni & Bélanger, 2015). School principals are responsible for leading teams, engaging the school community, and developing a shared vision. This approach highlights the importance of pedagogical leadership that is inclusive and fosters learning improvement through the participation of all educational stakeholders. Objective: To provide a comprehensive guide for school and system leaders in Ontario, establishing effective leadership practices and the personal resources necessary to promote student success and school improvement. School-Level K-12 School Effectiveness Leadership Framework Figure 3.2 o l f Leadership Levels District Diagram System-Level n o t e s Leadership Effectiveness Adapted Framework from the Ontario Ministry of Education (2013, p. 7). 67 Carolina Marlen Luna Perez and Jennifer Ana Domínguez Rodríguez Structure and Content The o l f outlines effective leadership practices and sets clear expecta-tions for educational leaders in the province. It identifies four levels of leadership: • School-Level Leadership • System-Level Leadership • District Effectiveness Framework • K-12 School Effectiveness Framework It is worth mentioning that Level No. 1, ‘School-Level Leadership,’ establishes five fundamental dimensions that describe effective school leadership practices: 1. Setting Directions. Develop and communicate a shared vision that promotes high expectations and clear goals for student success. 2. Building Relationships and Developing People. Foster positive rela- tionships and support the continuous professional growth of edu- cational staff. 3. Developing the Organization to Support Desired Practices. Create a school culture and organizational structures that support effective teaching and learning. 4. Improving the Instructional Programme. Continuously monitor and enhance teaching practices to improve student performance. 5. Securing Accountability. Take responsibility for student success and ensure that staff do the same by using data and assessments to inform decisions. These dimensions are designed to guide school leaders in the contin- uous improvement of education and learning within their institutions. Associated Programmes • Continuous Professional Development (o l f) serves as the founda- tion for training and professional development programmes for educational leaders in Ontario, emphasizing the importance of continuous improvement and evidence-based learning. • Evaluation and Reflection provides tools for self-assessment and professional reflection, helping leaders identify areas of strength and opportunities for growth. 68 School Leadership and Educational Quality Singapore: Leaders in Education Programme (l e p) Singapore, through the Leaders in Education Programme (l e p), has a highly specialized educational management strategy focused on the continuous training of school leaders. The model is based on a high level of specialization and adaptability among school administrators, who must efficiently manage resources and promote academic excel-lence within their school communities. The l e p ensures that princi-pals have a direct impact on improving teaching and learning, which is a key factor in the success of Singapore’s education system. The Leaders in Education Programme (l e p) is a 6-month full-time programme de-signed to prepare highly capable vice principals and ministry officers in Singapore for principalship (Jayapragas, 2016). The programme places a strong emphasis on pedagogical leadership, viewing principals not only as resource managers but also as facilitators of high-quality learning. School leaders are expected to serve as role models of excellence, im-plementing pedagogical best practices and also driving change and in-novation within the education system. The l e p is built upon educational policies that prioritize continu- ous improvement in education quality. The structured leadership de-velopment policies align with the regulatory and political frameworks described by Ball (2008), which address the impact of public policies on education. Learning to Conduct Futuring Learning to Contextualize • Handling real-life complexities • Adapting best practices to local in school leadership school contexts • Encouraging anticipation of trends • Gaining insights from global and challenges education strategies • Balancing imagination • Contextualizing leadership theories with pragmatism and behaviours Learning to Collaborate Learning to be Adaptable and Flexible in a Self-Organizing Paradigm • Emphasizing change management • Relying on shared decision-making • Balancing instructional • Enhancing instructional effective- and stakeholder needs ness through teacher participation • Handling multiple and conflicting • Networking and cross-border responsibilities collaboration Figure 3.3 Leaders in Education Programme Diagram n o t e s Based on Jayapragas (2016). 69 Carolina Marlen Luna Perez and Jennifer Ana Domínguez Rodríguez Objective To develop highly skilled school leaders capable of managing change and improving educational quality through strategic and effective leader-ship. Structure and Content The educational leadership model in Singapore is based on the continu-ous training of school administrators and the development of key com- petencies in: • Learning to conduct futuring • Learning to contextualize • Learning to be adaptable and flexible • Learning to collaborate in a self-organizing paradigm Associated Programmes • Leaders in Education Programme International (l e p i). Building on the success of the l e p, the Leaders in Education Programme In- ternational (l e p i) was introduced in 2005 to extend its impact globally. This programme offers school principals and education officers worldwide the opportunity to explore contemporary ap- proaches to educational leadership and gain first-hand experience in Singaporean schools, observing successful practices and inno- vative strategies in action (National Institute of Education, 2015). • Management and Leadership in Schools (m l s). Training for current school leaders, with an emphasis on management and instruc- tional leadership. Australia: Australian Professional Standard for Principals In Australia, the Australian Professional Standard for Principals pro- vides a framework for the continuous improvement of school leader-ship, focusing on pedagogical management, the professional develop-ment of principals, and fostering a culture of ongoing enhancement. This framework emphasizes the autonomy of principals in managing their schools while adhering to clear professional standards aimed at improving student learning outcomes (a i t s l, 2020). Research has shown that effective school leadership directly impacts teaching quality and student performance (Leithwood et al., 2008). In this regard, Fullan (2020) argues that educational leaders must act as 70 School Leadership and Educational Quality • Vision and values • Operational • Knowledge and Leadership • Relational Leadership understanding Require- • Strategic Emphasis • Personal qualities, ments • Systemic lens social and inter- lens personal skills Professional Figure 3.4 Practices Australian Professional lens Standard for Principals Diagram • Leading teaching and learning n o t e s Adapted • Developing self and others from Australian • Leading improvement, innovation and change Institute for Teaching • Leading the management of the school and School Leadership • Engaging and working with the community (2020, p. 11). agents of change, promoting innovation and continuous improvement within schools. Objective To define the essential competencies and practices for educational lead-ership in the country, ensuring effective and equitable school manage-ment. Structure and Content The Australian Professional Standard for Principals programme estab- lishes three key areas of leadership: • Educational Leadership. Improvement of teaching and learning within the school. • Organizational Leadership. Management of resources and adminis- trative processes. • Community Leadership. Connection with families and the school community. Associated Programmes • Training and Professional Development for Principals. Based on the national standard, aimed at the enhancement of school leaders. • Self-assessment and Professional Reflection. A framework used by principals to evaluate their strengths and areas for improvement. 71 Carolina Marlen Luna Perez and Jennifer Ana Domínguez Rodríguez Summary of School Leadership Approaches and Dimensions Table 3.2 and table 3.3 provide a comparative view of the educational leadership frameworks in the analysed countries. The first table sum-marizes the general approaches adopted by each country in relation to the five key pillars of school leadership, such as educational manage-ment, pedagogical leadership, and public administration. The second table, meanwhile, provides a detailed breakdown of the specific dimen- sions addressed by each school leadership programme, such as staff pro-fessional development, resource management, and engagement with the educational community. Together, they serve as a visual synthesis of the approaches and dimensions discussed earlier, allowing for a more direct comparison between the regulatory frameworks of the different countries. These tables offer a clear and concise representation of educational Table 3.2 Summary of Regulatory Frameworks by Country Axis Chile Canada Singapore Australia Educational Focus on strate-Promotes re- Management Encourages Manage- gic manage- source manage- oriented to- principals’ ment ment for con- ment to sup- wards resource autonomy in tinuous im- port student efficiency, with school man- provement. Use performance an emphasis on agement under of data and self- improvement continuous ed- clear national evaluation to through collab- ucational im- standards. adjust pedagog- oration. provement. ical practices. Educational The m b d l e The o l f estab- The l e p fosters The a p s pro-Leadership guides princi- lishes collabora-integral lead- motes peda- pals as pedagog-tive and peda- ership, empha- gogical leader-ical and strate- gogical leader- sizing teaching ship centred on gic leaders. ship, focusing and learning learning and on learning im- improvement. continuous im- provement. provement. Dimensions Pedagogical Leadership in Promotion Leadership in of School leadership, school direc- of pedagogi- teaching, orga-Leadership management of tion, staff de- cal leadership, nizational man- teaching teams, velopment, and strengthening agement, and and relation- performance of the school development ships with the improvement. community, and of relationships educational organizational with the school community. management. community. Continued on the next page 72 School Leadership and Educational Quality Table 3.2 Continued from the previous page Axis Chile Canada Singapore Australia Public Ad- Alignment with Linked to Direct insertion Clear standards ministra- national pub- provincial and of educational aligned with na-tion in Ed- lic policies for federal policies, policies aimed tional education ucation educational im- focusing on in- at continuous quality policies provement. Pro-clusion and edu-improvement and principals’ motion of eq- cational equity. and educational responsibility. uity in access to quality. education. Regulatory The m b dl e es- The o l f guides The l e p pro- The a p s defines Frame- tablishes stan- the develop- vides guidelines key competen-works dards and crite- ment of leader- for the train- cies and prac-for Edu- ria for evaluat- ship practices ing and devel- tices for school cational ing and training effectively. opment of edu- leaders. Leadership school leaders. cational leaders. Table 3.3 Dimensions of School Leadership in the Programmes of Each Country Dimensions Chile Canada Singapore Australia Pedagogical Emphasizes ef- Promotes a col- Highlights the Focuses on the Leadership fective peda- laborative ap- importance of capacity of prin- gogical manage-proach to ped- pedagogical cipals to im-ment, ensuring agogical leader- leadership in prove pedagog-that leadership ship to improve improving ed- ical processes is focused on learning. ucational out- and school per- the quality of comes. formance. teaching. Resource Focuses on the Highlights the Emphasizes ef- Establishes Manage- efficient allo- management ficient resource clear guidelines ment cation of re- of human and management for managing sources to sup- material re- in schools, en- resources, en-port teaching sources to opti- suring students suring they con-and learning. mize school per-have access to tribute to on- formance. what they need. going improve- ment. Continued on the next page leadership approaches and practices in Chile, Canada (Ontario), Singa-pore, and Australia, to facilitate a visual comparison. Conclusions This study has focused on a comparative review of the regulatory frame-works for educational leadership in Chile, Ontario (Canada), Singapore, 73 Carolina Marlen Luna Perez and Jennifer Ana Domínguez Rodríguez Table 3.3 Continued from the previous page Dimensions Chile Canada Singapore Australia Professional Emphasizes Stresses the Highlights com- Promotes the Develop- ongoing train- importance prehensive continuous pro-ment ing and profes- of staff train- leader training, fessional de- sional develop- ing and profes- with an empha- velopment of ment of teach- sional develop- sis on continu- school leaders ing staff. ment, including ous professional as a key driver principals and development. for educational teachers. improvement. Change Addresses the Emphasizes Highlights man-Establishes that Manage- need to manage leading change aging educa- leaders should ment organizational through col- tional change in be agents of and pedagog- laboration and response to so- change, promot-ical change by adapting to cietal shifts and ing innovation adapting to stu- evolving de- changes in the and continuous dent needs. mands. educational en- improvement vironment. within schools. School Emphasizes ac- Promotes Stresses the im- Encourages col-Commu- tive participa- strong connec- portance of col- laborative work nity Devel- tion from the tions with the laboration with with the educa-opment educational school commu- the school com- tional commu- community, in- nity and par- munity to fos- nity, parents, cluding parents ents. ter a supportive and other stake- and the broader learning envi- holders to im- community. ronment. prove the school climate. Evaluation Incorporates in-Promotes self- Emphasizes on- Includes contin-and Re- ternal evalua- assessment and going evalua- uous reflection flection tion and reflec- evaluation of tion of leader- on leadership on Perfor- tion practices to school leaders’ ship and the im-practices to en-mance improve leader- performance. pact of school sure consistent ship. leaders. school perfor- mance improve- ment. n o t e s Author’s own elaboration. and Australia, aiming to understand how these countries have struc- tured school leadership to contribute to the improvement of educa-tional quality. As stated in the introduction, educational leadership has a significant impact on student learning outcomes and school manage- ment (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood et al., 2008). In this regard, the regulatory frameworks implemented in each country seek not only to strengthen school management but also to professionalize leader- 74 School Leadership and Educational Quality ship roles and promote equity and continuous improvement in educa-tion systems (Pont et al., 2008). The five key areas that guided this analysis – Educational Manage- ment, Educational Leadership, Dimensions of School Leadership, Pub-lic Administration in Education, and Regulatory Frameworks for Edu-cational Leadership – allowed for a structured comparison and a better understanding of how each country addresses these essential aspects of school leadership. Throughout this analysis, it has been observed that, although the frameworks vary in their approach and context, they all agree on the need for strong pedagogical leadership, effective resource management, continuous professional development for teaching staff, the ability to manage change, and alignment with public education poli- cies. Pedagogical leadership has been a constant element across all the analysed frameworks. As argued by Leithwood et al. (2008), educational leaders play a key role in improving student learning outcomes. This is clearly reflected in Singapore’s approach, where the Leaders in Ed-ucation Programme (l e p) emphasizes the importance of comprehen- sive pedagogical leadership in enhancing student performance (Tan, 2023), as well as in Canada’s Ontario Leadership Framework, which pro-motes collaborative and pedagogical leadership to achieve better results (Moriconi & Bélanger, 2015). Educational management and resource management also stand out as essential components for the success of education systems. As Ful- lan (2020) notes, efficient resource management is crucial for achiev-ing substantial improvements in schools. In all the studied countries, the regulatory frameworks emphasize the need for the efficient alloca- tion of both material and human resources to ensure equitable access to quality education. Professional development for school staff is identified as another fundamental pillar, particularly in countries like Canada and Australia, where the continuous training of principals and teachers is considered crucial for educational improvement (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2020; Moriconi & Bélanger, 2015). In this regard, school leadership frameworks provide clear guidelines for fostering a culture of lifelong learning among education professionals. Additionally, change management is a recurring aspect across all the frameworks analysed, as school leaders must be capable of effectively leading both organizational and pedagogical changes. This