Daniel Reinaru
Eve Eisenschmidt- School of Educational Sciences, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia
Leaders drawing on a similar repertoire of leadership practices must align their actions to the context. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the Leadership for Learning (LfL) approach in an Estonian school context by examining which associated practices principals implement in their work. The data were drawn from interviews with 13 experienced exemplary school leaders and analyzed thematically in four dimensions: learner-centered goal setting, curriculum development, supporting professional learning, and building a supportive environment. The findings highlight the relevance of LfL in Estonian school context and provide a set of exemplary practices in each of its domains. The study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on global school leadership practice research highlighting the importance of LfL in a specific national setting and providing insights that inform the design of future leadership preparation and support programs in Estonia.
1 Introduction
In recent decades, empirical evidence has emerged from a diverse range of studies highlighting the impact of school leadership on student learning and school performance (Bush and Glover, 2014; Hallinger, 2011; Leithwood et al., 2020). Leadership for Learning (LfL) has become a widely used concept in the research literature, highlighting an approach that has a particular focus on student learning and school development while being especially visible in high performing schools (Boyce and Bowers, 2018; Hallinger, 2011; Murphy et al., 2007). Estonia has ranked high in international assessments of academic performance, such as PISA (OECD, 2023). In contrast, several studies indicate that the quality of school leadership remains uneven across the country (e.g., Pedaste et al., 2019; Ester et al., 2023). Earlier research shows that school leaders struggle to implement practices related to LfL. For example, they may have an unclear and inconsistent approach to school improvement planning (Vanari et al., 2024), struggle to develop teacher collaboration (Tirri et al., 2021), and find it difficult to engage teachers in school development (Eisenschmidt et al., 2021). They may also find it challenging to create and implement a shared vision (Poom-Valickis et al., 2021). While the negative effects of inconsistencies of leadership quality on student academic performance may not be immediately apparent, they may have an impact in a longer period. Low leadership quality can hinder the development of supportive school culture, which can lead to teacher attrition (Eisenschmidt et al., 2015; Leijen et al., 2025) and, consequently, a growing shortage of educators. In contrast, leadership that nurtures a supportive school culture contributes to greater job satisfaction and perceived impact of teaching, as well as enriched teaching practices (Eisenschmidt and Oppi, 2025).
Based on the notion that the most effective application of well-known leadership models is context-specific (Forfang and Paulsen, 2024; Hallinger, 2018) and that simply borrowing policies or models may not yield the desired results (Harris et al., 2016), a contextualized LfL approach appears to be an effective means of addressing the above-outlined challenges in Estonia. Exploring exemplary leadership practices related to LfL provides a basis for future leadership development and preparation programs, and it is also a step toward conceptualizing the approach in an Estonian context. While the concept of LfL usually encompasses the contributions of a wide range of actors (Hallinger, 2011; Murphy et al., 2007), this paper focuses on the role of the school principal, which remains of crucial importance (Ahn et al., 2024). In sum, the study aims to explore the Leadership for Learning (LfL) approach in an Estonian school context by examining the practices that experienced exemplary principals implement in their work.
2 Literature review
2.1 School leadership
Leadership plays a central role in shaping a successful organization, regardless of the field (Hargreaves et al., 2014). Bush and Glover (2014) describe it as an intentional process of influence, based on values, that shapes the organization by setting its vision and achieving its goals. While management is broadly related to maintenance, leadership is more closely associated with change (Cuban, 1989). Indeed, school principals are expected to be the leaders of change (Fullan, 2011).
Decades of research around the world have demonstrated the importance of instructional leadership (Hallinger et al., 2020). The LfL approach is considered the result of the conceptual development of instructional leadership (Boyce and Bowers, 2018) incorporating complementary features of transformational and shared leadership (Hallinger, 2011). Although the initial concept of instructional leadership was met with criticism for its top-down approach, LfL now recognizes the contributions and role of complementary stakeholders in driving change e.g., teachers (Daniëls et al., 2019). Boyce and Bowers (2018) emphasize that the LfL framework is distinguished from instructional leadership also by the complementary areas of human resource management, e.g., including hiring and supporting staff and building teacher commitment. Hallinger (2011, p. 126) describes LfL broadly as “approaches that school leaders employ to achieve important school outcomes, with a particular focus on student learning.” Leithwood (2012) argues that from a school leader's perspective it is a process of constantly designing learning conditions within a given school. Based on Hallinger (2011) the most important conditions influencing student learning and necessitating leadership action are: (1) vision and goals (the basis for every other decision, whether on staffing, resources or academic content), (2) academic structures and processes to support and enhance the core work of teachers, and (3) people capacity (i.e., school-wide professional learning). Hallinger (2011) argues that effective leadership is also reciprocally influenced by these areas of focus, taking into account the current situation–constraints and opportunities.
2.2 Leadership as practice
The field of successful educational leadership research is dominated by a practice-based approach, since practices are considered “the most direct causes of leaders” effects on their organizations” (Leithwood, 2023; p. 1). Leithwood (2012) define practice as a set of actions performed by a person or a group that reflect the circumstances in which they find themselves and aim to achieve a common outcome. There seems to be a growing consensus that most successful school leaders draw on a similar set of leadership practices to positively influence teaching and learning (Leithwood et al., 2020). However, they must be able to adapt their core practices responsively to the specific demands of their context (Forfang and Paulsen, 2024; Hallinger, 2011, 2018; Leithwood et al., 2020).
While several frameworks have been developed by different researchers, the Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF; Leithwood, 2012) is claimed to be a set of practices based, to the greatest extent possible, on empirical research (Hitt and Tucker, 2016). The OLF describes four domains of practice, which are the essential base for a successful school leader: (1) setting directions, (2) building relationships and developing people, (3) redesigning the organization to support desired practices, and (4) improving the instructional program (Leithwood, 2012). These domains present an empirically grounded framework for examining school leaders' core practices in alignment with, and in response to, their organizational as well as national contexts.
