Educational leadership theory is rooted in management concepts, yet it focuses specifically on the unique context of schools and the centrality of teaching and learning processes. Unlike leadership in other organizational settings, school leadership operates within a complex social system that involves teachers, students, parents, and the wider community, requiring leadership practices that balance instructional priorities, professional relationships, and organizational development (Bush, 2011; Hallinger, 2011). In primary education, this complexity is particularly pronounced, as leadership practices directly influence instructional coherence, teacher collaboration, and perceptions of school quality (Leithwood et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2008; Bryk et al., 2010). Research consistently shows that effective school leadership contributes to improved school functioning not through direct control of instruction, but by shaping the organizational conditions that support teaching and learning. A widely accepted framework for understanding educational leadership emphasizes three interrelated dimensions: influence, vision, and values (Bush, 2011). Influence represents a core element of leadership and extends beyond formal authority to include the capacity to motivate, guide, and support teachers and students toward shared educational goals (Yukl, 2002). Empirical studies indicate that leadership influence is most effective when it is exercised through trust-building, professional collaboration, and shared responsibility rather than hierarchical control (Leithwood and Sun, 2012; Louis et al., 2010). Such forms of influence foster stronger professional relationships among teachers and contribute to the development of a leadership-related organizational climate that supports collective action and continuous improvement. Vision constitutes a second key dimension of school leadership and plays a central role in coordinating school improvement efforts. Effective school leaders articulate a clear and achievable vision that aligns instructional priorities with school development goals and communicate this vision in ways that actively engage teachers and other stakeholders (Hallinger and Heck, 2010). Empirical evidence suggests that teachers are more willing to participate in collaborative practices, instructional innovation, and professional learning when leadership vision is perceived as inclusive and responsive to classroom realities (Thoonen et al., 2011; Day and Sammons, 2016). At the same time, the literature cautions against top-down approaches to vision-setting, emphasizing that sustainable school improvement is more likely when goals are negotiated and shared among members of the school community (Sun and Leithwood, 2015). Values and ethics form the third dimension of educational leadership and are closely linked to school climate, trust, and collaboration. Leadership practices grounded in integrity, fairness, and ethical responsibility contribute to positive professional relationships and to an organizational culture that supports collaboration and mutual respect (Begley, 2007). Research in educational leadership highlights that ethical leadership is associated with higher levels of teacher commitment, motivation, and organizational trust, all of which are important components of perceived school quality and effective school management (Klar and Brewer, 2013). In this sense, leadership effectiveness is inseparable from the moral foundations that sustain collaborative school cultures.

Contemporary leadership models in education—particularly transformational and distributed leadership—integrate the dimensions of influence, vision, and values by emphasizing shared decision-making, professional empowerment, and collaborative problem-solving (Bass and Riggio, 2006; Harris, 2010). Transformational leadership focuses on building teachers’ commitment to shared goals and supporting professional growth, while distributed leadership conceptualizes leadership as a collective practice enacted across multiple actors within the school organization (Spillane et al., 2004). Empirical research consistently reports positive associations between these leadership approaches, teacher collaboration, organizational commitment, and improved school climate (Hulpia et al., 2009; Heck and Hallinger, 2009; Gumus et al., 2018).

Collaboration between school leaders and teachers has therefore emerged as a central mechanism through which leadership practices influence school quality and school management outcomes. Studies on professional learning communities indicate that collaborative structures support reflective practice, shared accountability, and improvements in teaching quality (Stoll et al., 2006; Vescio et al., 2008). When school leaders actively facilitate collaboration through open communication, participatory decision-making, and support for professional learning, teachers are more likely to engage in innovative instructional practices and collective problem-solving (Printy et al., 2009; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Importantly, leadership effects on school quality are predominantly indirect. Rather than influencing outcomes through direct intervention in classroom instruction, school leaders shape the organizational conditions under which teaching and learning occur, including collaboration, trust, collective efficacy, and professional learning opportunities (Hallinger, 2011; Leithwood et al., 2008). From this perspective, leadership-related organizational climate represents a key explanatory factor linking leadership practices, teacher collaboration, and perceived school quality, particularly in primary education settings where teamwork and instructional coordination are essential. Despite the extensive international literature on educational leadership, collaboration, and school quality, these constructs are often examined in isolation. There remains a lack of empirical studies that integrate contemporary leadership models, collaboration with teachers, and school quality within a single analytical framework, particularly in primary education and in education systems undergoing reform and structural transition (Pont et al., 2008; OECD, 2022).

To explore the attitudes of school leaders and primary school teachers towards contemporary models of educational leadership, this study used a mixed-methods approach. Specifically, a sequential explanatory design was applied, where quantitative data served to provide a general overview of trends, while qualitative data enabled a deeper understanding of background factors.

Quantitative data were collected through questionnaires, which were distributed to 100 teachers working in grades one through five in primary schools. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with six school principals, purposively selected based on their experience and institutional role. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data has enabled a comprehensive understanding of perceptions and practices related to contemporary models of educational leadership, helping to identify the most effective approaches that impact the functioning and development of primary schools.

The main task of this research was to examine the use of contemporary leadership models among primary school leaders and to explore how these practices are associated with school quality and management processes.

The research question was:

To what extent are contemporary leadership models associated with perceived school quality in primary schools?

Supporting sub-questions included:

To what extent do teachers’ professional competencies predict the leadership-related school work environment in primary schools?

This study employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, in which quantitative data collection and analysis were followed by a qualitative phase to further explain and contextualize the quantitative findings. This design was selected to capture both the statistical relationships between leadership-related variables and school outcomes, as well as the perspectives and experiences of school principals regarding leadership practices in everyday school contexts. The mixed-methods approach allowed for methodological triangulation and enhanced the interpretive depth of the study.