skill involves 75 Carolina Marlen Luna Perez and Jennifer Ana Domínguez Rodríguez not only adapting to new structures but also fostering innovation and addressing resistance to change within educational institutions. This is evident in the frameworks of Singapore and Australia, which em-phasize adaptability and innovation within educational institutions (Jayapragas, 2016; Australian Institute for Teaching and School Lead-ership, 2020). However, Singapore’s programme also underscores that the diverse values shaping school leadership are not always aligned, highlighting the need for further research into the sources of tension within school leadership (Tan, 2023). Finally, public educational administration and leadership regulatory frameworks highlight the crucial role of public policies in the success of education systems. As Ball (2008) and Pont et al. (2008) conclude, aligning leadership frameworks with national and local policies is es-sential for educational improvement. This link is evident in the cases of Chile and Canada, where regulatory frameworks are aligned with na- tional public policies, ensuring that school leadership responds to social and educational expectations. In summary, the comparison of educational leadership frameworks in these four countries demonstrates that, despite contextual differ-ences, all agree on the importance of strong pedagogical leadership, effi-cient resource management, continuous professional development, ef- fective change management, and alignment with public policies. This study, in alignment with the objectives of the 2030 Agenda (United Nations Sustainable Development, n.d.), offers a comprehensive per- spective on how leadership regulatory frameworks enhance educational quality and help reduce access and learning gaps. It reinforces that ef-fective leadership is essential for the transformation and enhancement of global education systems. References Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2020). Australian professional standard for principals. Ball, S. J. (2008). The education debate: Policy and politics in the twenty-first cen- tury. Policy. Bush, T. (2020). Theories of educational leadership and management (5th ed.). Sage. Darling-Hammond, L., Schachner, A. C. W., Wojcikiewicz, S. K., & Flook, L. (2022). Educating teachers to enact the science of learning and develop- ment. Applied Developmental Science, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.1080 /10888691.2022.2130506 76 School Leadership and Educational Quality Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., Brown, E., Ahtaridou, E., & Kington, A. (2009). The impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: Final report. University of Nottingham. Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a culture of change (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Gairín Sallán, J. (Ed.). (2024). Dirección y liderazgo de los centros educativos: nat- uraleza, desarrollo y práctica profesional. Narcea and Universidad Camilo José Cela. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improve- ment, 9(2), 157–191. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Exploring the journey of school improve- ment: Classifying and analyzing patterns of change in school improve- ment processes and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Im- provement, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.536322 Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. Jossey-Bass. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press. Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172–188. International Institute for Educational Planning. (2024). i i e p-u n e s co, oe c d sign Memorandum of Understanding to enhance global education coopera- tion. u n e s c o. Jayapragas, P. (2016). Leaders in education program: The Singapore model for developing effective principal-ship capability. Current Issues in Compara- tive Education, 19(1), 92–108. Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Success- ful school leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. Univer- sity of Nottingham. Leithwood, K., & Day, C. (2008). The impact of school leadership on pupil out- comes. School Leadership and Management, 28(1). https://doi.org/10 .1080/13632430701799718 Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about suc- cessful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27– 42. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2019). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership and Management, 40(1), 5–22. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006) Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227. Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Pollock, K. (2017). How school leaders contribute to student success: The four paths framework. Springer. 77 Carolina Marlen Luna Perez and Jennifer Ana Domínguez Rodríguez Ministerio de Educación República de Chile. (2015). Marco para la Buena Direc- ción y el Liderazgo Escolar. Moriconi, G., & Bélanger, J. (2015). Supporting teachers and schools to promote positive student behaviour in England and Ontario (Canada): Lessons for Latin America. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Develop- ment. Murphy, J., Louis, K. S., & Smylie, M. (2017). Positive school leadership: How the professional standards for educational leaders can be brought to life. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(1), 21–24. National Institute of Education. (2015). Leaders in education programme inter- national. Ng, P. T. (2013). Developing Singapore school leaders to handle complexity in times of uncertainty. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14, 67–73. Ontario Institute for Educational Leadership. (2013). Ontario leadership frame- work: A school and system leader’s guide to putting Ontario’s leadership framework into action. Government of Ontario. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2024). Education at a glance 2024: oe c dindicators. Pont, B., Nusche D., & Moorman H. (2008). Improving school leadership: Volume 1 Policy and practice. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Devel- opment. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. Robinson, V., & Gray, E. (2019). What difference does school leadership make to student outcomes? Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 49(2), 171–187. Schleicher, A. (2021). World class: How to build a 21st-century school system. Or- ganisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Tan, C. Y. (2023). Understanding Singaporean educational leadership: A socio- cultural perspective. In P. Liu & L. M. Thien (Eds.), Educational leadership and Asian culture (pp. 170–190). Routledge. United Nations Sustainable Development. (n.d.). Sustainable development goals: 17 Goals to transform our world. 78 4 Linking School Principals’ Leadership Styles and Teacher Professional Well-Being: Systematic Literature Review Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania Vilma Žydži¯ unait˙e Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania © 2025 Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Vilma Žydži ¯unait˙e https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-504-7.4 Introduction International research suggests that teacher well-being is directly re-lated to the leadership of school principals (Makgato & Mudzanani, 2019; Van der Vyver et al., 2020; Cann et al., 2021). Qualitative research conducted in Canada found that leaders influence teacher well-being by demonstrating respect for professional competence, representing teachers’ interests, listening, and communicating the school’s vision (Lambersky, 2016). Quantitative research conducted in Italy found that schools with high levels of leadership also have higher teacher job sat-isfaction, higher teacher productivity, and a more supportive school climate (Paletta et al., 2017). A quantitative study conducted in India found that the higher the psychological empowerment, the greater the expression of empowering leadership, and empowered teachers are more committed to the school and less disengaged (Dash & Vohra, 2019). The results of a quantitative study conducted in America showed that the actions of school leaders and their expression of leadership have an impact on teachers’ professional practice, job satisfaction, psycho-emotional state, motivation and, ultimately, teacher well-being (Ford et al., 2019). The results of the study also revealed that working both indi-vidually with the needs of teachers and with the whole team achieves a greater level of influence in raising teacher well-being. Thus, research re- veals the links between principal leadership and teachers’ professional well-being or its elements, but the links are fragmented, and princi-pal leadership is referred to as a general concept of leadership (Lam- Trnavčević, A., & Kafa, A. (Eds.). (2025). Educational leadership in a changing world: Challenges, practices, contexts and insights. University of Primorska Press. Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Vilma Žydži ¯unait˙e bersky, 2016; Paletta et al., 2017; Ford et al., 2019) without distinguish-ing specific leadership styles. If school principal leadership styles are found in the studies conducted, they usually include only one (Buskila & Chen-Levi, 2021; Collie, 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024; Liu et al., 2023) or a few (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Van der Vyver et al., 2020) principal leadership styles. Therefore, a lack of systematic links between princi- pal leadership styles and teachers’ professional well-being is observed in the scientific literature. It also remains unclear what impact differ-ent leadership styles of principals have on teachers’ professional well- being. In order to contribute to reducing the identified information gap, the aim is to answer the research questions raised: What kind of research is found and lacking in analysing the links between the leadership style of school leaders and teachers’ professional well-being? Which leader-ship styles of school leaders in relation to teachers’ professional well- being are analysed in publications? What influence do different leader-ship styles of school leaders have on teachers’ professional well-being? The aim of this review is to investigate the links between the leader- ship styles of school leaders (principals and their deputies) and teach-ers’ professional well-being by purposefully distinguishing the leader-ship styles of school leaders applied in schools. Material and Methods Search Methods The systematic literature review includes an analysis of a specific and purposefully selected volume of scientific literature (Jesson et al., 2011) in order to study the links between school principals’ leadership styles and teachers’ professional well-being. Applying the method of system-atic literature review collects targeted information about the research questions raised based on scientific works and publications of other au- thors; therefore, applying this method does not require a separate em-pirical study. Six steps are distinguished, on the basis of which a sys-tematic review of scientific sources is carried out (Jesson et al., 2011): 1. Preparation of review – reviewing what information is available, how valuable it is and what is not known, creating a review plan, formulating a question and identifying keywords, determining in- clusion and exclusion criteria, and finally, generating a data selec- tion report; 80 Linking School Principals’ Leadership Styles 2. Comprehensive literature search – search for literature using key- words in the selected database; 3. Quality assessment – selected publications are read to decide which ones will be used for the review and which ones will be discarded due to inappropriateness; 4. Data extraction – relevant information found in publications is noted; 5. Synthesis – combining the collected data according to the estab- lished criteria; 6. Description – describing the results of the systematic review. Database Searches During the review phase, a research plan was prepared, including re-search question, keywords, and inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Figure 4.1). When applying the systematic literature review, the Scopus scientific literature database was selected, which is considered reliable due to the number of peer-reviewed publications, constant updating, and a search system that provides wide possibilities. Due to the novelty of the topic, the publication period of scientific literature was not lim-ited. The search was performed using the keyword ‘leadership,’ which was combined using the Boolean logic operator a n d with the second keyword ‘teacher well-being.’ It was noted that some publications use both the word form ‘well-being’ and ‘wellbeing,’ therefore it was cho- sen to perform an analysis of the two results obtained by keywords. The search phrase was chosen to exclude words such as school leaders, ad-ministration, director, and professional welfare, due to broader search possibilities when relevant literature uses synonyms in the title and abstract. The search phrase was used to search for keywords in the title, ex- cerpt and among keywords of publications. During the initial selection, 165 articles were found using the phrase ‘leadership a n d teacher a n d well-being,’ and 91 articles were found using the phrase ‘leadership a n d teacher a n d wellbeing.’ A total of 256 articles were identified that met the search criteria for scientific literature. The titles and excerpts of these publications were reviewed to search for the named keywords in order to ensure that they were relevant to the context of the problem question raised and that they were relevant to the context (leadership and teacher well-being). After applying the initial inclusion and exclu- 81 Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Vilma Žydži ¯unait˙e Scopus ‘leadership a n d teach- Scopus ‘leadership a n d er a n d well-being’ (n = 165) teacher wellbeing’ (n = 91) Suitable for reviewing ti- tles and abstracts (n = 256) Inclusion criteria: Exclusion criteria: + Includes primary, lower secondary, – Not relevant to the context (i.e. not and upper secondary school teachers covering leadership of school prin- cipals and teachers’ well-being) – Preschool and pre-primary education teachers, as well as higher education lecturers, are not included – Duplicate articles (2) Suitable for reviewing abstracts and summaries (n = 35) Inclusion criteria: Exclusion criteria: + Empirical studies (quantitative, – Non-empirical articles qualitative, or mixed) – Research participants are not school + Specifies the particular leadership teachers and/or school principals style applied by school principals – Does not specify the particular leadership style applied by school principals – No direct links to teachers’ well-being Articles fully reviewed and in- cluded in the final analysis (n = 17) Figure 4.1 Selection of Scientific Publications Based on the Stages of a Systematic Literature Review sion criteria, 37 articles were selected, of which two were duplicates, therefore the final number of publications is 35. In the next stage, not only the titles and excerpts of the 35 articles are read, but also the sum- maries/conclusions of the articles and the application of secondary cri-teria is introduced. After this review, the number of publications was reduced to 17, which were included in the final analysis. After selecting suitable publi-cations that met the established criteria, a deeper analysis of these was performed. 82 Linking School Principals’ Leadership Styles Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria During the initial stage, only those articles that covered primary, sec-ondary and upper secondary school teachers were included in the re-view of titles and excerpts, while pre-school and pre-primary education teachers and higher education lecturers were excluded. Articles that did not fit the context, i.e. did not cover the leadership of principals and teacher well-being in their content, were excluded. During the second stage, additional criteria were introduced such as the results of the ar-ticles must be based on empirical (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed) research conducted by the authors, excluding other types of articles, the articles must name the specific leadership style used by school prin-cipals. Attention is once again drawn to the research participants and their compliance with the participant inclusion criteria (school teach- ers and/or school leaders), and relevance to the context (leadership of principals and teacher well-being). Retrieval of References and Handling The following subsection presents the retrieval of references and han-dling: only full and final publications; selected document type: scientific journal articles; language selection: English only; subject area: social sci-ences and psychology. When searching for scientific literature, it was observed that including teachers’ professional well-being increases the likelihood of finding relevant publications in the field of psychology. Results Overview of Selected Literature In order to answer the research question, ‘What research is found and lacking in analysing the links between the leadership style of school principals and teachers’ professional well-being?,’ an analysis of all publications that meet the established criteria was performed. After analysing the year of publication (Table 4.1), an obvious novelty of the articles and the popularity of the topic are noticeable, since 94 of the literature was published in the period 2020–2024 (6 in 2020 (n = 16), 18 in 2021 (n = 3), 6 in 2022 (n = 1), 41 in 2023 (n = 7), 24 in 2024 (n = 4)), and the remaining 6 (n = 1) of the publications were published in 2011. Table 4.2 shows the distribution of articles by continent and country. The analysis revealed that 9 out of 16 articles (56), excluding one that 83 Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Vilma Žydži ¯unait˙e Table 4.1 Overview of Selected Publications by Year of Publication Year Author(s) Year Author(s)  Mendoza and Dizon  Shie and Chang Li et al.  