2.3 Estonian context
In the 1990s, after independence from the Soviet Union, the Estonian education system was decentralized and restructured. Today, schools enjoy a high level of autonomy: they are responsible for developing their own curricula (based on the national curriculum) and, to ensure continuous school improvement, for creating school improvement plans for at least 3 years (Riigikogu, 2010). There are no regular external inspections of schools; instead, the state provides systematically collected data, and schools are encouraged to engage in data-driven monitoring of their own learning processes and benchmark their performance against other schools (Eisenschmidt et al., 2023).
Based on international surveys Estonian principals have the highest degree of autonomy in Europe (OECD, 2019). According to national policy, they are responsible for various tasks, including hiring teachers, setting their salaries and professional advancement systems, supporting teacher development, refining schools' pedagogical approaches, enhancing teaching and learning processes, and managing financial resources (Riigikogu, 2010). Principals often delegate various responsibilities and decision-making tasks to their team, including vice principals, department heads, educational technologists, or other support specialists, while teachers, however, are seldom part of the leadership team and primarily focus on pedagogical matters (Oppi et al., 2023).
The qualification requirements for a school principal are a master's degree, management competences, and knowledge of Estonian language (Riigikogu, 2010). The legislation does not specify the field of the degree. In recent decades, several competency models have been used by the Ministry of Education and Research to provide a supportive (but voluntary) framework for the recruitment, evaluation, and professional development of school leaders. While the 2016 model required school leaders also to be instructional leaders–guiding change in learning approaches, providing feedback to teachers, and creating conditions for mutual learning (Eisenschmidt et al., 2020), the recent competency model introduced in 2023 focuses on universal leadership competencies, such as organizational management, relationship management, and self-management (Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium, 2023). Thus, Estonia lacks a comprehensive framework that would explicitly address leaders' practices in the core process of the school–student learning.
2.4 Conceptual framework
The study aims to explore the Leadership for Learning approach in an Estonian school context by examining the practices that experienced exemplary principals implement in their work. To achieve this goal, first we build on Hallinger (2011) dimensions of research-based model of leadership for learning and Leithwood (2012) OLF domains of practice. All dimensions are defined in relation to Estonian general education (grades 1–12, or ages 7–18) and are associated with national education policy and previous research.
First, learner-centered goal setting refers to the aim of learner-centered learning and teaching, which is aligned with the goals of the Estonian Educational Strategy (Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium, 2021). It specifies what Hallinger (2011, p. 129) termed “vision and goals” and Leithwood (2012, p. 13-16) “setting directions.” Recent research highlights that while Estonian school leaders claim to build a shared vision (Tamkivi and Eisenschmidt, 2023) and value a focus on student learning (Eisenschmidt et al., 2021), school development plans tend to be either unclear about such vision and goals or do not explicitly focus on them (Vanari and Eisenschmidt, 2022). Research also suggests that school leaders struggle to create and implement a shared vision and lack the knowledge and skills required to systematically improve the quality of learning and teaching (Poom-Valickis et al., 2021). Moreover, the Ministry of Education and Research emphasizes that the implementation of the learner-centered approach has not been sufficiently successful so far (Haridus-ja Teadusministeerium, 2024).
Second, curriculum development, which in the Estonian context is understood as the framework for the functioning of the entire school (Erss, 2020), refers to developing “academic structures and processes” (Hallinger, 2011, p. 130) and “improving [the] instructional program” (Leithwood, 2012, p. 26-29). The Estonian Educational Strategy states that curriculums support a learner-centered approach and that curriculum development and implementation are evidence-based and inclusive (Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium, 2021). Schools are expected to engage in continuous curriculum development by performing internal evaluations and creating improvement plans at least once every 3 years (Riigikogu, 2010). However, a recent study indicates that principals take a rather inconsistent and unclear approach to improvement planning (Vanari et al., 2024), and teacher engagement in school development remains a challenge overall (Eisenschmidt et al., 2021). Research indicates that the curriculum and school improvement plan are often seen merely as formal documents (Vanari et al., 2024; Vanari and Eisenschmidt, 2022), and Estonian school leaders mostly focus on administrative tasks, while the average proportion of time spent on curriculum- and teaching-related tasks is below the OECD (2019) average.
Third, supporting professional learning refers to increasing “people's capacity” (Hallinger, 2011, p. 133) and “building relationships and developing people” (Leithwood, 2012, p. 16-20). The Estonian Educational Strategy aims to provide teachers with opportunities for professional development and career progression (Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium, 2021). In-service training is seen as an essential component of school development, and schools are expected to draft teacher training plans as part of their overall school development plans (Eisenschmidt et al., 2023). Nonetheless, support for teachers' professional development has been described as uneven across Estonian schools, largely depending on the competence of school leaders (Pedaste et al., 2019). Research also highlights the insufficient attention devoted by leaders to teaching practice and teacher professional development (Taimalu et al., 2019; Tire et al., 2022). School principals rarely view collaborative learning as a means for teachers to impact each other's professional development (Eisenschmidt et al., 2020), and they seem to lack the skills to create an environment that supports teacher leadership (Oppi et al., 2023).
