Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
26 SES 05 A: Ethical Leadership, Trust & Organisational Climate
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
26. Educational Leadership
Paper Measuring Ethical Leadership in Education 1: University of Crete, Greece; 2: University of Crete, Greece; 3: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece Presenting Author:INTRODUCTION Leadership measurement is a rather controversial issue in terms of conception, execution and implementation. Moreover, Ethical Leadership measurement seems to be more difficult than measurement in general leadership because there are specific concerns about whether the individuals’ ethical bedrock or their personality structure (values and principles) and ethical construction (influenced by their context) can be measured. In relevant literature about measurement one can distinguish between two types of measuring tools: the ones detecting ethical leadership and the second measuring existing ethical traits in persons already having leading roles (Argyropoulou & Spyridakis, 2022). Ethical leadership is particularly important in education as the school leader and the teachers and teacher leaders assume a double role, i.e. the person in a leading pedagogical position who shapes young students’ ethical principles and values and a person with leading administrative role. Various statutory frameworks understand and outline these roles in a different way according contextual characteristics. However, the ethical bedrock of people working in the field of education is undeniable and nonnegotiable in all communities. Nevertheless, researchers note the lack of ethical leadership programs “focusing on ethical clarity when arbitrating moral conflicts in schools” either during the preparation of educational administrators or within university postgraduate programs (Starratt, 2004). PURPOSE/AIM Drawing knowledge from previous research steps (Spyridakis, Argyropoulou & Lintzerakou, 2025) we present here the second research step in constructing a detecting tool. The purpose of this paper is to present a tool aiming at detecting aspirant school leaders’ ethical qualities necessary for performing successful school leadership. . BACKGROUND Ethical leadership is difficult to define. Researchers may base their definition in the field they work in [see here differences between business and education] or they outline their participants’ views. A strong issue is the differentiated perception of ethical leadership in assessing leadership qualities and behaviors. This partly explains why researches propose a combination of self-referential and hetero-referential tools for the measurement of leadership as a way to avoid subjectivity. Measurement of leadership entails problems regarding both the conceptual background and the way of constructing relevant questions to produce reliable answers. There is an ongoing discussion whether forced answer questions are better than open answer questions. The implementation of any of these types of question reflects different attitudes towards the suitable research design. Previous systematic literature research (Argyropoulou & Spyridakis, 2022) has indicated that there are measuring tools adopting both types; nevertheless, they fail to avoid subjectivity. CONCEPTUAL / THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK We accept that leadership is a social phenomenon including the leader as an individual. Thus, we adopt the sociology stance in examining leadership and the psychology stance in examining the leader or the leader’s supporters as acting individuals in a specific context. We assume that ethical leadership is context-sensitive (Argyropoulou & Lintzerakou, 2025) based on the Brofenbrenner’s theory (Brofenbrenner, 1979) regarding education as an ecosystem. Moreover, we accept Starratt’s position on virtue -guided ethical leadership model for school leaders (Starratt, 2004). We also argue that qualitative questions are more suitable in ethical leadership research thus adopting Langlois’ tool construction rationale (Langlois, 2011) when we seek to investigate personal principles, values, beliefs, stereotypes and attitudes. We support tha quantitative, forced questions are suitable for the verification of qualitative research in a wider and local representative sample. So, we propose a mixed method approach to investigating and assessing ethical leadership principles, characteristics and behaviors Research question: How can we verify and expand the results of the previous research country-wide? We sought to find whether participants of various educational and cultural backgrounds and years in service, from both sexes, leading schools assess ethical qualities in similar ways. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Sample: The population of our research is the existing secondary school leaders all over the country (N=3600). The sample was gathered from 148 public school leaders from various regions during the school year 2024-2025. Tool: A mixed method questionnaire including 20 items with forced answers in Likert scale and 20 open-ended questions corresponding to the 20 Likert items. The tool was distributed on-line to public secondary school leaders throughout the country. Questions were in the form of scenarios describing practical situations in schools. The respondents were asked to pick one of the four qualities given in a multiple-choice form and then describe in-detail their decision and the rationale behind it. Data Analysis: For multiple choice questions we employed statistical analysis using SPSS. 22. Thematic Analysis was used for open-ended questions. Ethics: the research design was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Preschool Education, University of Crete 249/22.10.2025. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The analysis of data verified that leading qualities are not always assessed the same way by individuals. Only out of the 20 scenarios, representing rather simple and common everyday situations, received identical answers. There was a variety of answers for the rest 14 questions. Participants had a different understanding of ethical sensitivity depending on personal and contextual factors. In terms of Starratt’s model of ethical leadership virtues, their performance of responsibility and presence was very high: they characterized themselves as active democratic leaders in the field. They employ emotional intelligence and focusing on the wellbeing of teachers and students. However, they lack the third virtue, authenticity. They often fail to distinguish between ethical principles and their ethical enactment when it comes to decision taking in situations where there is a clash between human, academic and civic dimensions. They often lack vision about their school. Answers to the tool’s specific questions also indicated lack of knowledge of the statutory framework. These failures are associated with the lack of focused training courses in school leadership before assuming the leading and administrative roles or during the school leadership tenure. Though this paper is based on local characteristics of school leaders, it shares findings with papers coming from other contexts and can contribute to international knowledge on ethical school leadership. It also implies that certain values tend to have a more international recognition though their content meaning is not always identical. It offers insight in the discussion of measurement in ethical leadership by describing obstacles of assessing educational leadership. The findings also indicate that ethical leadership tools and measures should include provisions for individuality as it is a strong parameter often producing odd behaviors and impact. References Argyropoulou, E., & Lintzerakou, E. E. (2025). Contextual Factors and Their Impact on Ethical Leadership in Educational Settings. Administrative Sciences, 15(1), 23 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15010023 Argyropoulou, E., & Spyridakis, A. (2022). Tools detecting and/or measuring ethical leadership: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 11(1), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2022.60624 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press, https://khoerulanwarbk.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/urie_bronfenbrenner_the_ecology_of_human_developbokos-z1.pdf Langlois, L. (2011). The anatomy of ethical leadership. To lead our organizations in a conscientious and authentic manner. AU Press, Athabasca University Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. Jossey-Bass Spyridakis, A. , Argyropoulou, E. and Lintzerakou, E. (2025). Defining the main ethical and leading characteristics of educational administrators. Hellenic Journal of Research in Education, 14 (1), 16-31. https://doi.org/10.12681/hjre.38949 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Ethical Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness: A Competing Values Model Beit Berl College, Israel Presenting Author:Ethical leadership in education has evolved from a focus on administrative or organizational efficiency and effectiveness to a multidimensional moral practice (e.g., Starratt, 2005). Since the early 1990s, and in line with the increased influence of critical theory on the field of educational administration and leadership (Capper, 2019), there has been a growing attention in educational leadership discourse on ethics and a shift toward "values-based" leadership (Begley, 1999), which centers on advocating and advancing ethical concerns and social values in enacting and development of educational leadership. One of the most influential voices in this shift toward ethics was Robert Starratt (1991, 2012), who introduced a tripartite framework of ethical paradigms — the ethics of justice, critique, and care, which still serves as an accepted resource for navigating ethical educational leadership and leadership dilemmas. Shapiro and Stefkovich (2016) contributed to Starratt’s theory by adding a fourth paradigm: the ethic of the profession, which invites leaders to act according to standards of the (educational leadership) profession and also develop their own personal codes in light or in consideration of these professional codes. As such, ethical leadership scholars, at least since Starratt, have articulated the complexity and multidimensionality of the ethical domain as well as identified the different leadership dilemmas that unfold in decision-making processes. Parallel to the increased attention to ethics, leadership discourse has also addressed the increased complexity of leading organizations in a VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous) world. Theories of organizational effectiveness have also engaged with these developments and offer complementary leadership theories that aim at agility, flexibility and adaptability. The above theories have also underscored the conflictual or dilemmatic nature of leading organizations, acknowledging the competing ends and core values of leading organizations (Cameron et al, 2006). In light of the changing leadership terrain and the disruptiveness associated with it, leadership theorists have called for creating ‘adaptive spaces’ (e.g., Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018) in which organizations are able to continuously hold tension between competing values, notably, the tension between stability/exploitation and flexibility/innovation. Thus, both ethical leadership discourse (Eyal et al, 2011; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016) and organizational effectiveness discourse – including leadership models that derive from this discourse (Quinn, 1984; Belasen & Frank, 2007; Cameron et al, 2006) arrive at the same basic conclusion, namely, that accounting for leadership comprehensively, holistically and in a way that aligns with the attributes and needs of current educational organizations, requires a restructuring process (Starratt, 2005). At the heart of this reconfiguration is the acknowledgment of the dilemmas or tensions among competing values/ethical paradigms. While this basic insight is shared by these two leadership discourses, it seems that they speak two different languages. A comprehensive account of ethical educational leadership entails accounting for and bridging ethics and effectiveness. Thus, the aim here is to articulate an integrative vision for educational leaders who are concerned with both ethical and professional aspects of leadership action. Doing so facilitates organizational development and growth. As Starratt writes: “…the work of leading a community of educators in the demanding work of restructuring is simultaneously both professional and moral” (Starratt, 2005, p. 34). This paper seeks to propose a model for integrating or interconnecting the two discourses within a single methodological framework that is grounded on competing values and dilemmas. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This conceptual paper applies textual analysis of two main theoretical sources. The first is the discourse on ethical leadership, mainly focusing on Robert Starratt’s seminal work (1991, 1994), and his tripartite framework, and then on the revised model of ethical leadership developed by Shapiro and Stefkovich (2016). The second resource is Quinn and Cameron’s development of competing values framework (CVF) and the leadership model that was developed from CVF (Cameron et al, 2006; Quinn, 1984). The main objective of this paper is to conceptually and methodologically integrate the two discourses into one framework. While the two discourses apply different and at times competing “logics”, the integration of the two within one framework allows to identify both points of conversion and contention between them. More importantly, it provides educational leaders with the language and concepts to assess similar issues or themes from different yet complementary perspectives. The visualization of the model allows a more coherent, comprehensive and nuanced understanding of leadership consciousness and responsibilities. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Following in-depth literary analysis of both discourses (Ethical leadership and effectiveness-oriented leadership) mainly through the theories of Starratt (1991, 1994), Shapiro and Stefkovich (2016) (Ethical Leadership) and Quinn (1984), Belasen and Frank (2007) (CVF leadership) it is possible to integrate the four ethical paradigms (Justice, Care, Critique, Profession) into the CVF – including the four higher-order leadership values and roles derived from the CVF (Analyzer, Motivator, Vision Setter, Task Master). The main point of convergence between the two theoretical perspectives is the focus on values and more importantly on the need to continuously hold competing value-perspectives in consciousness and in decision-making processes as a basic leadership disposition for addressing both ethical and organizational effectiveness concerns. Moreover, while both theories acknowledge the tensions among the different core values/ethical paradigms, at the same time, they both acknowledge the interconnections and interdependence of the competing values for overall organizational well-being. I propose to pair the two theories as follows: Justice-Analyzer, Care-Motivator, Profession-Task Master, Critique-Vision Setter. While the pairing of the two discourses is based on considerable similarities, specifically in terms of their core values, there are notable differences that must be acknowledged. The well-rounded leader, according to the above integrative leadership framework, is one who is able not only to navigate the complex terrain that unfolds in the competing models of organizational effectiveness, but one that is able to consider each role or organizational end from two languages. Consideration of the complexity and challenges of this ability is moderated by the leader’s own personal values (as these may conflict with professional values) (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016), and the constraints of the specific educational context in which leaders enact their leadership. References Begley, P.T. (Ed.) (1999). Values and educational leadership. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Belasen, A., & Frank, N. (2007). Competing values leadership: Quadrant roles and personality traits. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(2), 127-143. Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., DeGraff, J., & Thakor, A. V. (2006). Competing values leadership: Creating value in organizations. Edward Elgar Publishing. Capper, C. A. (2019). Organizational theory for equity and diversity: Leading integrated, socially just education. New-York, N.Y: Routledge. English, F. W. (2022). Postmodernism: Structured doubt within leadership certainties. In F. English (Ed), The Palgrave Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management Discourse (pp. 1-23). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Eyal, O., Berkovich, I., & Schwartz, T. (2011). Making the right choices: Ethical judgments among educational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(4), 396-413. Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2016). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Routledge. Starratt, R. J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 185-202. Starratt, R. J. (2005). Moral dimensions of leadership. In P.T. Begley & P.E. Leonard (Eds), The Values of Educational Administration (pp. 23-36). RoutledgeFarmer. Starratt, R. J. (2012). Cultivating an ethical school. Routledge. Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public productivity review, 122-140. Quinn, R. E. (1984). Applying the competing values approach to leadership: Toward an integrative framework. In J. G. Hunt, D.M Hosking, C.A., Schriesheim, & R. Stewart (Eds.), Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and leadership (pp. 10-27). Pergamon. 