Buskila and Chen-Levi Butler Abdulaziz Alfayez et al. Bellibaş et al. Cann et al.  Collie  Van der Vyver et al. Attar et al.  Eyal and Roth Xu and Yang Liu et al. Limon et al. Quinteros-Durand et al. Lee and Swaner Table 4.2 Overview of Selected Publications by Continent and Country Continent Country Author(s) Africa South African Republic Van der Vyver et al. () Australia Australia Collie () Asia Philippines Mendoza and Dizon () Israel Eyal and Roth () Buskila and Chen-Levi () United Arab Emirates Attar et al. () China Li et al. () Xu and Yang () Shie and Chang () Liu et al. () Saudi Arabia Abdulaziz Alfayez et al. () Asia/Europe Turkey Limon et al. () Europe Ireland Butler () Oceania New Zealand Cann et al. () South America Peru Quinteros-Durand et al. () North America United States of America Lee and Swaner () Bellibaş et al. () n o t e s In total 47 countries. examines data from different countries, were conducted by authors in Asia, dominated by Israel and China, while all other continents have at least one article published, covering countries such as South Africa, Australia, Turkey, Ireland, New Zealand, Peru, and the United States. 84 Linking School Principals’ Leadership Styles Table 4.3 Overview of Research Designs Used in Selected Publications Res. design Data collection tool Sample Author(s) Quantitative Questionnaire  Attar et al. ()  Eyal and Roth ()  Xu and Yang ()  Van der Vyver et al. ()  Limon et al. ()  Collie ()  Quinteros-Durand et al. ()  Li et al. ()  Shie and Chang () , Abdulaziz Alfayez et al. () , Mendoza and Dizon () , Lee and Swaner () ta l i s  data , Liu et al. () , Bellibaş et al. () Qualitative Self-reflection re-  Buskila and Chen-Levi () port based on a pre- pared questionnaire Mixed Closed-ended ques-  quant., Butler () tionnaire and semi-  qual. structured interview  quant., Cann et al. () questionnaire  qual. When reviewing the research designs used in the selected publica- tions (Table 4.3), it was observed that quantitative research (82, n = 14) dominates, with mixed (12, n = 2) and qualitative (6, n = 1) re- search methods being used extremely rarely. The most commonly used instrument in quantitative research is a questionnaire, but two authors chose to use secondary data collected in ta l i s (Teaching and Learn- ing International Survey) 2018. The qualitative (n = 1) study used a self-reflection report based on a prepared questionnaire, while the mixed (n = 2) research design includes a questionnaire in the quantitative part of the study and a semi-structured interview in the qualitative part of the study. The sample size of the conducted studies ranges from 101 to 3,600 teachers in quantitative studies using a questionnaire (n = 12), and from 3,799 to 153,866 in secondary ta l i s 2018 data analysis (n = 2). An overview of the qualitative studies (n = 1) shows a sample size of 53 teachers using a self-reflection questionnaire. In the mixed research 85 Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Vilma Žydži ¯unait˙e design (n = 2), from 48 to 65 research participants were interviewed dur-ing the quantitative research phase using questionnaires, while during the qualitative phase using semi-structured interviews, from 6 to 12 re-search participants were interviewed. Based on the review conducted by year of publication, country, ap- plied methods, instruments and sample studied, and in order to answer the research question ‘What research is found and lacking in analysing the links between school principals’ leadership style and teachers’ professional well-being?,’ it was revealed that the empirical research method most often used by the authors is quantitative research, with a significant lack of qualitative research. It was also noted that many au-thors used questionnaires, several utilized secondary ta l i s 2018 data, but no longitudinal empirical research related to the research question was found. The analysis also showed a lack of qualitative research, with the interview method not being used in any of the qualitative stud- ies, and a self-reflection report with pre-prepared questions was used once. Finally, the mixed research method is also not common, although a couple of authors combined questionnaires with a semi-structured interview. Thus, based on the review of the methods used in empirical research in the selected publications, a lack of mixed, and especially qualitative, research is observed. After selection of all articles meeting the criteria, Table 4.4 was cre- ated detailing the results: • The leadership styles of school principals in relation to teachers’ pro- fessional well-being. In the publications that met the criteria, the most common leadership styles used by school leaders studied by the authors are authentic leadership, transformational leader- ship, and distributed leadership. Also analysed were such styles as autonomy-supporting, coaching, empowering, liberal, learning- oriented, positive, servant, supportive, transactional, and par- ticipative leadership. It was noted that classical leadership styles and styles with managerial aspects, such as transactional leader- ship and transformational leadership, are still the most commonly studied. • The influence of school principals’ leadership styles on teachers’ profes- sional well-being. Positive and significant associations with teacher professional well-being are found in leadership styles such as distributed, empowering and transformational leadership, while 86 Linking School Principals’ Leadership Styles Table 4.4 The Influence of School Leaders’ Leadership Styles on Teachers’ Well-Being Styles Links to teacher well-being Author(s) Authentic Authentic leadership based on self-awareness, self- Buskila leadership management, social awareness, and relationship manage-and Chen- ment creates teacher well-being. Levi () The organizational trust and commitment to the organi- Shie and zation maintained by the school principal has a positive Chang and significant impact on teacher well-being. () Authentic leadership of the principal is positively related Xu and to the individual psychological state of teachers, when Yang this is positively related to teacher well-being (satisfac- () tion with work and life and negatively related to emo- tional exhaustion). Authentic leadership of the school principal is indirectly positively related to teacher well-being. Autonomy- Autonomy-supportive leadership by a principal reduces Mendoza supportive the negative relationship between teacher stress and per-and Dizon leadership ceived well-being. () The more a principal supports teacher autonomy, the higher the teacher’s well-being and the lower the experi-ence of stress. Autonomy-supportive leadership by a principal is posi-tively correlated with teacher emotional, social, and psy-chological well-being. A principal who supports teacher autonomy indirectly contributes to increasing teacher resilience. Leadership that supports principal autonomy is posi- Collie tively related to teacher energy and engaging behaviour, () and hence to the maintenance of teacher well-being. Leadership that undermines principal autonomy is re- lated to higher teacher turnover intentions. Coaching Coaching leadership applied by the principal as a re- Butler leadership flective practice develops leadership skills and leads to () increased well-being for both the supervisor and the teacher. Coaching leadership applied by the principal increases teacher self-efficacy and, consequently, teacher well-being. Continued on the next page positive but undisclosed or significant associations are found in autonomy-supportive and coaching leadership. An indirect but positive association is found in authentic, learning-oriented, pos- itive and servant leadership styles. The application of support- 87 Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Vilma Žydži ¯unait˙e Table 4.4 Continued from the previous page Styles Links to teacher well-being Author(s) Distributed Distributed leadership is positively and significantly as- Bellibaş et leadership sociated with teacher well-being and commitment, while al. () it is negatively associated with administrative workload. The more leadership is delegated and responsibilities are shared, the more teachers are committed to the school, feel less stressed by workload, and therefore experience greater well-being. Distributed leadership is directly and significantly associ-ated with teacher well-being in  out of  countries. Distributed leadership indirectly and positively affects Liu et al. teacher well-being through teacher self-efficacy. () Empowering When a principal empowers a teacher, teacher engage- Limon et leadership ment and teaching self-efficacy increase. al. () Empowering leadership by a principal is significantly as-sociated with increased teacher well-being, when this is related to school resilience. Empowering leadership by a principal increases school organizational resilience. Empowering leadership by a principal has a negative im-pact on teacher stress and a positive impact on teacher professional well-being and perceptions of support re- ceived. Liberal/ Liberal/laissez-faire leadership has a negative impact on Van der Laissez- teachers’ professional well-being. Vyver et faire Liberal/laissez-faire leadership positively correlates with al. () leadership stress, anxiety, and depression, while negatively correlat- ing with comfort and enthusiasm. Learning- Learning-oriented leadership helps to meet teachers’ Abdulaziz centred psychological needs, when these satisfied teachers feel Alfayez et leadership autonomous, positive and have a better understanding of al. () their well-being. Learning-oriented leadership predicts higher teacher well-being. Teachers who experience well-being feel better, experi-ence less stress and are therefore more effective. Continued on the next page ive leadership and participative leadership correlates positively and significantly with teacher professional well-being, while an extremely weak correlation is found with liberal and directive leadership styles. One author reveals the opposite, proving nega- tive associations between teacher professional well-being and lib- 88 Linking School Principals’ Leadership Styles Table 4.4 Continued from the previous page Styles Links to teacher well-being Author(s) Positive Positive leadership from principals demonstrates appre- Cann et al. leadership ciation for teachers, provides opportunities for teachers’ () professional development, and gives teachers sufficient freedom in making decisions that lead to the experience of teacher well-being. Servant Servant leadership has an indirect impact on teacher Quinteros-leadership well-being through its positive impact on teachers’ life Durand et satisfaction, support for personal growth, learning, and al. () the provision of work tools. Supportive Supportive leadership from principals is positively corre- Lee and leadership lated with teacher well-being. Swaner () Transfor- Transformational leadership of the principal positively Li et al. mational and significantly influences the impact of teachers’ emo- () leadership tional intelligence on psychological well-being, and sub- sequently on organizational commitment. Transformational leadership of the principal indirectly affects teacher psychological well-being. Transformational leadership by a principal is negatively Eyal and related to teacher burnout, which was partly due to the Roth autonomy granted to teachers. () Transformational leadership positively contributes to Van der teachers’ professional well-being, which leads to lower Vyver et teacher turnover intentions. al. () Transformational leadership of the principal is negatively correlated with anxiety and depression, and positively with perceived comfort and enthusiasm. Transformational leadership of the principal has a stronger impact than transactional leadership in all pa-rameters. Continued on the next page eral leadership style. Finally, some authors highlighted a positive, while others a negative, association of transactional leadership with teacher professional well-being. Different leadership styles of principals have different influences on the elements that make up teachers’ professional well-being: teacher autonomy (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Van der Vyver et al., 2020; Cann et al., 2021; Limon et al., 2023; Collie, 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024), self-efficacy (Limon et al., 2023; Liu et al., 2023; Butler, 2024), job satisfac-tion (Attar et al., 2023; Xu & Yang, 2023; Quinteros-Durand et al., 2023), 89 Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Vilma Žydži ¯unait˙e Table 4.4 Continued from the previous page Styles Links to teacher well-being Author(s) Transactional Transactional leadership is positively correlated with Eyal and leadership teacher burnout, which was partly driven by principals’ Roth control over teachers. () Transactional leadership positively contributes to teach- Van der ers’ professional well-being, which leads to lower teacher Vyver et turnover intentions. al. () Transactional leadership of the principal is negatively correlated with anxiety and depression, and positively with perceived comfort and enthusiasm. When in all pa-rameters, transactional leadership of the principal has a weaker effect than transformational leadership of the principal. Participative, Teacher well-being is positively and significantly cor- Attar et al. directive, related with participatory, directive, supportive, and () supportive laissez-faire leadership styles. and Participatory leadership style correlates most strongly laissez-faire with teacher well-being, is somewhat weaker with sup-leadership portive leadership and even weaker with laissez-faire, with the lowest correlation with directive leadership. teacher resilience (Limon et al., 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024), commit- ment to the institution (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Shie & Chang, 2022; Bellibaş et al., 2024), change intentions (Van der Vyver et al., 2020; Collie, 2023), and stress experienced (Limon et al., 2023; Xu & Yang, 2023; Bellibaş et al., 2024; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024): • Teacher autonomy. When a teacher feels autonomy support (Col- lie, 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024) and empowerment (Limon et al., 2023) from their supervisor, they increase their self-esteem, empowerment, engagement, energy, and positive emotional state (Collie, 2023; Limon et al., 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024), and by feeling positive, they gain more freedom to make decisions and confidence to deal with situations (Cann et al., 2021). The same is observed in the context of transformational leadership, where teachers not only feel more motivated due to the granting of au- tonomy, but also become psychologically stronger because they experience less stress and long-term anxiety (Eyal & Roth, 2011). On the other hand, when the leader does not support autonomy, teachers experience more stress, are more likely to withdraw from tasks and, when meeting only minimal requirements, become de- 90 Linking School Principals’ Leadership Styles tached from school activities, eventually considering changing jobs (Collie, 2023). However, when teachers experience complete freedom of action and are unrestricted by liberal leaders, they ex- perience greater anxiety due to uncertainty (Van der Vyver et al., 2020). • Self-efficacy. The clear allocation of specific tasks and responsibili- ties among teachers based on the principles of distributed leader- ship provides teachers with opportunities for self-efficacy, leading to increased self-efficacy (Liu et al., 2023). In the effect of coach- ing leadership, teachers feel that they experience the trust of the leader (Butler, 2024) and, as in the effect of empowering leader- ship, this empowers and strengthens self-confidence (Limon et al., 2023), leading to higher self-efficacy (Limon et al., 2023; Butler, 2024). • Job satisfaction. Authentic leadership style is positively related to job satisfaction when it gives teachers more space for their cre- ativity, self-expression, and acceptance of their individuality (Xu & Yang, 2023), while servant leadership also has a positive impact on teacher satisfaction by strengthening this through support, en- couragement to grow and develop, and providing the necessary tools to work (Quinteros-Durand et al., 2023). In contrast, teach- ers whose leaders are supporters of directive leadership rarely ex- perience a sense of security and are usually not given freedom of choice, which reduces job satisfaction (Attar et al., 2023). • Teacher resilience. Empowering leadership, by giving teachers more confidence in themselves and their existing competencies, in- creases teachers’ resilience in stressful situations, when the over- all resilience of teachers strengthens the resilience of the insti- tution (Limon et al., 2023). Similarly, autonomy-supporting lead- ership, although indirectly contributing to increasing teacher re- silience, contributes to teachers’ professional well-being by sup- porting teachers’ freedom and choice (Mendoza & Dizon, 2024). • Commitment to the institution and intentions to change. A princi- pal applying a transformational leadership style has a positive im- pact on teachers’ emotional intelligence and psychological well- being, which leads to higher commitment to the institution (Eyal & Roth, 2011). Also, the trust created by authentic leadership (Shie & Chang, 2022) and the empowerment