Fourth, building a supportive environment refers to “developing the organization to support desired practices” (Leithwood, 2012, p. 21-26). Hallinger (2011, p. 127) does not explicitly mention the supportive environment as one of the focus areas, but he stresses the importance of addressing the “organizational and environmental context” in leadership practice. Leithwood et al. (2020: 9) claim that leaders must “demonstrate responsiveness to, rather than dictation by, the contexts in which they work.” Thus, we address practices through which school principals carry out responsiveness–in other words, the practices used to build a supportive environment that contributes to other desired practices and aspirations. These practices are also connected with shaping the school culture, which Schein (2010) describes as influencing behaviors, practices, and feelings regarding the fundamental values, agreements, beliefs, and symbols of an organization. In Estonia, school culture is considered an important facilitator of vision, goals, and desired practices (Poom-Valickis et al., 2021; Tirri et al., 2021; Vanari and Eisenschmidt, 2022). Moreover, it is connected with the teacher agency (Pedaste et al., 2024). Organizational culture is also viewed as an important aspect of teachers' working conditions, influencing their retention (Leijen et al., 2025) and job satisfaction (Eisenschmidt and Oppi, 2025). The Estonian Educational Strategy aims for a caring and collaborative school organizational culture that supports the wellbeing of all parties, including their physical and mental health (Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium, 2021). Nonetheless, shortcomings have been observed in the quality of school leadership, as the readiness to diversify school environments and introduce educational innovations varies from school to school (Ester et al., 2023).
To summarize, LfL practices form the conceptual framework (Figure 1), where the dimensions synthesize prior theoretical and empirical insights to support a systematic investigation of how experienced principals enact leadership for learning in an Estonian school context.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of LfL.
Based on the conceptual framework, we aim to answer the following research questions:
RQ 1: How do principals describe their most important practices for successful school leadership?
RQ 2: How do principals describe their practices in the four domains of Leadership for Learning?
3 Methodology
An exploratory qualitative study (Creswell and Clark, 2011) was selected as the most suitable approach for this inquiry, aiming to achieve a substantively relevant and culturally sensitive preliminary understanding of the actions of principals. This method involves identifying emergent themes or practices that school leaders claim to implement in the dimensions of LfL.
3.1 Participants
In consultation with education experts, a sample of Estonian primary and secondary school principals (n = 13) who were considered experienced and exemplary was selected for this study (see Table 1). The experts were affiliated with one of the two Estonian universities responsible for providing professional development and degree programs for educational leaders, and therefore possessed substantial knowledge of individuals working in the local educational leadership field. A select group of participants have exhibited not only effective leadership abilities in the administration of their respective schools but also a dedication to the advancement of learning and teaching (which is essential for examining LfLi practices). They have collaborated with universities and are dedicated to advancing their profession and themselves. Such purposive sampling was employed to reach individuals considered “knowledgeable,” meaning those people who possess extensive understanding of specific issues due to their expertise, or experience (Creswell and Poth, 2016).
Table 1. Participants background.
3.2 Data collection and ethics
The goal was to explore principals' perceptions, opinions, and personal perspectives on complex topics such as leadership practice; thus, semi-structured interviews were used (Louise Barriball and While, 1994). The interviews were conducted from September to October 2024. The study was conducted in accordance with national and university guidelines on ethical research principles involving human subjects (Tallinn University, 2021; University of Tartu Centre for Ethics, 2023). The interviewees were personally contacted via email. Each interviewee was informed that participation in the interviews was entirely voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time. They were also informed that the data collected would be coded and stored securely in the Tallinn University data environment, accessible only to the authors of this study, and that any information that could identify individuals would be removed. Written informed consent was signed and collected from each participant prior to the interview. The interviews were conducted in Estonian face-to-face or via the video communication service Google Meet, depending on the participants' preference and schedules. The interviews lasted between 40 and 60 mins (see interview guide in the Appendix 1). To understand the participants' broad view of successful school leadership, some opening questions were asked (e.g., “What is the ideal school leader like who manages their school very well?” or “What are the most important tasks on which an ideal school leader spends the most time?”). The following questions were based on the four domains of the conceptual framework introduced earlier (Figure 1): learner-centered goal setting (e.g., “What are you doing to ensure that the whole team has a common goal in your school?” or “How do you ensure that it is learner-centered?”), curriculum development (e.g., “How do you ensure curriculum development in your school?”), supporting professional learning (e.g., “What is your role in supporting teacher development?”), and building a supportive environment (e.g., “How do you, as a leader, create or shape the school environment?”). The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim using a speech transcription system for Estonian speech (Olev and Alumäe, 2022). The audio recordings and transcribed data were assigned codes.
3.3 Data analysis
After transcribing the data, the first author performed coding to inductively develop a preliminary framework proceeding until thematic saturation was reached–that is, when following transcripts no longer generated new codes or themes (Saunders et al., 2018). Next, two authors performed coding independently using the preliminary framework. Discrepancies were occasionally discussed and the coding framework was refined accordingly until researchers reached a consensus on the interpretation of the data. The authors agreed upon 18 categories: four for learner-centered goal setting/vision and goals, four for curriculum development, five for supporting professional learning, and five for building a supportive environment/providing the conditions. The coding framework with segments of data is presented in Appendix 2. Representative quotations from the transcribed text are provided in the findings section to ensure the study's credibility (Graneheim and Lundman, 2004).
4 Findings
The findings are presented in sequence according to the research questions.
4.1 Most important practices for successful school leadership
The school leaders highlighted a diverse range of practices that successful principals should focus on. Almost all the interviewees referred to practices related to the school's vision and goals. The principal should “first and foremost be a visionary, guiding the teacher's thoughts where they need to go and helping the teacher to keep their focus broad” (L1). The Principal's duty was to organize different goals in a strategic and holistic way and preserve the “big picture” at the center of the school's daily life.