The internal consistency of the research instrument was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The results indicate a high level of internal reliability for the full questionnaire (α = 0.91), suggesting that the items consistently measure the targeted constructs related to leadership practices, collaboration, and school-related outcomes (Table 1).

The quantitative phase included 100 primary school teachers. Of the participants, 14% were male and 86% female. Regarding age distribution, the majority of respondents (67%) were between 31 and 41 years old, followed by 20% aged 42–52 years, 10% aged 20–30 years, and 3% over the age of 53. In terms of educational attainment, 66% of participants held a bachelor’s degree, 20% had completed higher school education, 11% held a master’s degree, and 3% had graduated from normal school. Participants were drawn from six primary schools (Table 2).

The data show that primary school principals are experienced and educated, leading schools in a largely effective manner. Communication and relationships with teachers are strong, creating a positive collaborative environment. However, the use of contemporary leadership models and collaboration between the principal and deputy principal is variable. Challenges with school infrastructure and resources continue to limit the effectiveness of leadership. Overall, leadership is on a strong footing, but requires further modernization and support (Table 3).

The data in this study were collected through a Likert scale questionnaire (1–5), which represents ordinal data and that is not normally distributed and not equal intervals. For this reason, non-parametric analyses were used, specifically Spearman’s rho (ρ) correlation, which measures the strength and direction of the monotonic relationship between the use of contemporary leadership models and improving school quality (Table 4).

The results show that the implementation of contemporary leadership models directly impacts school quality. The more leaders implement these models, the higher the ratings for institutional quality, including management, motivation, and innovation in teaching (Table 4).

Principals are motivated primarily by the desire to positively influence the development of the school and to improve the educational process. Their motivation is not only related to the position, but to the responsibility and opportunity to make real change (Table 5).

The results show that leaders who contribute to improving communication and collaboration with teachers have a stronger impact on improving the quality of the learning process. Innovations are mainly related to the use of technology and the promotion of new teaching methods (Table 6).

The results indicate statistically significant positive correlations between leadership-related innovations and perceived school improvement (Table 6). Improved communication with teachers shows a strong positive association with school improvement (ρ = 0.61, p < 0.001), followed by the promotion of staff collaboration (ρ = 0.59, p = 0.001). The use of technology in school management (ρ = 0.54, p = 0.002) and the encouragement of innovative teaching methods (ρ = 0.56, p = 0.001) are also moderately to strongly correlated with perceived school improvement. These findings suggest that leadership practices oriented toward communication, collaboration, and innovation are consistently associated with higher perceptions of school improvement (Table 6).

The linear regression results show that contemporary leadership models are a statistically significant predictor of school quality (β = 0.58, p < 0.001). The model explains approximately 34% of the variance in school quality, suggesting that more positive teacher perceptions of modern leadership practices are associated with higher evaluations of overall school functioning and institutional quality. The findings are interpreted at a predictive and associative level, without causal claims (see Tables 7, 8).

In this study, the leadership-related school work environment refers to teachers’ perceptions of leadership support, communication quality, collaboration with school leaders, clarity of expectations, and working conditions shaped by school management practices. The linear regression analysis indicates that teachers’ professional competencies are a statistically significant predictor of the leadership-related school work environment (β = 0.55, p < 0.001). The model explains approximately 30% of the variance in teachers’ perceptions of leadership-related organizational climate (R² = 0.30), suggesting that higher levels of professional competencies—particularly those related to collaboration and professional interaction—are associated with more positive perceptions of leadership practices and school management.

This study follows a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, in which quantitative findings were used as a basis to guide and deepen the qualitative analysis. The quantitative results identified significant relationships between contemporary leadership models, collaboration, and school quality, while qualitative data from interviews with school leaders were used to explain and contextualize these relationships, offering a deeper understanding of the mechanisms through which these practices influence school functioning.

Qualitative data were collected through interviews conducted with six primary school principals. The analysis of these qualitative data was planned from the beginning of the research process, based on the research questions, definitions of key concepts, and their operationalization (Table 9).

Overall, the study highlights that improving school quality in primary education requires more than structural reforms or administrative control. School principals play a pivotal role as leaders who must balance legal responsibilities, professional standards, and the human dimensions of school life. Familiarity with legal and normative frameworks, combined with reflective practice and continuous self-evaluation, allows principals to respond more effectively to internal and external challenges.

The findings underscore the importance of collaborative school cultures, where expert teams, shared projects, and partnerships with other institutions support innovation and development. Principals emphasized the value of forming working groups to design projects, seek funding opportunities, and coordinate activities that align with school priorities. Systematic evaluation of both teachers’ performance and principals’ own leadership practices was also seen as essential for sustaining improvement and fostering professional growth.

From a practical perspective, the study suggests that school improvement initiatives should place greater emphasis on developing collaborative and ethical leadership practices. Professional development for school leaders should therefore move beyond administrative skills and focus more explicitly on communication, collaboration, and reflective leadership.

Based on the findings, several practical recommendations emerge. School leaders should develop clear and effective mechanisms to ensure quality leadership and management, while also engaging in continuous self-evaluation and professional learning. At the system level, clearer delineation of responsibilities between central and local educational authorities is needed, alongside stronger institutional support structures for monitoring and evaluation. Schools are encouraged to implement internal self-assessment practices involving teachers, students, parents, and the community, with the aim of identifying strengths and areas for improvement. Regular teacher evaluation, combining formative and summative approaches, can further support instructional quality and professional development.

Despite the strengths of this study, certain limitations should be acknowledged. Although the sample size was adequate for the analyses conducted, the use of non-probability sampling limits the generalizability of the findings. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution and understood as indicative of broader trends rather than as definitive causal conclusions.