of teachers by distribut- 91 Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Vilma Žydži ¯unait˙e ing the workload and thus equalizing the volume of work in dis- tributed leadership leads to decreasing stress and greater com- mitment to the school (Bellibaş et al., 2024). Both transforma- tional leadership and transactional leadership contribute to higher teachers’ professional well-being (Van der Vyver et al., 2020), while leadership that does not support teacher autonomy (Collie, 2023) is associated with higher change intentions (Van der Vyver et al., 2020; Collie, 2023). • Experienced stress. Teachers feel psychologically safer in an envi- ronment with an authentic (Xu & Yang, 2023), autonomy-sup- portive (Mendoza & Dizon, 2024), and empowering leader (Limon et al., 2023), as they rarely experience stress. When principals ap- ply distributed leadership, teachers feel less tension and experi- ence less stress due to clear communication and distributed areas of activity for which they assume pre-agreed responsibility (Bel- libaş et al., 2024). Continuous professional development is part of teachers’ professional growth. Therefore, learning-oriented lead- ership satisfies teachers’ need to learn, they feel more independent and able to realize themselves, which gives teachers psychological peace and reduces the level of stress due to the cultivation of new knowledge (Abdulaziz Alfayez et al., 2021). However, permissive leadership styles contribute to stress and anxiety among teachers (Van der Vyver et al., 2020). Finally, transformational leadership, due to its motivating autonomy, reduces the potential for teacher burnout (Eyal & Roth, 2011), while transactional leadership, due to its control over teachers, promotes burnout (Eyal & Roth, 2011). Ultimately, all leadership styles of school leaders that increase em- powerment, confidence, psychological well-being, self-efficacy, motiva-tion, engagement, emotional satisfaction, and autonomy contribute to the growth of teachers’ professional well-being, while styles applied by leaders that increase anxiety, stress, depression, alienation, and the de-sire to change jobs negatively affect teachers’ professional well-being. Limitations This systematic literature review has several limitations. First, the selec- tion according to the method of systematic literature review was carried out in the first half of 2024, therefore, not all articles published in 2024 that met the criteria were possibly included in the analysis. Second, the 92 Linking School Principals’ Leadership Styles concept of leadership of managers includes both school principals and deputy principals, but when searching for one or another phrase, often not all results are included due to the mismatch of keywords used in published articles; therefore, only the concept of leadership was used in order to increase the chances of finding suitable publications. Third, the search was carried out including the field of education science and, having noticed that including the field of psychology on the origins of well-being results in more relevant publications, this was also selected. However, other areas of social science were not selected for review, in which articles that met the criteria could potentially be found. Fourth, empirical studies were selected only during the second stage of applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria while it could have been reviewed in the first stage. However, this did not affect the final result of the study. Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first systematic literature review study-ing the links between leadership styles applied by school principals and teachers’ professional well-being. Therefore, the study included all sci- entific sources in the Scopus database and articles selected according to the criteria to confirm the relevance of the topic, with 94 of these pub-lished in 2020–2024. Also, based on the number of studies conducted, the greatest relevance of the topic is observed in Asian countries (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Buskila & Chen-Levi, 2021; Abdulaziz Alfayez et al., 2021; Attar et al., 2023; Xu & Yang, 2023; Liu et al., 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024; Li et al., 2024), so the lower number of publications in Western countries indicates the lack of research on the topic and the need for further research. It has been revealed that many authors conduct quan- titative research (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Van der Vyver et al., 2020; Abdu-laziz Alfayez et al., 2021; Shie & Chang, 2022; Collie, 2023; Attar et al., 2023; Xu & Yang, 2023; Liu et al., 2023; Limon et al., 2023; Quinteros- Durand et al., 2023; Lee & Swaner, 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024; Li et al., 2024; Bellibaş et al., 2024), while very rarely conducting qualitative (Buskila & Chen-Levi, 2021) and mixed studies (Cann et al., 2021; But- ler, 2024). The analysis showed a lack of qualitative and mixed studies investigating the links between principals’ leadership styles and teach-ers’ professional well-being. Qualitative studies would reveal the links and their causality in more depth. The analysed articles revealed con-nections, but did not provide extensive information about their causal-ity and ongoing consequences. 93 Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Vilma Žydži ¯unait˙e It was revealed that in the publications that met the criteria, the most common leadership styles used by school leaders studied by the authors are authentic (Buskila & Chen-Levi, 2021; Shie & Chang, 2022; Xu & Yang, 2023) and transformational (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Van der Vyver et al., 2020; Li et al., 2024) leadership, as well as autonomy-supportive (Collie, 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024), distributed (Liu et al., 2023; Bel- libaş et al., 2024), liberal (Van der Vyver et al., 2020; Attar et al., 2023), supportive (Attar et al., 2023; Lee & Swaner, 2023), and transactional (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Van der Vyver et al., 2020) leadership. However, less frequently studied leadership styles include coaching (Butler, 2024), empowering (Limon et al., 2023), learning-oriented (Abdulaziz Alfayez et al., 2021), positive (Cann et al., 2021), servant (Quinteros-Durand et al., 2023), participative (Attar et al., 2023), and directive (Attar et al., 2023) leadership. Based on the results of a systematic literature review, an analysis of known (such as distributed, transformational, transac- tional) leadership styles and their connections is visible, but this high-lights the need for analysis of other unstudied leadership styles, espe-cially considering the recently developed styles such as instructional and inclusive leadership. The results of quantitative studies in some of the analysed articles revealed significant associations (Shie & Chang, 2022; Limon et al., 2023; Li et al., 2024; Bellibaş et al., 2024) between spe- cific leadership styles and teachers’ professional well-being, while other authors showed associations but did not reveal whether these were sig-nificant (Xu & Yang, 2023; Liu et al., 2023). Among the quantitative stud- ies, some authors also analysed correlations (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Van der Vyver et al., 2020; Abdulaziz Alfayez et al., 2021; Attar et al., 2023; Lee & Swaner, 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024). Thus, the need for more com- plex procedures in quantitative studies to reveal correlations is evident. A systematic literature review showed that, depending on the leader- ship style, the leadership of school principals has a positive or negative impact on teachers’ professional well-being. This is also confirmed by other authors studying the leadership of school principals and teachers’ professional well-being (Serpieri & Vatrella, 2017; Van der Vyver et al., 2020; Abdulaziz Alfayez et al., 2021; Cann et al., 2021). The analysis re-vealed the links between leadership not only with teachers’ professional well-being, but also with some of its constituent elements, such as: teacher autonomy (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Van der Vyver et al., 2020; Cann et al., 2021; Collie, 2023; Limon et al., 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024), self-efficacy (Liu et al., 2023; Limon et al., 2023; Butler, 2024), job satisfac- 94 Linking School Principals’ Leadership Styles tion (Attar et al., 2023; Xu & Yang, 2023; Quinteros-Durand et al., 2023), teacher resilience (Limon et al., 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024), commit- ment to the institution (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Shie & Chang, 2022; Bellibaş et al., 2024), change intentions (Van der Vyver et al., 2020; Collie, 2023), and stress experienced (Limon et al., 2023; Xu & Yang, 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024; Bellibaş et al., 2024). However, none of the articles se- lected according to the criteria included such elements of professional well-being as teacher engagement (Rusu & Colomeischi, 2020; Pöysä et al., 2022, Vincent et al., 2023), time and workload pressures experienced (Qiao & Hu, 2021; Jerrim & Sims, 2021; Cotson & Kim, 2024), and avail-ability of learning opportunities for teachers (Dreer, 2023; Abbaspour et al., 2024). The authors of the articles distinguish teacher autonomy (Eyal & Roth, 2011; Van der Vyver et al., 2020; Cann et al., 2021; Collie, 2023; Limon et al., 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024) as one of the elements of well-being, which is confirmed by other authors (Yukselir & Ozer, 2022; Pan et al., 2023), and secondly, that the more autonomy is granted, the more self-confidence and job satisfaction teachers have (Jentsch et al., 2023), while its absence leads to greater emotional exhaustion (Eber- sold et al., 2019). Self-efficacy as another important element discussed by the authors (Limon et al. 2023; Liu et al., 2023; Butler, 2024) is also found in other authors’ articles confirming the support from principals (Jentsch et al., 2023). The study conducted by Ortan et al. (2021) con-firms the links between job satisfaction and the provision of appropri-ate working conditions and necessary tools (Quinteros-Durand et al., 2023), while negative emotions (Xu & Yang, 2023) and increased work-load (Cayupe et al., 2023) negatively affect job satisfaction. The authors who studied teacher resilience (Limon et al., 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024) are also seconded by Gibbs and Miller (2014), who highlight that it is precisely the support from school principals and mutual support from the community that strengthens resilience in various situations. Sohail et al. (2023) revealed that teacher’s stress is directly related to school principal leadership, which is also confirmed by the articles anal-ysed in this review (Limon et al., 2023; Xu & Yang, 2023; Mendoza & Dizon, 2024; Bellibaş et al., 2024). Finally, teacher stress also increases teachers’ turnover intentions (Ryan et al., 2017). Conclusions The systematic literature review revealed that there is a lack of deeper, more experience-revealing research that could show a more detailed 95 Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Vilma Žydži ¯unait˙e causality of the links, and more broadly reveal the ongoing processes and school principles of operation. Analysis showed that most of- ten the researchers choose to study the classic or most popular lead-ership styles such as transformational and distributed, without in-cluding the latest, less researched leadership styles. In addition, this review revealed the positive associations between teachers’ profes- sional well-being and leadership styles applied by school principals such as distributed, empowering, transformational, autonomy-supporting, coaching, learning-oriented, positive, supportive, participative and ser- vant leadership, while the directive leadership style has extremely weak, but positive associations. Some researchers highlighted a positive, oth-ers a negative association of transactional leadership with teachers’ professional well-being, while liberal leadership has a negative associa-tion. It was established that empirical research on leadership styles such as instructional leadership, adaptive, agile and patronizing leadership are missing in the scientific literature. The review highlighted that most researchers choose to study the links between one or two leadership styles and teachers’ professional well-being, while there is a lack of studies that examine the relation-ships between three or more leadership styles applied by school prin-cipals within a single study. Finally, it was revealed that different lead- ership styles of school principals have different influences on the ele-ments that make up teachers’ professional well-being, such as teacher autonomy, self-efficacy, job satisfaction, teacher resilience, commit- ment to the institution, change intentions and experienced stress, but publications do not focus on links with other elements of professional well-being. Therefore, there is a need for broader studies that would si- multaneously cover not only all elements of well-being, but also school principals’ leadership styles. References Abbaspour, F., Hosseingholizadeh, R., & Bellibaş, M. Ş. (2024). Uncovering the role of principals in enhancing teacher professional learning in a central- ized education system. International Journal of Educational Management, 38(3), 873–889. Abdulaziz Alfayez, A., Noman, M., Saeed Alqahtani, A., Ibrahim Altuwaijri, A., & Kaur, A. (2021). Principal’s learning-centred leadership practices and teacher’s wellbeing: A self-determination theory perspective. Educational Studies, 50(4), 448–466. 96 Linking School Principals’ Leadership Styles Attar, F. H., Hammadi, K., & Belbase, S. (2023). Leading during c o v i d-19 cri- sis: The influence of principals’ leadership styles on teachers’ well-being in the United Arab Emirates public secondary schools. European Journal of Educational Research, 12(1), 297–315. Bellibaş, M. Ş., Gümüş, S., & Chen, J. (2024). The impact of distributed lead- ership on teacher commitment: The mediation role of teacher workload stress and teacher well-being. British Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 814–836. Buskila, Y., & Chen-Levi, T. (2021). The role of authentic school leaders in pro- moting teachers’ well-being: Perceptions of israeli teachers. Athens Jour- nal of Education, 8(2), 161–180. Butler, P. (2024). Building a coaching culture in Irish schools: Challenges and opportunities; A mixed-methods study. Societies, 14(1), 10. Cann, R. F., Riedel-Prabhakar, R., & Powell, D. (2021). A model of positive school leadership to improve teacher wellbeing. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 6(1), 195–218. Cayupe, J. C., Bernedo-Moreira, D. H., Morales-García, W. C., Alcaraz, F. L., Peña, K. B. C., Saintila, J., & Flores-Paredes, A. (2023). Self-efficacy, or- ganizational commitment, workload as predictors of life satisfaction in elementary school teachers: the mediating role of job satisfaction. Fron- tiers in Psychology, 14, 1066321. Collie, R. J. (2023). Teacher well-being and turnover intentions: Investigating the roles of job resources and job demands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 712–726. Cotson, W., & Kim, L. E. (2024). Are schools doing enough? An exploration of how primary schools in England support the well-being of their teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 61(2), 435–454. Dash, S. S., & Vohra, N. (2019). The leadership of the school principal: Impact on teachers’ job crafting, alienation and commitment. Management Re- search News, 42(3), 352–369. Dreer, B. (2023). On the outcomes of teacher wellbeing: A systematic review of research. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1205179. Ebersold, S., Rahm, T., & Heise, E. (2019). Autonomy support and well-being in teachers: Differential mediations through basic psychological need satis- faction and frustration. Social Psychology of Education, 22(3), 921–942. Eyal, O., & Roth, G. (2011). Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(3), 256–275. Ford, T. G., Olsen, J., Khojasteh, J., Ware, J., & Urick, A. (2019). The effects of leader support for teacher psychological needs on teacher burnout, commitment, and intent to leave. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(6), 615–634. 97 Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Vilma Žydži ¯unait˙e Gibbs, S., & Miller, A. (2014). Teachers’ resilience and well-being: A role for educational psychology. Teachers and Teaching, 20(5), 609–621. Jentsch, A., Hoferichter, F., Blömeke, S., König, J., & Kaiser, G. (2023). In- vestigating teachers’ job satisfaction, stress and working environment: The roles of self-efficacy and school leadership. Psychology in the Schools, 60(3), 679–690. Jerrim, J., & Sims, S. (2021). When is high workload bad for teacher wellbeing? Accounting for the non-linear contribution of specific teaching tasks. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105(451), 103395. Jesson, J. K., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. Sage. Lambersky, J. (2016). Understanding the human side of school leadership: Principals’ impact on teachers’ morale, self-efficacy, stress, and commit- ment. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(4), 379–405. Lee, M. H., & Swaner, L. E. (2023). Supportive leadership, teacher wellness, and school promotion. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 32(3), 131–140. Li, M., Liu, F., & Yang, C. (2024). Teachers’ emotional intelligence and organiza- tional commitment: A moderated mediation model of teachers’ psycho- logical well-being and principal transformational. Leadership. Behavioral Sciences, 14(4), 345. Limon, İ., Bayrakci, C., Ali Hamedoğlu, M. A., & Aygün, Z. (2023). The mediat- ing role of subjective well-being in the relationship between empowering leadership and organizational resilience. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38(3), 367–379. Liu, J., Qiang, F., & Kang, H. (2023). Distributed leadership, self-efficacy and wellbeing in schools: A study of relations among teachers in Shanghai. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 248. Makgato, M., & Mudzanani, N. N. (2019). Exploring school principals’ lead- ership styles and learners’ educational performance: A perspective from high and low performing schools. Africa Education Review, 16(2), 90–108. Mendoza, N. B., & Dizon, J. I. W. T. (2024). Principal autonomy-support buffers the effect of stress on teachers’ positive well-being: A cross-sectional study during the pandemic. Social Psychology of Education, 27(1), 23–45. Ortan, F., Simut, C., & Simut, R. (2021). Self-efficacy, job satisfaction and teacher well being in the K-12 Educational System. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(23), 12763. Paletta, A., Alivernini, F., & Manganelli, S. (2017). Leadership for learning: The relationships between school context, principal leadership and mediat- ing variables. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(2), 98– 117. 98 Linking School Principals’ Leadership Styles Pan, H.-L. W., Chung, C.-H., & Lin, Y.-C. (2023). Exploring the predictors of teacher well-being: An analysis of teacher training preparedness, auton- omy, and workload. Sustainability, 15(7), 5804. Pöysä, S., Pakarinen, E., & Lerkkanen, M.-K. (2022). Profiles of work engage- ment and work-related effort and reward among teachers: Associations to occupational well-being and leader-follower relationship during the c o v i d-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 861300. Qiao, X., & Hu, S. (2021). The relationship between perceived value congruence and teacher commitment: A moderated mediation model of teacher self- efficacy and time pressure. Educational Studies, 50(1), 43–60. Quinteros-Durand, R., Almanza-Cabe, R. B., Morales-García, W. C., Mamani- Benito, O., Sairitupa-Sanchez, L. Z., Puño-Quispe, L., Saintila, J., Saaved- ra-Sandoval, R., Paredes, A. F., & Ramírez-Coronel, A. A. (2023). Influence of servant leadership on the life satisfaction of basic education teachers: The mediating role of satisfaction with job resources. Frontiers in Psychol- ogy, 14, 1167074. Rusu, P. P., & Colomeischi, A. A. (2020). Positivity ratio and well-being among teachers: The mediating role of work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1608. Ryan, S. V., von der Embse, N. P., Pendergast, L. L., Saeki, E., Segool, N., & Schwing, S. (2017). Leaving the teaching profession: The role of teacher stress and educational accountability policies on turnover intent. Teach- ing and Teacher Education, 66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.016 Serpieri, R., & Vatrella, S. (2017). Collaborative leadership and teachers wellbe- ing: Research strategies and school governance in the Italian education field. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 9(1), 174–198. Shie, E. H., & Chang, S. H. (2022). Perceived principal’s authentic leader- ship impact on the organizational citizenship behavior and well-being of teachers. s a g e Open, 12(2). Sohail, M. M., Baghdady, A., Choi, J., Huynh, H. V., Whetten, K., & Proeschold- Bell, R. J. (2023). Factors influencing teacher wellbeing and burnout in schools: A scoping review. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 76(4), 1317–1331. Van der Vyver, C. P., Kok, M. T., & Conley, L. N. (2020). The relationship between teachers’ professional wellbeing and principals’ leadership be- haviour to improve teacher retention. Perspectives in Education, 8(2), 86– 102. Vincent, M. K., Holliman, A. J., & Waldeck, D. (2023). Adaptability and so- cial support: Examining links with engagement, burnout, and wellbeing among expat teachers. Education Sciences, 14(1), 16. Xu, Z., & Yang, F. (2023). The dual-level effects of authentic leadership on 99 Monika Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Vilma Žydži ¯unait˙e teacher wellbeing: the mediating role of psychological availability. Per- sonnel Review, 53(4), 929–943. Yukselir, C., & Ozer, O. (2022). Investigating the interplay between English lan- guage teachers’ autonomy, well-being and efficacy. Issues in Educational Research, 32(4), 1643–1657. 100 5 Navigating between Principalship, Leadership and Management Martina Kovačič University of Primorska, Slovenia Anita Trnavčević University of Primorska, Slovenia © 2025 Martina Kovačič and Anita Trnavčević https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-504-7.5 Introduction In 2009, we published an article (Trnavčevič & Roncelli Vaupot, 2009) discussing aspiring principals in Slovenia. Among our findings, we dis-covered that aspiring principals tend to describe their roles as paternal- istic and hierarchical, often assigning a management role to the princi-pal. Leadership style and power were closely linked to the principal’s po-sition (Trnavčevič & Roncelli Vaupot, 2009, pp. 99–100). Furthermore, participants in the study characterized a principal’s role as paternalistic and protective. In 2024, a principal appeared on the critical t v show Tarča (Prazni katedri, 2024) and expressed concern that teachers must be protected from parents who communicate disrespectfully and demand better grades for their children. She claimed that an excessive involvement of ‘unprofessional publics’ in teachers’ professional autonomy occurs in schools. This indicates that after over 16 years, the focus on lead-ership still emphasizes managerial practice and the power dynamics inherent in the principal’s role. In daily newspaper Delo, a principal s b has called for ‘practical solu- tions’ without engaging in theoretical discussions (Kuralt, 2025). In his view, principals are often expected to address ‘practical’ issues rather than engage in educational theory. This perspective directs principals to act more as managers than true leaders. By basic definition, leadership involves influencing and inspiring followers. If we consider teachers to be the followers, then principals must empower them to maintain their autonomy and professionalism in both internal and external contexts. Trnavčević, A., & Kafa, A. (Eds.). (2025). Educational leadership in a changing world: Challenges, practices, contexts and insights. University of Primorska Press. Martina Kovačič and Anita Trnavčević However, the messages conveyed through the aforementioned t v show Tarča and daily newspaper Delo are quite similar. They are focused on ‘protection’ of schools. The president of the Slovenian Principals’ Association explicitly stated that schools should be regarded as ‘sacred places’ which ‘only authorised professionals can enter’ (Kuralt, 2023). These assertions regarding a ‘protective’ stance raise numerous ques- tions and issues about the role of principals and the nature of princi-palship. We will focus on a single perspective, basing our discussion on the assumption that schools operate within specific contexts and legal frameworks. Principals are influenced by traditions, values, school cul-ture, routines, and expectations. The legal framework defines their po-sition, power, and authority, which in turn shapes their practice. Conse- quently, we propose a conceptual model that reconstructs the relation-ship between leadership, management, and principalship, advocating for a theoretical revival of principalship as a vital discourse. Legal Context: Principals in Slovenia, Italy and Austria In this section, we provide a comparative analysis of principals’ roles and positions in the legal context of three neighbouring countries, Slovenia, Italy and Austria. Slovenia In practice, the role of a school principal in the Slovenian educational system reaches far beyond administrative responsibilities. As both a pedagogical leader and an executive manager, the principal plays a key role in shaping the school climate, fostering collaboration among staff, and creating conditions conducive to learning. According to Dolgan (2012), principals in Slovene elementary schools take on a dual role, functioning as educational leaders and institutional managers. They must balance the expectations set by the school’s founder, whether mu- nicipal or state authorities, and the professional needs of their staff. Their effectiveness is closely linked to their leadership style, which should reflect their traits, the characteristics of their team, and the specific conditions within their school environment. A thorough aware-ness of these elements is essential for developing leadership training programmes that can strengthen school performance. While Slovenian legislation outlines the principal’s formal duties, it does not explicitly define the leadership competencies required, partic-ularly those commonly referred to as ‘soft skills.’ Yet, as will be explored 102 Navigating between Principalship, Leadership and Management through the analysis of legal provisions, policy documents, and profes-sional development programmes in the following sections, an increas- ing emphasis on these competencies is emerging. Although not yet sys-tematically defined or embedded in legislation, the need for soft skills is gradually gaining recognition across various regulatory and profes-sional frameworks. The primary legal basis for defining the role of the principal in Slove- nia is the Zakon o organizaciji in financiranju vzgoje in izobraževanja (z of v i) [Act on the Organisation and Financing of Education] (1996). Principals’ competences are systematically defined by the z o f v i. Ac-cording to Article 49 of this act, principals are responsible for orga-nizing, leading, and directing the institution’s work, preparing devel- opment programmes, managing employment relationships, ensuring legal and financial compliance, and guaranteeing the professional and lawful execution of educational activities. These legal provisions in- dicate that the Slovenian legal framework already encompasses the essential components of principalship as recognized by international sources. In Slovenia, the principal’s role legally transcends administra- tive management and includes both strategic and professional dimen-sions. It is, therefore, crucial to understand that z o f v i as a systemic law does not require changes regarding the roles and tasks of principals; the issue lies not in the legislation itself but rather in its inconsistent implementation in practice. A shift is needed at the level of execution, meaning that principals should be provided with conditions necessary to fulfil their statutory role. Support mechanisms must be strength-ened, and a professional culture that respects their autonomy and ac-countability must be cultivated. Article 49 of the z o f v i hence stipulates that the principal is both the pedagogical leader and executive head of a public educational insti-tution. Further, Article 49 lists the principal’s responsibilities, includ- ing the organization and planning of school operations, development of annual and long-term plans, ensuring the legality of school activi-ties, and overseeing the functioning of professional bodies within the school system (Zakon o organizaciji in financiranju vzgoje in izobraže-vanja (z o f v i), 1996, as amended). In addition to defining the princi-pal’s role, the Act also sets out specific eligibility criteria for appoint- ment in Article 53. The requirements vary depending on the type of in-stitution but generally include a relevant higher education degree (at least at the second cycle level), professional titles such as mentor, advi- 103 Martina Kovačič and Anita Trnavčević sor, senior advisor, or counsellor, a minimum of five years of experience in education, and successful completion of the principal certification exam. For example, principals of public kindergartens, schools, and in-stitutions for children with special needs must meet qualifications ap-propriate to their institution, including pedagogical or counselling cre-dentials. Principals of higher vocational colleges must hold the title of lecturer and have a minimum of five years of experience. Notably, a can-didate who does not yet hold the principal certification may still be ap-pointed, provided they complete the required examination within one year of starting their term. Failure to do so results in automatic termi-nation of their mandate, which otherwise lasts five years. However, despite this detailed enumeration of tasks and conditions, the law does not provide a specific list of leadership competencies re-quired for the position. It defines the function, not the profile. This gap places the responsibility for interpreting and developing leadership ex- pectations in the hands of educational institutions and training bodies. Effective educational leadership increasingly relies on a broad range of interpersonal and managerial skills. These include social intelligence, communication abilities, emotional stability, team leadership, and hu-man resource management. Such competencies are essential for im-plementing distributed and shared leadership, guiding the school com- munity, engaging with parents and the broader public, and fostering a collaborative school culture. As Pellitteri (2021) emphasizes, emo-tional intelligence, encompassing the ability to recognize, understand, regulate, and express emotions, is crucial for effective interpersonal communication and the creation of a positive emotional climate within schools. Leaders with high emotional intelligence are better equipped to navigate the emotional dynamics of the school environment, thereby strengthening relationships among teachers, students, and parents and promoting a culture of collaboration. These competencies are somehow recognized and promoted in the of- ficial training programmes for principals, coordinated by the Ministry of Education. The training goes beyond regulatory knowledge and cov- ers practical aspects of leadership development, with specific attention to managing teams, developing a school vision, and resolving interper-sonal conflicts. One such example is the programme Mreže ravnateljev za razvoj vodenja (Networks of principals for leadership development), implemented by the School for Principals (a unit of the National Educa-tion Institute of the Republic of Slovenia, 2024), which emphasizes lead- 104 Navigating between Principalship, Leadership and Management ership through peer networking, mentoring, and self-reflection (Až-man & Zavašnik, 2023). Despite these educational efforts, leadership competencies – partic- ularly soft skills – are still not formally or legally included in the selec-tion and evaluation criteria for school principals. Current appointment procedures remain primarily focused on formal qualifications, such as academic degrees, years of professional experience, and professional ti-tles. In contrast, personal traits, emotional intelligence, and leadership abilities are typically assessed only informally, if they are considered at all. The Draft National Programme for Education 2023–2033, published by the Ministry of Education, acknowledges this gap. It proposes the strengthening of school leadership capacities and the establishment of a systemic approach to continued professional development and self-reflection for school leaders, including tools for leadership quality as- sessment (Ministrstvo za vzgojo in izobraževanje, 2024). In summary, while Slovenian law positions school principals as key figures within the educational system, it has yet to fully capture the complexity and multidimensional demands of modern school leader-ship. Despite growing emphasis on soft skills in training and guidance documents, these competencies are still only marginally embedded in the formal legal and procedural criteria for appointing and evaluating principals. This misalignment underscores a broader issue: the need to reconcile statutory frameworks with the practical realities of educa- tional leadership, where qualities like empathy, effective communica-tion, and intercultural awareness are often just as vital as legal profi-ciency. Bridging this gap will be essential for any meaningful reform aimed at strengthening the professional identity and support struc-tures for school leaders in an increasingly complex educational land-scape. Italy Compared to Slovenia, Italy and Austria have developed more struc- tured and legally defined approaches to school leadership. In Italy, en-try into the principalship is governed by a national-level competitive examination (concorso nazionale), established by Decreto Legislativo 30 marzo 2001, n. 165 [Legislative Decree No. 165/2001] (2001), which assesses candidates’ knowledge of educational law, school organiza-tion, and leadership skills (Savelli, 2017a, 2017b). Successful candidates 105 Martina Kovačič and Anita Trnavčević are appointed as dirigenti scolastici and are responsible for the strate-gic management of their schools, a role significantly strengthened by the enactment of Legge 13 luglio 2015, n. 107 [Law No. 107/2015] (Ri-forma del sistema nazionale di istruzione e formazione e delega per il riordino delle disposizioni legislative vigenti, 2015), commonly known as La Buona Scuola. This law redefined the principal’s role from that of a primarily peda- gogical leader to a strategic manager responsible for overseeing staff re-cruitment, financial and human resources management, and the overall development of the educational institution. Article 1 of La Buona Scuola assigns principals the task of preparing and implementing the Piano Triennale dell’Offerta Formativa (p t o f), overseeing teacher assign- ment, and aligning school activities with broader national