The interviewees also referred to providing the conditions or the supportive environment to move toward the school's objectives. This practice was described broadly as efforts to shape the desired school culture while also keeping administrative duties in order. Moreover, practices related to school documentation, budgeting, and legal requirements were highlighted. It was also noted that this was the most time-consuming area of their work. One principal described creating these conditions as a way of indirectly leading the learning process: “[A]t the end of the day it's up to them to manage those processes. No matter how they do it, whether it's through being the leader of teaching or through some kind of strategic decisions and so on.” (L4). Managing communication and relationships was considered an important part of creating the conditions for everything else. The principal's role was seen as that of a communicator who conveyed, explained, and reflected on important information and issues and built and maintained relationships, while also introducing the desired ways to engage in those behaviors more broadly in the organization: “For me an ideal principal manages relationships in school” (L6). Practices related to collaboration and teacher involvement were frequently referred to as ways to manage relationships. Moreover, the interviewees also emphasized the ability to assemble a team and assign roles to school staff to achieve certain objectives.
4.2 Practices to implement Leadership for Learning
4.2.1 Learner-centered goal setting
Almost all the interviewers clearly indicated that learner-centeredness was an integral feature of their goal-setting process. It was seen to create a distinctive perspective for all other decisions and actions and was therefore one of the most important tasks of a principal. Four sub-dimensions of action emerged in the domain of learner-centered goal setting: agreeing on clear goals, involving teachers, communicating goals, and using data to monitor and set goals.
The participants stated that it was their responsibility to agree on goals “based on the needs of students and focus [ed] on the quality of learning” (L3). They also referred to the school's annual work plan or other specific documents in which objectives and related agreements were formalized. The school's curriculum and development plan were frequently highlighted as some of the main documents within which these goals could be agreed and used as a guideline for further year-by-year action:
“Well, we started it by creating a new development plan for the school and, on that basis, for everything we do—we are learner-centered. The school's new development plan addresses this very clearly. And here I am now, first and foremost, advocating for the necessary changes resulting from the development plan, which will support the self-directed learner, the acquisition of the necessary skills and knowledge, and will also support teachers. (L12)
To guarantee learner-centeredness in goal-setting, the interviewees also highlighted the importance of maintaining their knowledge and expertise: “First of all, I have to make sure that I have read and know enough and I am sure that some particular goal is indeed learner-centered” (L5).
The principals described the importance of cooperation and involving teachers in the goal-setting process to render the goals described in school documents more concrete. Teacher involvement was seen as possible through allocating a “wild amount of time to cooperation” (L4) and discussion, thereby also sharing responsibility for decisions with the staff. In many cases, the participants mentioned the internal structure of the school, which allowed teachers to work on specific topics in smaller units. This required involving some teachers in the leadership team and assigning them responsibility for leading groups of teachers and parts of the school-management process:
We need to get more people involved in leadership so that they take more responsibility. Learner-centeredness must certainly be a priority, but this cannot be done without strong collaboration within the team (L3).
The principals stated that to ensure learner-centered goal setting, their responsibility was to communicate these goals in a memorable way such “that everyone understands why and how their contribution fits into the common goal” (L8). Different work meetings were highlighted as places where these objectives were constantly revisited, but spontaneous day-to-day communication was also considered essential:
I have to walk around all the time, my ears pricked up when teachers are discussing something or talking to me. Then I say, “but stop—we can't go down that road because we have the focus somewhere else.” So, I'm constantly reminding them of what our learner-centered focus was, that if we have a self-directed learner, you can't do things for them. And you have to keep reminding them of that along the way because it's awfully easy to go back down that old road. (L9)
The interviewees described how common goals were also communicated and revisited through team leaders or teacher leaders with more regular direct contact with staff. Here, they emphasized the importance of principals possessing the same mindset as these leaders: “as a leader, I support these leaders above all… and through them we also consider it important to measure where we are or how we are doing” (L11).
The principals described how they used evidence for setting learner-centered goals and monitoring progress. Achievement tests, examination results, and national satisfaction surveys were also highlighted. In addition, the participants mentioned schools' own feedback systems, where regular feedback on teaching and learning was collected from pupils and used to “see what grows out of it, and what issues we will be tackling next” (L1).
4.2.2 Curriculum development
Curriculum development was the only domain of practice for which some school principals had assigned responsibility to the vice-principal of studies. Nonetheless, because of the importance of this task, the participants mentioned that this approach was slowly changing because “a school leader who gives responsibility for curriculum development completely to the vice principal is not basically leading the school at all” (L9). Curriculum development was nevertheless seen as an integral part of the school's development. Four sub-dimensions of action emerged in the domain of curriculum development: valuing the curriculum, continuously developing the curriculum, involving teachers, and using data.
The interviewees highlighted the importance of valuing the curriculum as a basis for everyday work. The school principal's role was described as ensuring that “it's not like it's [the curriculum] just on a shelf or computer. It has to be evident that this is the basis from which we work” (L10). Moreover, some interviewees suggested that it might be necessary to remind teachers to follow the curriculum and not textbooks.
The principals highlighted the need to continuously develop the curriculum: “because as time changes, we get smarter…. I think it's an almost never-ending process” (L2). This was also linked to continuously monitoring its implementation and therefore adapting it to current needs.
In turn, the importance of involving teachers in curriculum development was emphasized because “developing the curriculum is a team effort, involving in-depth planning and discussions with management and teachers” (L8). To involve teachers, principals mentioned initiating dedicated groups and assigning them responsibility: “It's a separate working group, and they meet once or twice a month, and their job is to manage the whole organization and development of teaching and learning” (L4). Regarding curriculum development, some principals also highlighted the risk of placing too much responsibility on teachers, which would overburden them. The need to monitor teachers' workload and sometimes consciously spare them additional work was also emphasized.
The school principals underlined the importance of using evidence in the process of curriculum development to engage teachers and justify necessary changes: “When performance indicators clearly show a need for change, people are generally willing to adapt their approach” (L3). The participants referred to both the school's internal data collection and wider national data collection. Evidence could also exist in a more unstructured form, such as when the need for a change was collectively recognized and formulated during everyday work and meetings: “Ideas for change come from inside the building, from our own people. When we see the need, we make changes” (L7).
4.2.3 Supporting professional learning
Five sub-dimensions emerged in this domain of practice: aligning teachers' professional development with school goals, enabling teachers to participate in school development, ensuring conversations, creating the prerequisites for co-learning and cooperation, and observing lessons.
The interviewees identified the need to align teachers' professional development with school goals: “I support their participation in various projects and training courses that meet the objectives of our school” (L8). The participants generally claimed that this practice was unproblematic, but occasionally the value of some in-service teacher training was questioned.
The interviewees described the importance of enabling teachers to participate in school development as a way to support their professional development. Here, the principal's role was to create the conditions for this, for example through work and pay arrangements. In this context, the teacher career model was highlighted as a possible framework. The participants strongly emphasized that it was a leader's responsibility to notice those teachers whose “eyes are shining if they can do other things” (L4) in addition to teaching their subject.
The interviewees also highlighted the need for an individual approach to allocating additional responsibility to teachers at school or in development programs, as some teachers might benefit from extra tasks while others may require the help of a leader to avoid overburdening themselves.
The interviewees highlighted dedicated conversations with teachers as a platform for becoming better acquainted with them and improving understanding of their individual needs and aspirations. Conversations were seen as the basis for supporting teachers' professional development.
If a teacher wants to become a mentor at some point, I'll notice those qualities in them and offer training or other support. At some point, we'll look at whether a career ladder could emerge right here in our organization. (L11)
Some leaders also mentioned that conversations with teachers were shared with the vice principal or the wider team. In such cases, they mentioned the need to agree on the exchange of information with the teacher concerned.
School leaders described different forms of co-learning and cooperation as ways to support the professional development of teachers more broadly. The importance of allocating time, being consistent with its implementation, and providing systematic support to the leaders of these activities was highlighted: “I am always available for these team leaders and have regular meetings with them” (L12). Lesson observations among teachers were mentioned as a way of mutual learning. Here, the leader's role was to create the necessary conditions for such practice. This could mean establishing a system for teachers to substitute for one another, thereby allowing them to visit their colleagues' lessons. In some cases, the leadership team itself was described as a resource for this: “[I]f they wanted to go and watch a colleague's lesson, let us know and perhaps someone from the management would substitute for the teacher” (L1).
4.2.4 Building a supportive environment
Building a supportive environment was described as a crucial responsibility of the school principal: “The biggest role for me is to enable it all to happen” (L7). It was often associated with the conscious shaping of school culture: “I believe that it is the creation of culture that is the most important thing” (L2). The participants observed that while duties may be shared between the principal and some other person focusing on a specific area (e.g., the community manager), the key role of the principal was to ensure that everything worked. The findings on building a supportive environment can be broadly categorized into five practices: providing the necessary material and administrative conditions, ensuring physical and psychological wellbeing, developing the school climate, developing the school community, and cooperating with other institutions.
Providing the necessary material and administrative conditions for teaching and learning was stressed because “a teacher must have a place to teach. The student must have a place to learn” (L10). The interviewees mentioned renovating and adapting the school building to create a better working environment and providing everyday administration and maintenance. The participants also highlighted the need to keep the school's documents in order and ensure that the school fulfilled its legal requirements.
Ensuring physical and psychological wellbeing was emphasized by the interviewees. They underlined that teachers and students must feel safe and cared for in school. To create such an environment, the implementation of various national and school-level programs was highlighted. The interviewees also mentioned focusing on socio-emotional learning and providing mentors for teachers.
When discussing a supportive environment, most principals referred to developing the school climate. One way of achieving this was communicating and justifying the school's goals and values and linking them to desired practices. Common agreements were seen as the basis of a supportive school climate. To create such a climate, the principals also highlighted the importance of being an example to the staff. Thus, they described their efforts to “uphold the values that are the core values of our school.” (L12)
The importance of constantly developing the school's community was also emphasized. This was seen through bringing teachers and students together as part of non-academic school events, and regularly involving parents in joint events and activities. One participant remarked that it was the principal's task to “to seek out those people in this community who are willing to[contribute], whether they're making a one-time contribution or a long-term one” (L12). The involvement of families with a native language other than Estonian was specifically mentioned as a means of developing common understanding. The principals also underscored the importance of the school being open to parents and the local community: “[We] want our doors to be open; we want adults to come into the building; we want to have lights on in the evening; we want to have choirs, dances and all the other things” (L5).
Cooperation with other institutions was highlighted by some of the leaders, referring to networking between organizations or participating in developing the local region: “I am involved as an expert in the municipality.” (L4) Joint activities and projects with other schools and other organizations were also mentioned, but at the same time, one participant remarked that “when it comes to cooperation with other institutions…. it is important that it has a specific purpose—cooperation should not be an end in itself, but a means to an end.” (L11). Therefore, when cooperating with other institutions, the interviewees emphasized the importance of maintaining the focus on the school's main purpose and goals.
5 Discussion
This study aimed to explore the Leadership for Learning approach in an Estonian school context by examining the practices that experienced principals implemented in their work. In the following discussion, the primary findings will be addressed.