and regional education strategies. These responsibilities function within a frame-work aimed at enhancing school autonomy and fostering long-term institutional planning. Following selection, new principals undergo an induction period that includes mandatory training organized by i n di re (Istituto Nazionale di Documentazione, Innovazione e Ricerca Educativa). Although the initial training primarily addresses legal and managerial content, con-temporary leadership frameworks emphasize that effective school lead- ership also requires interpersonal competencies, such as communica-tion, negotiation, and collaboration skills, which are crucial for foster-ing inclusive and effective school environments (European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2016). Altogether, the Italian system increasingly recognizes the impor- tance of soft skills in school leadership. While these competencies are not always explicitly evaluated in formal selection procedures, they are strongly emphasized in post-selection training and professional devel-opment. As a result, newly appointed principals are better supported in addressing the multifaceted demands of educational leadership. Austria In Austria, the role of school principals is defined by a combination of legal mandates and competency-based models that emphasize both formal qualifications and soft skills. The Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (b m b w f) has developed a comprehensive lead-ership profile and training programmes to ensure that school leaders are equipped with the necessary competencies to manage schools effec- 106 Navigating between Principalship, Leadership and Management tively (Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung, 2020). The legal responsibilities of school principals are outlined in the School Education Act (Wiederverlautbarung des Schulunterrichtsge-setzes (s ch u g), 1986) and the Civil Service Act (Beamten-Dienstrechts-gesetz (b d g), 1979). According to Article 56 of the s ch u g, principals are responsible for the pedagogical and administrative leadership of the school, including quality assurance and personnel management (s ch u g, 1986). Article 45 of the b d g 1979 further details the duties of civil servants in leadership positions, emphasizing accountability and adherence to legal standards (Beamten-Dienstrechtsgesetz (b d g), 1979). International frameworks, such as those outlined in the u n e s c o Global Education Monitoring Report 2024, emphasize that school lead-ers are expected to balance administrative management and instruc-tional leadership to promote quality education (u n e s c o, 2024). Al- though specific national profiles vary, Austria follows this general ori-entation through its national competency frameworks for principals, which stress both formal qualifications and interpersonal competencies (Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung, 2020). Notably, while no formal principal training is mandatory before ap-pointment, Austria provides structured professional development and coaching opportunities for school leaders once they assume their posi-tion (https://www.leadershipacademy.at). Austria offers state-supported coaching and professional develop- ment programmes for school principals, with a strong emphasis on soft skills such as emotional intelligence, conflict resolution, and relation-ship-building. One of the most established programmes is the Lead- ership Academy Österreich, coordinated by the Federal Ministry of Education and organized in collaboration with external experts. It fo-cuses on fostering reflective, relationship-oriented, and systemically aware leadership. Its curriculum includes modules aimed at developing personal and interpersonal competencies, including emotional aware-ness, communication strategies, and team leadership (see https://www .leadershipacademy.at). In addition to nationally organized initiatives, private training pro- viders offer supplementary programmes in Austria, including seminars on emotional intelligence in leadership. Although these are not formally part of national education policy, they reflect a growing acknowledg-ment of the importance of interpersonal skills in school leadership. 107 Martina Kovačič and Anita Trnavčević Austria’s approach to supporting school principals places significant emphasis on developing emotional and social competencies through professional development opportunities such as the Leadership Acad-emy Österreich. These programmes focus on cultivating empathy, ef-fective communication, and conflict resolution, skills increasingly rec-ognized as vital for nurturing collaborative school environments and promoting organizational effectiveness. Further insights into the evolving role of school principals in Austria are provided by Wiesner and Schratz (2019), who discuss the balance be- tween accountability and improvement. They highlight the challenges faced by principals in navigating a highly centralized system while striv-ing for school-based innovation. The authors also introduce the Field- TransFormation360 model, which emphasizes the development of lead-ership competencies across four quadrants: rational processes, strategic processes, creative processes, and identity processes. This model under- scores the importance of personal mastery and reflective practice in ef-fective school leadership (Wiesner & Schratz, 2019). While Austria’s legal statutes may not explicitly reference soft skills, these competencies are firmly embedded in the national competency frameworks and leadership training strategies, reflecting their central role in effective school governance. Comparative Insight This comparative lens reveals key differences presented in Table 5.1. These distinctions highlight the systemic strength of Italy and Austria in formally acknowledging and embedding soft skills as essential com-ponents of effective leadership. In contrast, Slovenia emphasizes pro- fessional experience and optional training, but the absence of a stan-dardized framework for evaluating leadership preparedness creates a noticeable disconnect between legal mandates and educational practice. School Management, School Leadership and Principalship To provide a limited overview of the number of publications on school management, school leadership, and principalship, a basic search was conducted across three different repositories. We intentionally chose the terms school leadership and school management instead of educa- tional leadership and educational management to highlight the roles of principals as leaders and managers. In the Web of Science reposi-tory, we found the following results for the publication years 2021 to 108 Navigating between Principalship, Leadership and Management Table 5.1 Key Differences in Selected Countries Criteria Slovenia Italy Austria Legal basis Zakon o organi- Legge / Wiederverlautbarung des for leader- zaciji in finan- [Law /] La Schulunterrichtsgeset-ship ciranju vzgoje in Buona Scuola zes (s ch u g) & Beamten- izobraževanja Dienstrechtsgesetz (b d g), (z of v i)  Soft skills Not explicitly in- Integrated into Included in the national in legisla- cluded training and leader- competency models for tion ship assessments principals Selection Based on formal National competi- Appointment based on process qualifications (ed- tive exam includes formal qualifications and ucation, exams) leadership evalua- competency frameworks tion Continuous Available but op- Mandatory profes- Professional development training tional sional development and coaching offered af- via i n di re ter appointment (state- supported) Evaluation Informal and lim- Legally mandated Part of professional devel-of leader- ited periodic evaluation opment programmes, in-ship cludes feedback and per- sonal growth plans Table 5.2 Number of Articles per Category and Repository from 2021 to 2025 Repository (category) School School Principal- management leadership ship w o s (under ‘topic’) , ,  Sage Publications (research article) , , , Emerald , ,  2025 (https://www.webofscience.com/): under the search term school management, there were 16,411 results; under school leadership, there were 7,341 results; and under principalship, there were 113 results. In the Sage Journals repository, under the search term school manage-ment, we found 87,228 results categorized as research articles. Addi- tionally, there were 138,982 results for the search term school leader-ship, and 37,074 research articles under principalship. In the Emerald repository, we discovered 47,705 results for the term school manage- ment. For school leadership, there were 21,558 results, and under prin-cipalship, there were 123 research articles. The results are presented in Table 5.2. 109 Martina Kovačič and Anita Trnavčević The number of publications in each field reflects global research in- terests and policy priorities. However, there seems to be a low interest in the topic of principalship. Why is that? It may be because discussions about school leaders often focus on principals by using the terms ‘school leader’ and ‘principal’ interchangeably. School Management The neoliberal agenda has promoted the marketization of public edu-cation (Bartlett et al., 2002; Locatelli, 2017; Lubienski & Malin, 2025). In the u k, the field of management in education emerged relatively re-cently after 1988 (Bush, 2008) but gained significant attention and in-ternational reach in the early 1990s. With the rise of New Public Man- agement and the marketization of public education, extensive discus-sions arose regarding whether education should be viewed as a public or private good, the purpose of public education, and the challenges of pol- icy borrowing (Oplatka, 2004). This led to a heightened focus on school leadership. In this context, the concept of management was largely imported into educational systems worldwide and impacted them in two main ways: culturally, as the u k system differs from other educational sys-tems, and disciplinarily, as key ideas, concepts, theories, and approach- es, along with tools and techniques from general and business man-agement, were adapted for use in education. Management has acquired negative connotations, being seen as overly technical rather than peo- ple-oriented, perhaps due to this ‘import.’ Mertkan (2013) argues that the shift in the focus of educational policy reforms has led to leadership becoming the predominant discourse. Mintzberg (2004), a respected theorist in the field of business man- agement, provides an intriguing perspective by linking management to the Aristotelian concept of phronesis. He argues that management is not merely a science, profession, or set of skills; it encompasses judg-ment, vision, insight, and choice. This viewpoint positions manage-ment as an art and underscores the significance of wisdom in practice- phronesis. Therefore, management transcends basic process-oriented and transactional elements and deserves greater attention in educa-tional contexts than it currently receives. If management is rooted in phronesis, it necessarily incorporates ethical dimensions, experience, and knowledge, all aimed at promoting what is considered ‘good’ for the school. While Aristotle’s ideas origi- 110 Navigating between Principalship, Leadership and Management nate from the past, they provide valuable insights for comprehending modern concepts like management. If experience, choice, and judgment are central to phronesis, then principals should not be appointed solely based on meeting legal qualifications; they should also possess proven experience in leading people and managing processes. This way, they are better equipped to make informed judgments and choices compared to those who may be well-educated but lack practical experience. Bush (2007, p. 393) asserts that both management and leadership are equally essential in schools and does not prioritize one over the other. He references Leithwood et al. (1999), who observed that school lead-ers engage in their daily responsibilities without distinctly separating managing from leading. However, whether referred to as school lead- ers, managers, or simply principals, there is an implicit value-laden un-derstanding of their roles. Consequently, we will discuss leadership and principalship in the following section. . . . and School Leadership and Principalship Wei (2025, p. 628) considers leadership and principalship to be synony- mous. She states that ‘principalship reveals a process of influencing by which school principals exert an intentional impact on others; they aim to structure activities and relationships in educational contexts.’ Lead- ership is also defined as the act of influencing others. The question of whether school principalship can be used as a synonym for leadership is not merely rhetorical; by using specific expressions and concepts, we reshape and define the meanings and implications of our practices. By examining the daily lives of principals, we encourage them to define their identities as leaders. Nevertheless, the legal framework, cultural context, and other factors significantly influence the roles and practices of principals. In the Slovenian context, principals are both leaders and managers, primarily appointed to carry out management tasks in accordance with legislation. The introduction of the concept of leadership appears to el-evate principals’ roles to that of school leaders. However, various train- ing programmes focus on educational management. Educational management in Slovenia began to gain prominence in the 1990s. In 1996, the National Schools for Leadership in Education was established, offering a certified programme for school principals. Over time, theoretical foundations for nationally constructed concepts emerged, reflecting international trends in leadership. The programme 111 Martina Kovačič and Anita Trnavčević consists of six modules: Introduction to Leadership, Theories of Orga-nizations and Leadership, Planning, People in Organizations, Principal as Pedagogical Leader, and Legislation (Šola za ravnatelje, n.d.). These module titles have remained almost the same since 1996. The continu-ation of the required, licenced programme focuses more on soft skills, such as developing learning networks, supervising teachers, and pro- viding constructive feedback. The rhetoric emphasizes that principals need to inspire, motivate, and, as the president of the principals’ as-sociation suggests, ‘protect’ teachers. This discussion reflects a recur- ring theme: protective principals and disempowered teachers. Despite recent shifts in rhetoric, the legal framework and existing legislation defining principals’ roles and obligations have not changed substan- tially. We now observe new challenges for school principals that neces-sitate a rethinking of principalship, though empirical research in this area remains limited. The question of whether ‘school principalship’ can be used as a syn- onym for ‘leadership’ is, hence, not merely rhetorical. Our choice of lan-guage and concepts reshapes and defines the meaning of our practices. By understanding the everyday experiences of principals, we encourage them to identify themselves as leaders. However, various factors, in-cluding legal frameworks and cultural contexts, influence the roles and practices of principals. Bush (2007) highlights the diverse epistemologies and disciplines that shape the field of educational leadership and management. His systematic literature and research review draws from both interna-tional and South African sources. In 2003, Bush developed a typology of educational management and leadership models. He divided them between management and leadership models and drew a correspon-dence between them (Bush, 2007, p. 394). For example, for the collegial management model, he found corresponding leadership models, such as transformative, interpersonal and participative; for the subjective management model he identified the post-modern leadership model, and for the cultural management model, moral and instructional lead- ership models were identified. Such a typology has two implications. Firstly, it shows that models are not unique to management or lead-ership. They carry similar features. Secondly, redundancy is unavoid- able, and so are the barriers between management and/or leadership models. Typologies and theories of educational leadership have been exten- 112 Navigating between Principalship, Leadership and Management sively described and discussed by scholars (Davies & Davies, 2006; Lei-thwood & Jantzi, 1990; Tian & Huber, 2020). Hallinger (1992) identified trends in principalship in the u s a from 1960 to 1990, which evolved from programme manager to instructional leader and then to trans-formational leader. Mango (2018) noted that there are over 60 leader-ship theories guiding researchers in this field. He conducted a thorough analysis aiming to consolidate these various theories and found consid-erable redundancy and similarities among them. After scrutinizing 22 theories, he identified five domains. This consolidation effort is not unique; for instance, Meuser et al. (2016) conducted an extensive analysis of leadership theories and iden-tified one focal theory encompassing six leadership approaches: trans- formational leadership, charismatic leadership, strategic leadership, leadership and diversity, participative/shared leadership, and trait the-ory. Educational leadership is shaped by all of these theories, domains, and models. They not only address the need of principals to ‘protect’ teachers from non-professionals but also reflect the importance of di-versity and variety in leadership practices. Gurr (2015) reported on the International Successful School Princi- palship Project (i s s p p), which has been ongoing since 2001, and he provided an international model of successful school leadership. Ini- tially involving seven participating countries, the project expanded to 20 countries, incorporating rich, diverse methodologies to explore the nature of successful principal leadership. Among many findings, Gurr (2015) highlights the concepts of distributed leadership and heroic lead-ership that successful principals embody. While heroic leadership may suggest an emphasis on individual leadership, it is essential to recog- nize that principals do not lead schools alone. Gurr (2015, p. 144) inten-tionally uses the term ‘school leaders’ instead of ‘principals’ to empha-size this point. The distinction between ‘school leader’ and ‘principal’ is closely tied to legal frameworks, the roles and positions of principals, and the or-ganizational structure of schools. Gurr (2015) provides an example re- garding changes in pedagogy, stating that heads of curriculum areas can lead improvements in teaching methods. However, the legal frame-work defines school structures and hierarchies, which in turn dictate the roles and responsibilities of various school leaders. This observa-tion suggests that emphasizing principals as school leaders extends be-yond mere leadership; it pertains to specific roles and positions within 113 Martina Kovačič and Anita Trnavčević a cultural and legal context, as well as the expectations and needs of followers and stakeholders. Social media has transformed established communication channels and opened schools to various stakeholders and the public. According to the President of the Principals’ Association, this shift makes schools and educators vulnerable. This perspective warrants further research in areas such as teacher education, the selection and preparation of prin-cipals, and the exploration of theories from other fields, such as mar-keting and public relations, which offer substantial research on commu- nicating when the audience is unknown. This is particularly relevant in contexts such as participation in television shows, printed publications (e.g. newspapers), and social media. The role of principals is evolving; they now face issues for which they may not have received adequate training, such as addressing disci-pline, engaging with different generations of parents, and adapting to the mobile phone generation in schools. Meanwhile, policymakers and decision-makers have been slow to introduce necessary changes. To effectively address the challenges posed by ‘new technologies and media,’ which have transformed modern communication, including in schools, it may be beneficial to revitalize research on principalship. The legal context significantly, although not exclusively, shapes a principal’s role, duties, and authority while also defining organizational structures. Since any employee can exercise leadership within a school, the legis-lation stipulates a principal’s formal positions and roles. While formal positions and roles do not explicitly emphasize leadership competen-cies, they implicitly expect them. We propose a conceptual model that reflects the legal frameworks of Slovenia, which could serve as a frame- work for future studies. If a principal is put in the centre of a school due to power and author- ity, and assigned responsibilities, duties, and tasks to be performed, then principalship colours the management processes and leadership as influencing others. Concluding Discussion The growing complexity of educational leadership in the twenty-first century demands that school principals possess more than regula- tory knowledge and administrative competence. As emphasised by the o e c d, effective school leaders must demonstrate strong interpersonal competencies, including communication skills, relationship-building 114 Navigating between Principalship, Leadership and Management ader ship i follo nag nfluencing ‘others’ – Le Ma ement processe we srs hip · Power · A in gal context Le ori ty cipals uth Pr Principal Figure 5.1 Conceptual Model for Principalship abilities, and the capacity to manage change constructively. These skills are not peripheral, but central to fostering a positive school climate and enabling sustainable school improvement. As o e cd research suggests, interpersonal and emotional competen- cies should not be considered optional attributes, but rather integral to the principal’s role. Their absence in formal standards risks leaving principals underprepared for the relational and transformational de-mands of contemporary schooling. In Slovenia, this gap is slowly being addressed through professional development programmes and sublegal guidelines; however, these remain fragmented and largely dependent on individual initiative. The legal framework explicitly and implicitly reflects a principal’s power position, authority, responsibilities, and accountability. With a focus on administrative tasks, neither management nor leadership is sufficiently addressed. The foci of principals’ perceived needs, knowl-edge and skills upgrade, and hence, professional development, move the practice towards management processes while leadership remains ‘optional.’ Considering principals as primus inter pares and expecting them to be super persons is illusory in this complex world. Schools must be man- aged well with established processes and fulfilling aims and tasks, in a welcoming, supportive, and developmentally oriented school culture. Principals must understand their role and ‘engage others’ in leader- 115 Martina Kovačič and Anita Trnavčević ship. Distributed principalship would give rise to undistributed power and authority, accountability and responsibility while enabling sharing, distributing instructional and other types of leadership. If so, princi-pals could get more adequate training, better navigate between differ-ent roles, and be more aware of their power, authority, responsibility and accountability position than they currently are. Policy Implications for Slovenia For Slovenia, these findings carry important implications. While the formal responsibilities of school principals are clearly outlined in na-tional legislation, the systemic embedding of interpersonal competen-cies within leadership frameworks remains limited. The Slovenian ed- ucational policy environment still largely emphasizes administrative compliance and legal accountability, often at the expense of recognizing and systematically developing soft skills as a core component of school leadership. To align with international trends and evidence-based policy recom- mendations, Slovenia could benefit from integrating soft skills more explicitly into the legal and professional profile of school leaders. The incorporation of competencies in initial principal training, such as on-going coaching and performance evaluation frameworks, is needed. A shift in discourse is necessary, from a focus on managerialism to leader-ship rooted in relational ethics, emotional intelligence, and democratic engagement. Additionally, we should move towards empowering princi- pals, enabling them to effectively administer, manage, and lead schools with the strategic goal of transformation. This shift of focus on prin-cipalship goes beyond semantic change into meaningful praxis. To ef- fectively carry out the role of principal in Slovenia, it is crucial to con-sistently apply all statutory competencies outlined by z o f v i. This in-cludes systematically training principals in strategic, pedagogical, and organizational leadership, as well as promoting an environment that supports professional leadership within schools. Research implications for Slovenia Our discussion and conceptual model of principalship raise several questions and opportunities for further research. Beyond testing the model in various national contexts, it can also be compared interna-tionally. The dominant discourse requires fresh perspectives aiming to address the needs of non-English speaking countries, as well as their 116 Navigating between Principalship, Leadership and Management cultural traditions and legal frameworks. Research on school manage-ment should be informed by new insights from general management, which continues to influence school practices in multiple ways. Addi-tionally, educational leadership theories may benefit from being exam-ined through a constructivist research paradigm, as Wei (2025) sug-gests. Leadership, management, and principalship are dynamic con- cepts; new generations of parents, students, and emerging technolo-gies demand innovative teachers guided by forward-thinking princi-pals. As a result, exploring the relationship between the ‘new’ and the ‘old’ opens up new avenues for research. References Ažman, T., & Zavašnik, M. (2023). Headteachers’ networks for leadership de- velopment. Vodenje v vzgoji in izobraževanju, 21(1), 84–101. Bartlett, L., Frederick, M., Gulbrandsen, T., & Murillo, E. (2002). The marke- tization of education: Public schools for private ends. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 33(1), 5–29. Beamten-Dienstrechtsgesetz (b d g). (1979). Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Österreich, (333). Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung. (2020). Kompe- tenzprofil für Schulleiterinnen und Schulleiter. Bush, T. (2007). Educational leadership and management: Theory, policy, and practice. South African Journal of Education, 27(3), 391–406. Bush, T. (2008). From management to leadership: Semantic or meaningful change? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 36(2), 271–288. Davies, B. J., & Davies, B. (2006). Developing a model for strategic leadership in schools. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 34(1), 121–139. Decreto Legislativo 30 marzo 2001, n. 165: Norme generali sull’ordinamento del lavoro alle dipendenze delle amministrazioni pubbliche. (2001). Gaz- zetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, (106). Dolgan, K. (2012). Značilnosti vodenja v slovenskih osnovnih šolah. Andragoš- ka spoznanja, 18(1), 10–27. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2016). Country policy review and analysis: Italy. Gurr, D. (2015). A model of successful school leadership from the International Successful School Principalship Project (i s s p p). Societies, 5(1), 136–150. Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional to transformational leader. Journal of Educational Admin- istration, 30(3), 35–48. 117 Martina Kovačič and Anita Trnavčević Istituto Nazionale di Documentazione, Innovazione e Ricerca Educativa. (2015). Alternanza scuola-lavoro: primo monitoraggio nazionale. Kuralt, Š. (2023, 3 October). Predloge k prenovi šolstva podal tudi varuh. Delo. https://www.delo.si/novice/slovenija/predloge-k-prenovi-solstva- podal-tudi-varuh Kuralt, Š. (2025, 12 April). Pedagogi s peticijo proti zakonom, ravnatelji so za. Delo. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990). Transformational leadership: How princi- pals can help reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Im- provement, 1(4), 249–280. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for chang- ing times. Open University Press. Locatelli, R. (2017). Education as a public and common good: Revisiting the role of the State in a context of growing marketization [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Bergamo. Lubienski, C., & Malin, J. (2025). Understanding privatization and marketi- zation in education. In A. Zanjaco, C. Fontdevila, H. Jabbar, & A. Verger (Eds.), Research handbook on education privatization and marketization (pp. 26–40). Edward Elgar. Mango, E. (2018). Rethinking leadership theories. Open Journal of Leadership, 7(1), 57–88. Mertkan, S. (2013). In search of leadership: What happened to management? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 42(2), 226–242. Meuser, J. D., Gardner, W. L., Dinh, J. E., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Lord, R. G. (2016). A network analysis of leadership theory: The infancy of integra- tion. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1374–1403. Ministrstvo za vzgojo in izobraževanje. (2024). Nacionalni program vzgoje in izo- braževanja za obdobje 2023–2033. Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers, not m b a s: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. Berrett-Koehler. National Education Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (z rs š). (2024). Vo- denje v vzgoji in izobraževanju, 57(2). https://www.zrss.si/izdelek/vodenje -v-vzgoji-in-izobrazevanju-57-2-2024 Oplatka, I. (2004). The principalship in developing countries: Context, charac- teristics and reality. Comparative Education, 40(3), 427–448. Pellitteri, J. (2021). Emotional intelligence and leadership styles in education. Psychologie a její kontexty, 12(2), 39–52. Riforma del sistema nazionale di istruzione e formazione e delega per il ri- ordino delle disposizioni legislative vigenti. (2015). Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, (162). Savelli, A. (2017a). School leadership in Italy: Autonomy and accountability in 118 Navigating between Principalship, Leadership and Management the Italian education system. In B. Pont (Ed.), School leadership for learn- ing: Insights from ta l i s 2013, (pp. 199–218). Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Savelli, S. (2017b). Becoming a teacher in Italy today: The origins of current paths. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Re- search, 16(12), 23–45. Šola za ravnatelje. (n.d.). Predmetnik. https://solazaravnatelje.si/index.php/ dejavnosti/ravnateljski-izpit/predmetnik Prazni katedri [t v show episode]. (2024, 7 November). Tarča. Radiotelevizija Slovenija. Tian, M., & Huber, S. G. (2020). Mapping educational leadership, adminis- tration and management research 2007–2016: Thematic strands and the changing landscape. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(2), 129–150. Trnavčevič, A., & Roncelli Vaupot, S. (2009). Exploring aspiring principals’ per- ceptions of principalship: A Slovenian case study. Educational Manage- ment Administration and Leadership, 37(1), 85–105. u n e s c o. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024/5: Leadership in edu- cation; Lead for learning. Wei, G. (2025). Principalship amidst dilemmatic spaces: A narrative inquiry at a Catholic girls’ school in Macau. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 45(2), 628–644. Wiederverlautbarung des Schulunterrichtsgesetzes (s ch u g). (1986). Bundes- gesetzblatt für die Republik Österreich, (472). Wiesner, C., & Schratz, M. (2019). Principalship in Austria: Balancing account- ability and improvement. In S. Ševkušić, D. Malinić, & J. Teodorović (Eds.), Leadership in education: Initiatives and trends in selected european countries (pp. 11–29). Institute for Educational Research. Zakon o organizaciji in financiranju vzgoje in izobraževanja (z of v i). (1996). Uradni list Republike Slovenije, (12). https://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava .jsp?sop=1996-01-0567 119 6 Educational Leadership in Transition: Reflections, Integrations, and Paths Forward Antonios Kafa Open University of Cyprus, Cyprus Anita Trnavčević University of Primorska, Slovenia © 2025 Antonios Kafa and Anita Trnavčević https://doi.org/10.26493/978-961-293-504-7.6 The Time to Rethink Educational Leadership Based on the collective chapters of this edited volume, we can con-clude that the demands on educational leaders have never been greater. Ansell and Boin (2019) mentioned that modern societies are increas- ingly faced with ‘unknown unknowns.’ Yet, they argued on the im-portant role of a leader during the outbreak of a challenging time. In particular, they argued that when challenges emerge in societies, con- stituents look to their leaders to protect them and deal with the crisis to address any possible consequences (Ansell & Boin, 2019). Crises and emergency situations, including co v i d-19, have reshaped school lead- ers’ practices (Harris & Jones, 2022; Kafa, 2021). Specifically, Striepe and Cunningham (2022) stated in a scoping review of empirical re-search studies on school leadership during times of crisis, that crises impacting school organizations are divided into natural and human disasters. Natural disasters include fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and so on, whereas human disasters include numerous school disasters, shoot- ings, and deaths, among other things (Striepe & Cunningham, 2022). In different contexts, not only disasters but also other challenges were amplified during and after the c o v i d-19 lockdown (Sia et al., 2023). For example, communication with parents has been changing, expec-tations of schools’ stakeholders have been changing, and pressures on schools are increasing. Therefore, demands on educational leaders have never been greater. Based on the chapters of this edited volume’s challenges, contextual el-ements, quality issues, professional well-being, and the importance of Trnavčević, A., & Kafa, A. (Eds.). (2025). Educational leadership in a changing world: Challenges, practices, contexts and insights. University of Primorska Press. Antonios Kafa and Anita Trnavčević understanding leadership beyond the aspects of management and prin-cipalship and within the context of principalship have emerged as cru- cial for reimagining leadership in this changing world. Based on the the-matic aspects of the chapters, theoretical frameworks, empirical insights, and lived experiences were presented to build more equitable, inclusive, and humanizing leadership models. Educational leaders are navigating un- charted waters and an increasingly complex environment, shaped by societal inequality, emotional strain, policy accountability, and a global call for inclusivity. Therefore, the time calls to rethink the educational leadership field and support educational leaders across various educa-tional sectors to lead successfully and effectively. In such situations, there is often an attempt to find ‘the’ right model, ‘the’ right style, ‘the’ right . . . This book emphasizes the contextual and legal frameworks within which school leadership, principalship and management are embedded. A methodological diversity has to address nuances and allow for culturally bounded and context-sensitive inter-pretations of empirical data. New old issues require new approaches in practice, refocused research and changes in education policies. The neoliberal approach did not provide the expected results in improv-ing equity, inclusion, teacher well-being and students’ academic results. Marketization-based policies and the ‘tyranny of choice’ (Salecl, 2011) have not resulted in better education systems, as many authors argue. Therefore, reconsidering the future of education will require a distance from neoliberal politics and a closer movement towards the essence of education. Schools must become student-centred again, and teach-ers must be empowered and act autonomously. The teachers’ call for ‘protection’ from stakeholders’ demands requires more than only tech- niques and skills. It calls for different education of future teachers and professionalization of principalship. What Have We Learned from the Chapters of this Edited Volume? Based on the perspective of rethinking the educational field and on the contributions of this particular edited volume, we need to under-stand the lessons learned to form specific implications and set the fu-ture path for the field. The opening chapter by Fuentes and Camas Gar- rido presents a compelling argument that educational leadership must be grounded in emotional intelligence, inclusive values, and ethical conduct. The chapter highlights the emotional labour of leadership, where empa- 122 Educational Leadership in Transition thy and care become indispensable to building trust, motivating staff, and fostering equitable learning environments. The challenge to dom- inant neoliberal logics that reduce leadership to metrics and account-ability makes this framing particularly important. By centring on rela-tionships, emotional well-being, and cultural responsiveness, Fuentes and Camas Garrido push for a leadership paradigm that is relational rather than transactional, and transformative rather than managerial. Following and building on the first chapter, this need for contextually responsive leadership is taken further in Chapter 2 by Nedzinskait˙e- Mači ¯unien˙e and Kafa, who explore how economic, social, and cultural status (e s c s) moderates and mediates the relationship between lead-ership practices and student science achievement using o e c d p i s a data. Their findings show that instructional leadership alone cannot over-come the structural disadvantages faced by students in low-e s c s settings. This chapter critically reveals the limitations of generic leadership pre- scriptions, especially in centralized or stratified systems. Rather than treating leadership as a universal toolkit, the authors argue for adaptive leadership strategies that account for local inequalities and systemic constraints. Their analysis strengthens the volume’s core argument: leadership must be situated within its specific policy, institutional, and so-cial context. In Chapter 3, Luna Pérez and Domínguez Rodríguez offer a compar- ative lens to understand leadership practices across Chile, Canada, Sin-gapore, and Australia. Their comparative analysis of national leadership frameworks shows how different systems prioritize pedagogical leader-ship, community engagement, and resource management, often in re-sponse to both international standards and local demands. Despite con- textual differences, several converging themes emerge. Effective leader-ship is increasingly linked to professional development, distributed au-thority, and stakeholder collaboration. These global cases suggest that policy frameworks that support leadership development, particularly those that promote reflection, autonomy, and ethical action, can en-hance educational quality and reduce inequality. Therefore, we can ar- gue that educational leadership is shaped by a variety of aspects, includ-ing historical moments, political systems, national values, etc. The discussion in Chapter 4 focuses on a critical and modern aspect of educational leadership, referring to teachers’ well-being. Through a systematic literature review, Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Žydži ¯unait˙e demon-strate that leadership styles such as transformational, distributed, au- 123 Antonios Kafa and Anita Trnavčević thentic, supportive, and empowering are positively associated with teacher professional well-being. Especially in an era where everything is changing, teachers’ well-being is important. They are leaders within the classroom who support our students. Their direct contact with stu-dents and parents and the role of school leaders calls for sustaining and promoting teachers’ well-being. Therefore, from Chapter 4 we draw a conclusion that teachers’ well-being is crucial for effective leadership. When teachers experience burnout, stress, or a lack of support, it neg-atively impacts students’ learning. Therefore, school leaders must de- velop competencies to support their teaching staff in centralized and decentralized education systems. Supporting teachers does not mean removing roles, duties, or requirements from their responsibilities. In- stead, teachers should be highly motivated, knowledgeable, and skilled professionals who can thrive in demanding environments, supported by positive relationships with colleagues that enhance their well-being. Finally, in Chapter 5, Kovačič and Trnavčević explored the often- blurred lines between principalship, management, and leadership, par-ticularly in the context of Slovenia. We have learned that in many ed- ucational systems, including Slovenia, the legal and policy frameworks often constrain leadership by framing it through managerial and ad-ministrative logics rather than promoting leadership. To discuss school leaders’ and principals’ transformative potential, it could be useful to research the principalship and principals’ roles in the broader context of leadership. Principals are central figures in schools if we look at them from the position of power, authority, and organizational structure. They are accountable and responsible for the school in general. As such, they have to identify their transformative potential and managerial ‘smoothness.’ We can summarize the content of the book in seven postulates: 1. Context matters deeply 2. Leadership is a human practice 3. Teacher well-being is a prerequisite for school effectiveness and improvement 4. Understanding and addressing challenges (including crises and emergencies) requires new knowledge, skills and attitudes for new times 5. Quality matters in every aspect of the educational leadership field 6. Management and leadership are intertwined, while principalship 124 Educational Leadership in Transition has to be navigated between the policy framework and leadership and management practices 7. There Is No One-Size-Fits-All Model What are the Implications? Building on the findings from the collective chapters of this edited vol-ume, the following implications for policymakers and future research are presented. Policymakers • Context matters. School leaders can respond to and address the needs and challenges in their environment. The era of ‘policy bor- rowing’ only seemingly faded away. Education policies round the world have been designed on the implicit or explicit, endogenous or exogenous practices of policy borrowing. We can observe dif- ferent forms of policy borrowing (Gupta, 2022; Nishimura-Sahi, 2020). Clapham (2023) discusses policy borrowing from contexts associated with high performance in international league tables. Globalization has brought about ‘sameness,’ similarity, and inter- connectedness (Bauman, 1998); notions that are often ascribed positive connotations and that facilitate international compara- tive research, such as p i s a. However, they also amplify competi- tion and other policy decisions and marketized practices, such as league tables (Clapham, 2023). • School leaders’ professional development on addressing current societal challenges, crises and emergencies matters. Potter and Chitpin (2020) discuss professional development in the highly neoliberal context of the English schools in Ontario and emphasize professional cri- tique and data analysis methods that are beyond statistics. Policy makers need and must have data that goes beyond the numbers. In Chapter 4, Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Žydži ¯unait˙e point out the need for mixed methods research design. The dominant, quantitative research has to be accompanied by qualitative and mixed meth- ods research designs to get better and in-depth understanding of current phenomena. This is an implication for further research but also a recommendation to policy makers to incentivize pro- fessional development through financial incentives and to encour- age principals and school leaders to make use of their reflective 125 Antonios Kafa and Anita Trnavčević practices. An action research methodology could add to informing policy-makers and indicate more specific needs emerging in spe- cific contexts. A bottom-up approach to identifying professional development needs rather than a top-down approach has been ad- vocated (Lafferty et al., 2024). However, as Miranda et al. (2024) argue, due to the highly complex political environments, school leaders need to build political awareness. Such topics are not fre- quently included in teachers’ and principals’ professional develop- ment; however, they would help them to better navigate through policy and political complexity. • Strengthen school leaders’ understanding and awareness of teachers’ well-being. This is a prerequisite for the success of the teaching and learning process. School leaders cannot directly influence work- ing conditions, such as teachers’ workload, the quality of physical conditions of schools, and the policies of accountability. However, school leaders have a direct impact on creating a positive, inclusive, and motivating school culture through school policies and norms, and job satisfaction (Dreer, 2021). • Promoting the leadership aspect of educational leaders beyond the con- cepts of managerialism and administration. A clear distinction must be made between managerialism and management. Managerial- ism carries a pejorative, critical connotation in education (Santi- ago & Carvalho, 2012). For example, the journal j c e p s (Journal of Critical Education Studies), regularly publishes academic arti- cles on managerialism, marketization of public education, the im- pact of New Public Management (n p m) on education and other topics related to and emerging from n p m application to the field of education. Also, ‘leaderism’ as a concept has emerged in a pe- jorative connotation. O’Reilly and Reed (2010, p. 960) define lead- erism as ‘an emerging set of beliefs that frames and justifies certain innovatory changes in contemporary organisational and manage- rial practice – is a development of managerialism and that it has been applied and utilized within the policy discourse of public ser- vice reform in the u k as part of the hybridization and evolution of n p m and new public governance practices in the public services.’ So, when discussing management and leadership, we need to em- bed the discussion in a broader political context. A bottom-up ap- proach to policy development can contribute to a humanistic un- 126 Educational Leadership in Transition derstanding of leadership, and place principalship in the service of it. It also highlights leadership and management from a specific perspective. Future Research At the end of this book, we also look at future research. Our ideas go beyond the book. We are very much aware of the need to research new practices, concepts and ideas that are somehow introduced into educa-tional management and leadership from other fields or cultures. Well-being is a good example of a new concept in education. Comparative studies in the international arena will unfold new understandings and lead to improvements in practice. Hence, advanced contextual research that explores how educational leadership, management and principal-ship are enacted in varying socioeconomic, cultural, and institutional settings is needed. Further investigation of the intersections between educational leadership and new challenges, such as advanced digitaliza-tion and technological development, will enrich the field of education. Šimkut˙e-Bukant˙e and Žydži ¯unait˙e, in Chapter 4, identified the need for a mixed-methods research design. Their observation leads to re-thinking the methodological issues in educational leadership, manage- ment, and principalship. Advanced qualitative approaches have to be applied, and an understanding of their philosophical, epistemologi-cal and methodological paradigms considered. One example of a lost paradigm is generic qualitative research. There are many pitfalls of such research (Kahlke, 2014), although it may be beneficial in some other fields, like nursing. We need a critical rethinking of the methodologies used to generate new knowledge and reflexivity rather than reflections. Beyond all said, we would like to draw the attention of researchers in the field of educational leadership, management and principalship to meta-analysis, to building research on already existing studies, es-pecially qualitative studies from within national contexts. There are so many opportunities to generate knowledge, but they require knowl- edgeable and open-minded researchers. References Ansell, C., & Boin, A. (2019). Taming deep uncertainty: The Potential of prag- matist principles for understanding and improving strategic crisis man- agement. Administration and Society, 51(7), 1079–1112. Baumann, Z. (1998). Globalization: The human consequence. Polity. 127 Antonios Kafa and Anita Trnavčević Clapham, A. (2023). Examining teaching for mastery as an instance of ‘hyper- real’ cross national policy borrowing. Oxford Review of Education, 50(3), 366–383. Dreer, B. (2021). Teachers’ well-being and job satisfaction: The important role of positive emotions in the workplace. Educational Studies, 50(1), 61–77. Gupta, A. (2022). Global and local discourses in India’s policies for early child- hood education: Policy borrowing and local realities. Comparative Educa- tion, 58(3), 364–382. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2022). Leading during a pandemic: What the evidence tells us. School Leadership and Management, 42(2), 105–109. Kafa, A. (2021). Advancing school leadership in times of uncertainty: The case of the global pandemic crisis. Leading and Managing, 27(1), 37–50. Kahlke, R. M. (2014). Generic qualitative approaches: Pitfalls and benefits of methodological mixology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1), 37–52. Lafferty, N., Sheehan, M., Walsh, C., Rooney, A. M., & Mannix McNamara, P. (2024). School leaders’ perspectives of the continuous professional de- velopment of teachers. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2392422. Miranda, R. M., Aravena, F., de Oliveira, A. C. P., & Pineda-Báez, C. (2024). Reimagining professional development for school leaders in Brazil, Chile, and Colombia: An examination of current approaches and future direc- tions. Professional Development in Education, 51(1), 54–68. Nishimura-Sahi, O. (2020). Policy borrowing of the Common European Frame- work of Reference for languages (c e f r) in Japan: An analysis of the in- terplay between global education trends and national policymaking. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(3), 574–587. O’Reilly, D., & Reed, M. (2010). ‘Leaderism’: An evolution of managerialism in u k public service reform. Public Administration: An International Quar- terly, 88(4), 960–978. Potter, I., & Chitpin, S. (2020). Professional development for school leaders in England: Decision-making for social justice. Professional Development in Education, 47(1), 63–74. Santiago, R., & Carvalho, T. (2012). Managerialism rhetoric in Portuguese higher education. Minerva, 50(4), 511–532. Salecl, R. (2011). The tyranny of choice. Profile Books. Sia, J. K. M., Chin, W. L., Voon, M. L., Adamu, A. A., & Tan, S. C. K. (2023). Tran- sitioning from online teaching to blended teaching in the post-pandemic era: What has c o v i d-19 taught us? Cogent Education, 10(2), 2282313. Striepe, M., & Cunningham, C. (2022). Understanding educational leadership during times of crises: A scoping review. Journal of Educational Adminis- tration, 60(2), 133–147. 128 In an era marked by global disruption, growing inequality, and rapid transformation in education systems, the role of school leaders – and educational leadership more broadly – has become increasingly com- plex, multifaceted, and urgent. This edited volume brings together in- ternational perspectives and original research that illuminate various dimensions of educational leadership, with a particular focus on school leadership. Although school leadership has been extensively theorized and empirically studied in recent years, foundational concepts remain the subject of ongoing debate, as leadership is inherently shaped by its context. From a policy standpoint, globalization and internationalization have fostered a certain degree of ‘sameness,’ reflected in both termi- nology and theoretical approaches. The international authorship repre- sented in this volume underscores a shared commitment to improving schools and advancing school leadership. The chapters offer a timely and critical exploration of educational leadership in a rapidly changing world. They address pressing issues related to policy, practice, and equity, while providing grounded examples of innovation, resilience, and reflective practice across diverse contexts. University of Primorska Press hippocamus.si