5.1 Some domains of practice require more attention
When interviewees first answered the question about the most important practices for successful school leadership, “curriculum development” and “supporting teachers” “professional learning” were not explicitly pointed out. Despite the fact that school leaders emphasized their contribution to these areas later on in the interviews, these findings emphasize the notion that these domains of practice are perceived as relatively less important than others (setting vision and goals; creating the overall conditions). This is in line with previous research highlighting that Estonian school principals spend less time on curriculum related tasks than the OECD average, and that school leaders pay insufficient attention to teaching practice and teachers' professional development (Taimalu et al., 2019; Tire et al., 2022). It is noteworthy that “curriculum development” emerged as controversial, with some leaders claiming that it was completely the duty of the vice principal of studies and others asserting that it was the inevitable responsibility of the school leader. Vanari et al. (2024) suggest that the lack of specific training for school leaders may partly explain their possible disengagement with this area of their work. The qualification requirements for Estonian principals do not include competence in curriculum development. By contrast, vice principals are required to hold a teaching qualification (Riigikogu, 2010), which means they may possess better knowledge of the curriculum and are therefore assigned responsibility for it. Unlike “curriculum development” (where the question is the division of duties between the principal and the vice principal of studies) no one other than the school principal was mentioned as being responsible for “supporting the professional development” of teachers. Consequently, the apparent oversight of this issue by school leaders may be indicative of a more profound underlying challenge as teachers ongoing professional development is regarded as a critical prerequisite for the education system to support student learning (e.g., Eisenschmidt et al., 2023; Forfang and Paulsen, 2024). Therefore, it needs to be a strong priority for leadership. Future preparation and development programs for school leaders should focus more on building competence in curriculum development and highlight the importance of supporting teachers' professional learning.
5.2 Leadership for learning matters
All four LfL domains of practice proposed in this work were identified by the experienced and exemplary school leaders as areas they addressed in their work later in the interview. Thus, this study endorses the relevance of LfL in the Estonian school context. Given Estonia's high PISA results (OECD, 2023), this supports the notion that LfL can be associated with high student performance.
Besides the means (or domains of practice) by which leadership influences student learning, the results also highlighted some other important aspects that can be considered key features of LfL. First, school leaders referred throughout the cases to aspects that Hallinger (2011) outlines as values-based leadership. They described setting goals in a collaborative way while seeing their role as being a guide toward what is valued (e.g., learner-centeredness); they highlighted the need to link the school's values to everyday practice and decisions, and be an example to the staff themselves. These notions emphasize the need for school leaders to be aware of their values—that is, what is worth striving for and how to do things the right way (Hallinger, 2011). Second, across the various domains of leadership practices examined in this study, teacher involvement, taking on responsibility, and support for their growth as responsible parties emerged as recurring topics. This underscores the importance of enabling leadership (as influence) to arise from a broader range of actors beyond the school's principal (shared leadership) which is also recognized as one of the defining features of LfL (Hallinger, 2011; Leithwood, 2012).
This study highlighted the practice of using evidence in the dimensions of “learner-centered goal setting” and “curriculum development.” Although Hallinger (2011) and Leithwood (2012) refer to the monitoring of learning and school development in their work, they do not explicitly highlight evidence-based decision making as an underlying principle of leadership for learning. Based on the findings of this study, evidence-based decision making can be proposed as a third underlying pillar in addition to values-based and shared leadership. This phenomenon may be considered a distinctive feature of the Estonian context, where the state has taken a remarkable central responsibility for collecting and providing quality data to schools (Eisenschmidt et al., 2023). This data is accessible in a dedicated web environment, enabling schools easily to monitor their development and make evidence-based decisions.
5.3 New perspectives in Estonian context
The practices or themes outlined in this study partly align with previous work on school leadership and development in Estonia (e.g., Eisenschmidt et al., 2021; Poom-Valickis et al., 2021; Tamkivi and Eisenschmidt, 2023; Vanari and Eisenschmidt, 2022). However, in some respects, the findings indicate new perspectives. For instance, while a previous Estonian study argued that school development plans tend to be either unclear or not explicitly focused on student learning (Vanari and Eisenschmidt, 2022), the principals in this study repeatedly emphasized the need to include a learner-centered vision and goals in the school's various documents. The principals also highlighted their role in communicating the school's vision and goals, while previous work has underlined school leaders' shortcomings in this area (Eisenschmidt et al., 2024). Previous research stresses that school leaders rarely emphasize the importance of evidence use (Poom-Valickis et al., 2021), while, in this study, using evidence was referred to in both the domain of learner-centered goal setting and curriculum development to guide goal setting and the implementation of changes. Furthermore, previous research notes that little value is placed on external integration (e.g., with the local community) in schools' development plans (Vanari and Eisenschmidt, 2022). However, in the present study, the principals claimed to value collaboration with other institutions (including other schools) and contributing to the local community, viewing it as a possible means to promote the school's objectives. The reason our findings may differ from previous studies of Estonian school leaders is that the participants were considered exemplary and experienced. The set of practices presented in this work does not represent a single specific school principal, but a collection of practices representing various school leaders. Thus, the emergent practices can be considered as ‘guidelines', which can inform the design of future professional development and leadership preparation programs.
5.4 The domains are complementary rather than equal
A clear link between goal setting, and the curriculum, emerged in interviews, which is in line with recent work by Vanari and Eisenschmidt (2022) describing curriculum development as a way of pragmatically transforming “idealistic philosophical” visions and goals into academic structures and processes. The interviewees also mentioned how school goals drove the development of school culture and teachers professional learning. These observations highlight that the four dimensions of practice can be visualized as a nested framework, reciprocally connected, with learner-centered goal setting at the center (Figure 2). Goal setting provides direction to all other dimensions, and, in conjunction with curriculum development and supporting professional learning, it constitutes the core of LfL. In order to support this core, it is crucial to cultivate a supportive environment. Such a nested model helps create a “goal-driven” perspective on the domains of practice. For example, the wellbeing of teachers, which was seen as part of a supportive environment, is not a goal in itself but a need that must be addressed to enable professional learning, curriculum development, and ultimately learner-centeredness.
Figure 2. LfL domains of practice and findings as a nested framework.
6 Implications, limitations, and further research
This study contributes as the first step in conceptualizing the LfL in an Estonian school context by providing the insight of the current exemplary practices. The study is limited by the fact that it is based on school leaders' own statements about how they work; whether they actually act according to their claims requires further research. The next steps will involve designing a survey instrument informed by the findings of this study, enabling validation of the results on a larger scale through triangulation with additional data sources, including leaders, teachers, and students. Assuming that the influence of school leadership on student learning is largely mediated through teachers (Leithwood et al., 2020), it is also important to explore how leadership practices are linked to teacher-related factors like teaching practices, motivation, and job satisfaction.
Data availability statement
The raw minimal dataset supporting the conclusions will be made available by the authors, upon reasonable request and with appropriate institutional approvals.
Ethics statement
The requirement for ethical approval for the studies involving humans participants was waived by the Ethics Committee of Tallinn University. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
DR: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. EE: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their appreciation to colleague Kätlin Vanari, members of Estonian School Leaders Association, Estonian Ministry of Education and Research for valuable support during the research process.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that this research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. The author(s) acknowledge that generative AI (ChatGPT, OpenAI; GPT-4) was used solely as a language support tool to improve clarity and readability of the English text. All scientific content, analysis, interpretation, and conclusions were conceived, developed, and verified entirely by the author(s).
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1718183/full#supplementary-material
References
Ahn, J., Bowers, A. J., and Welton, A. D. (2024). Leadership for learning as an organization-wide practice: evidence on its multilevel structure and implications for educational leadership practice and research. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. 27, 1300–1351. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2021.1972162
Boyce, J., and Bowers, A. J. (2018). Toward an evolving conceptualization of instructional leadership as leadership for learning: meta-narrative review of 109 quantitative studies across 25 years. J. Educ. Adminis. 56:JEA-06-2016-0064. doi: 10.1108/JEA-06-2016-0064
Bush, T., and Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: what do we know? Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 34, 553–571. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2014.928680
Creswell, J. W., and Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications
Creswell, J. W., and Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cuban, L. (1989). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Am. J. Educ. 97, 312–314. doi: 10.1086/443929
Daniëls, E., Hondeghem, A., and Dochy, F. (2019). A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educ. Res. Rev. 27, 110–125. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.003
Eisenschmidt, E., Ahtiainen, R., Kondratjev, B. S., and Sillavee, R. (2021). A study of Finnish and Estonian principals' perceptions of strategies that foster teacher involvement in school development. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. 28, 1–24. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2021.2000033
Eisenschmidt, E., Heidmets, M., Kitsing, M., Kasesalk, M., and Vanari, K. (2023). Aim High and Work Hard Building A World-Class Learning System in Estonia. Available online at: https://www.tlu.ee/sites/default/files/HIK/AimHighEstoniaCaseStudy.pdf (Accessed August 27, 2025)
Eisenschmidt, E., Kumpas-Lenk, K., Vanari, K., Arus, H., and Ivanova, K. (2024). Fostering collaborative school improvement in Estonian schools. J. Sch. Leadersh. 34, 341–366. doi: 10.1177/10526846241245085
Eisenschmidt, E., and Oppi, P. (2025). School culture profiles in relation to teachers' work-related experiences and teaching practices. Sch. Effect. Sch. Improv. 1−27. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2025.2556666
Eisenschmidt, E., Reiska, E., and Oder, T. (2015). Novice teachers' perception of senior management support and its connection with involvement in school development and collegial co-operation. Est. J. Educ. 3, 148–172. doi: 10.12697/eha.2015.3.1.07
Eisenschmidt, E., Vanari, K., and Tammets, K. (2020). “Tulevikukool: Eesti kooliuuenduse praktikast [Future School: Estonian school improvement practices],” in Haridusmõte [Educational Thoughts], ed. M. Heidmets (Tallinn: Tallinn University), 508–536.
Erss, M. (2020). “Eesti taasiseseisvumisjärgne õppekavaarendus euroopaliku didaktika ja anglo-ameerika curriculumi risttuules [Curriculum development in Estonia after regaining independence: between European didactics and the Anglo-American curriculum],” in Haridusmõte [Educational Thoughts], ed. M. Heidmets (Tallinn: Tallinn University), 54–94.
Ester, J., Haugas, S., Allemann, M., Haan, E., Kender, E., Teidla-Kunitsõn, G., et al. (2023). Vaimse Tervise ja Hariduse Valdkonna Probleemid ning Lahendused [Challenges and Solutions in Mental Health and Education]. Mõttekoda Praxis. Available online at: https://www.praxis.ee/uploads/2023/08/Vaimse-tervise-ja-hariduse-valdkonna-probleemid-ning-lahendused.-lopparuanne.pdf. (Accessed August 27, 2025).
Forfang, H., and Paulsen, J. M. (2024). Linking school leaders' core practices to organizational school climate and student achievements in Norwegian high-performing and low-performing rural schools. Educ. Manag. Adminis. Leadersh. 52, 99–115. doi: 10.1177/17411432211064424
Fullan, M. (2011). Change Leader: Learning to Do What Matters Most. Hoboken, New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Graneheim, U. H., and Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ. Today 24, 105–112. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research. J. Educ. Adminis. 49, 125–142. doi: 10.1108/09578231111116699
Hallinger, P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educ. Manag. Adminis. Leadersh. 46, 5–24. doi: 10.1177/1741143216670652
Hallinger, P., Gümüş, S., and Bellibaş, M. S. (2020). “Are principals instructional leaders yet?” A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940–2018. Scientometrics 122, 1629–1650. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03360-5
Hargreaves, A., Boyle, A., and Harris, A. (2014). Uplifting Leadership: How Organizations, Teams, and Communities Raise Performance. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium (2021). Eesti Haridusvaldkonna Arengukava 2021-2035 [Estonian Education Development Plan 2021-2035]. Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium. Available online at: https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/haridusvaldkonna_arengukava_2035_kinnitatud_vv_0.pdf (Accessed August 27, 2025).
Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium (2023). Haridusasutuse juhi Kompetentsimudel [Competency Model of the Estonian Educational Leader]. Available online at: https://www.hm.ee/uldharidus-ja-noored/opetaja-koolijuht-ja-koolipidaja/haridusasutuse-juhi-kompetentsimudel (Accessed August 27, 2025).
Haridus-ja Teadusministeerium (2024). Haridus- ja Teadusministeeriumi Tulemusvaldkonna “Tark ja tegus rahvas” 2023. Aasta Tulemusaruanne [Ministry of Education and Research's 'Smart and Active People' 2023 Performance Report for the year 2023]. Available online at: https://www.hm.ee/haridus-ja-teadusministeeriumi-2023-aasta-tulemusaruanded (Accessed August 27, 2025).
Harris, A., Jones, M., and Adams, D. (2016). Qualified to lead? A comparative, contextual and cultural view of educational policy borrowing. Educ. Res. 58, 166–178. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2016.1165412
Hitt, D. H., and Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic Review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: a unified framework. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 531–569. doi: 10.3102/0034654315614911
Leijen, Ä., Lepp, L., Saks, K., Pedaste, M., and Poom-Valickis, K. (2025). The shortage of teachers in Estonia: causes and suggestions for additional measures from the perspective of different stakeholders. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 48, 45–63. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2024.2408641
Leithwood, K. (2012). The Ontario leadership framework 2012. Available online at: http://www.yrdsb.com/Careers/Documents/Ontario%20Leadership%20Framework.pdf (Accessed August 27, 2025).
Leithwood, K. (2023). The personal resources of successful leaders: a narrative review. Educ. Sci. 13:932. doi: 10.3390/educsci13090932
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., and Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 40, 5–22. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
Louise Barriball, K., and While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper. J. Adv. Nurs. 19, 328–335. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01088.x
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., and Porter, A. C. (2007). Leadership for learning: a research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 27, 179–201. doi: 10.1080/13632430701237420
OECD (2019). TALIS 2018 Results, (Vol I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. OECD. doi: 10.1787/53f23881-en
Olev, A., and Alumäe, T. (2022). Estonian speech recognition and transcription editing service. Baltic J. Modern Comput.10, 409–421. doi: 10.22364/bjmc.2022.10.3.14
Oppi, P., Eisenschmidt, E., and Stingu, M. (2023). Seeking sustainable ways for school development: teachers' and principals' views regarding teacher leadership. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. 26, 581–603. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2020.1849809
Pedaste, M., Leijen, Ä., Kivirand, T., Nelis, P., and Malva, L. (2024). School leaders' vision is the strongest predictor of their attitudes towards inclusive education practice. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 28, 1503–1519. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2021.1994661
Pedaste, M., Leijen, Ä., Poom-Valickis, K., and Eisenschmidt, E. (2019). Teacher professional standards to support teacher quality and learning in Estonia. Eur. J. Educ. 54, 389–399. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12346
Poom-Valickis, K., Eve, E., and Leppiman, A. (2021). Creating and developing a collaborative and learning-centred school culture: views of estonian school leaders. Center Educ. Policy Stud. J. 12:cepsj1029. doi: 10.26529/cepsj.1029
Riigikogu (2010). Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act. Available at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/131122015015 (Accessed August 27, 2025).
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., et al. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality Quantity 52, 1893–1907. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
Taimalu, M., Uibu, K., Luik, P., and Leijen, Ä. (2019). Õpetajad ja koolijuhid elukestvate õppijatena. OECD rahvusvahelise õpetamise ja õppimise uuringu TALIS 2018 uuringu tulemused, 1. Osa [Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. Results from the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey TALIS 2018, 1. Part 1]. Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium, SA Innove. Available online at: https://www.innove.ee/uuringud/talis-uuring/talis-2018/ (Accessed August 27, 2025).
Tallinn University (2021). Procedure of Tallinn University Ethics Committee for the Processing of Applications of Evaluating Research. Available online at: https://www.tlu.ee/sites/default/files/HAAK/Procedure_of_Tallinn_University_Ethics_Committee_for_the_processing_of_applications_of_evaluating_research_05_11_2021.pdf (Accessed December 15, 2025).
Tamkivi, K., and Eisenschmidt, E. (2023). What matters in leadership practices among Estonian upper secondary school principals? Educ. Sci. 13:925. doi: 10.3390/educsci13090925
Tire, G., Puksand, H., Kraav, T., Jukk, H., Henno, I., Lindemann, K., et al. (2022). PISA 2022. Eesti tulemused [PISA 2022. Estonian results]. Tallinn: Education and Youth Board.
Tirri, K., Eisenschmidt, E., Poom-Valickis, K., and Kuusisto, E. (2021). Current challenges in school leadership in Estonia and Finland: a multiple-case study among exemplary principals. Educ. Res. Int. 2021, 1–11. doi: 10.1155/2021/8855927
University of Tartu Centre for Ethics (2023). Estonian Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. University of Tartu. Available at: https://eetika.ee/en/content/estonian-code-conduct-research-integrity (Accessed August 2, 2025).
Vanari, K., and Eisenschmidt, E. (2022). Missions, visions, and goals for school improvement—a typology of estonian schools. Leadersh. Policy Sch. 23, 434–451. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2022.2160360
Keywords: Estonian education, leadership for learning, leadership practices, principal leadership, school leadership
Citation: Reinaru D and Eisenschmidt E (2026) Exploring leadership for learning in an Estonian school context. Front. Educ. 10:1718183. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1718183
Received: 03 October 2025; Revised: 15 December 2025;
Accepted: 18 December 2025; Published: 12 January 2026.
Edited by:
Sereyrath Em, University of Cambodia, CambodiaReviewed by:
Zhi Yang, Griffith University, AustraliaPāvels Jurs, Riga Technical University, Latvia
Copyright © 2026 Reinaru and Eisenschmidt. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Daniel Reinaru, ZGFuaWVscmVAdGx1LmVl