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Inter-Organizational Trust in K–12 Education: A Systematic Review of Leadership and Governance Research Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany Presenting Author:This study focuses on inter-organizational (institutional) trust in education, examining how trust is conceptualized and studied in research on relationships between schools and education authorities within multilevel governance systems. These relationships often involve actors positioned between organizational levels, such as schools, school districts, district, or state-level bodies who play a crucial role in mediating policy, accountability, and support (Burns & Köster, 2016; Kolleck, 2023; Lumineau & Schilke, 2018). The study pays particular attention to middle leadership, understood as leadership enacted in these intermediary positions that connect schools with governance authorities. While K–12 education constitutes the primary empirical focus of the review, the study also engages systematically with the higher education literature, where inter-organizational trust has been more extensively theorized and empirically examined. Higher education research is therefore used as a conceptual reference point to inform, frame, and advance understanding of institutional trust in K–12 leadership contexts, where existing research remains comparatively fragmented. Research Questions The systematic review is guided by the following research questions:
Objectives The overarching objective of this study is to systematically synthesize existing educational research on institutional trust in order to clarify how trust is defined, theorized, and studied in relation to inter-organizational relationships and leadership structures. More specifically, the study aims to:
Conceptual / Theoretical Framework The review is guided by a relational and multilevel perspective on trust, conceptualizing institutional trust as a dynamic process that emerges between organizations rather than solely within them (Bormann et al., 2021; Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). From this perspective, trust is embedded in ongoing interactions shaped by governance arrangements, leadership practices, and organizational positioning across educational systems (García-Juanatey et al., 2023; Högberg et al., 2018, Kappauf, 2024) The framework draws on insights from organizational trust theory, governance scholarship, and leadership research, particularly from the higher education literature where inter-organizational trust has been more systematically explored (e.g., Karhapää & Savolainen, 2018; Laufer et al., 2025; Maassen, 2023; Valk & Kratovits,2021). Higher education studies are treated as a source of sensitizing concepts, offering analytical lenses for understanding how trust operates across institutional boundaries, how authority and accountability influence trust and how leadership is enacted beyond organizational hierarchies. Central to this framework is the concept of middle leadership, understood as a boundary-spanning form of leadership that operates between schools and education authorities. Middle leaders are positioned to broker relationships, translate policy, and coordinate action across levels, making them key actors in the construction and maintenance of institutional trust (Greany, 2022, Pinheiro & Alves, 2024). Rather than imposing a single predefined trust model, the review adopts an inductive and comparative approach, using higher education research to inform conceptual categories that are then examined for their relevance, transferability, and limitations in K–12 contexts. This approach supports a theoretically grounded yet context-sensitive synthesis, contributing to a clearer and more robust conceptualization of institutional trust in K–12 leadership. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study adopts a systematic literature review design to examine how inter-organizational (institutional) trust is conceptualized and operationalized in educational research, with particular attention to relationships between schools and education authorities and the role of middle leadership within multilevel governance contexts. The review will follow the PRISMA 2020 guidelines to ensure transparency and methodological rigor. The review process is currently at the abstract-screening stage. The identification phase has been completed through systematic searches conducted across five academic databases: ERIC, Web of Science, Academic Search Complete, Education Source, and Scopus. These searches yielded a total of 2,069 records: ERIC (n = 356), Web of Science (n = 362), Academic Search Complete (n = 163), Education Source (n = 403), and Scopus (n = 785). Following identification, 82 duplicate records were detected and were removed prior to screening. The search strategy combined three clusters of keywords related to trust, educational context, and governance or leadership, using the following search string: (“trust” OR “organizational trust” OR “interorganizational trust” OR “institutional trust”) AND (“education” OR “school” OR “school system” OR “school district”) AND (“governance” OR “leadership” OR “educational leadership” OR “cross-level” OR “district” OR “municipality” OR “state” OR “federal”). Abstract screening will be conducted to exclude studies that are non-empirical, not situated in educational contexts, or not explicitly concerned with institutional or inter-organizational trust. Eligible studies will then undergo full-text screening to assess their theoretical engagement with inter- institutional and multilevel trust, particularly whether trust is conceptualized as a relational phenomenon operating across organizational boundaries and governance levels. During synthesis, included studies will be organized into two analytical strands: (a) studies situated in higher education contexts, and (b) studies situated in K–12 education contexts. While the primary analytic focus will be on K–12, the higher education literature will be synthesized to inform the conceptual framing of institutional trust, given its more developed theoretical base. Concepts, dimensions, and analytical approaches identified in the HE literature will be used as sensitizing frameworks for interpreting and advancing the understanding of institutional trust in K–12 leadership settings. The final synthesis will focus on how institutional trust is defined, theorized, and measured across contexts, and on the implications for middle leadership and inter-organizational coordination between schools and education authorities. Together, these steps aim to establish a coherent conceptual foundation for future empirical research on institutional trust in K–12 education. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings As the first phase of a broader research project, the systematic literature review is expected to produce a structured synthesis of how inter-organizational (institutional) trust is conceptualized and studied in educational research. The review is anticipated to show that higher education research offers more developed conceptual frameworks and analytical approaches to institutional trust, while studies situated in K–12 contexts remain comparatively limited and conceptually fragmented. Across both contexts, the review is expected to reveal substantial variation in definitions and levels of analysis, with institutional trust often overlapping with interpersonal or organizational trust without clear conceptual distinction. This is likely to be particularly evident in K–12 research, where trust is frequently examined within single organizations rather than across leadership levels or institutional boundaries. The review is also expected to indicate that intermediary or middle leadership roles are often implicitly present in governance-related studies but rarely theorized explicitly as trust-building actors. Overall, the systematic review is expected to result in a refined conceptual framework for institutional trust in education, clarifying key dimensions, levels, and relational processes relevant to governance and leadership across organizational boundaries. By synthesizing insights from higher education research and examining their relevance for K–12 systems, the review aims to strengthen conceptual clarity and identify gaps for future inquiry. The review is designed as a foundational phase that will inform a later empirical study based on interviews with actors at different organizational levels in K-12 educational context. References Bormann, I., Niedlich, S., & Würbel, I. (2021). Trust in educational settings—What it is and why it matters. European perspectives. European Education, 53(3–4), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2022.2080564 Burns, T., & Köster F. (eds.) (2016). Governing Education in a Complex World, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-en. Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312439327 García-Juanatey, A., Jordana, J., & Sancho, D. (2025). Multi-level governance in higher education quality assurance: Agencification and policy coordination in Spain. Review of Policy Research, 42(3), 530–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12624 Greany, T. (2022). Place-based governance and leadership in decentralised school systems: evidence from England. Journal of Education Policy, 37(2), 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2020.1792554 Karhapää, S.-J., & Savolainen, T. I. (2018). Trust development processes in intra-organisational relationships: A multi-level permeation of trust in a merging university. Journal of Trust Research, 8(2), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2018.1509009 Kolleck, N. (2023). Trust in cross-sector alliances: Towards a theory of relational trust in multi-professional education networks. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(6), 1362–1382. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211043876 Laufer, M., Deacon, B., Mende, M. A., & Schäfer, L. O. (2025). Leading with trust: How university leaders can foster innovation with educational technology through organizational trust. Innovative Higher Education, 50, 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-024-09733-5 Lumineau, F., & Schilke, O. (2018). Trust development across levels of analysis: An embedded-agency perspective. Journal of Trust Research, 8(2), 238–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2018.1531766 Maassen, P., Stensaker, B., & Rosso, A. (2023). The European university alliances—An examination of organizational potentials and perils. Higher Education, 86, 953–968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00951-4 Pinheiro, G., & Alves, M. . (2024). Liderazgo Intermedio en Equipos Educativos: Prácticas y Efectos en el Desarrollo de Comunidades de Aprendizaje . International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 12(3), 271–295. https://doi.org/10.4471/ijelm.13618 Valk, A., & Kratovitš, M. (2021). We collaborate with everyone, but with some more than others: Evidence of stakeholder collaboration among internal security professional higher education institutions. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40461-021-00110-6 26. Educational Leadership
Paper Upper Secondary Students’ Voices: What is All About? Is it Heard? 1: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens [NTUA], Greece; 2: University of Crete, Greece Presenting Author:Introduction School success has been associated with a wide number of factors, leadership and students’ academic achievements being the most featured ones. Student voices have also been included as an indicator of school success, effectiveness of the curricula provision and quality of teaching and learning. However, in-school relations between young adult students, the teaching staff and the school leader have not received the attention they require. On the other hand, literature is rich with attempts of including students’ voices in educational research in various aspects of the teaching-learning praxis. Purpose This paper aims at exploring young adult students’ attitudes towards their capacity and power to be “heard”, their way of evaluating the final years of school life and the building [or preserving] meaningful relations with the significant others in school. It employs the idea of school success as a starting point for investigation and discussion in order to “dig” deep in beliefs, views, stereotypes and attitudes towards the “conceived” reality of both the individuals and the community and on how school leaders and teacher leaders convey the community attitudes. Background Though a considerable amount of literature includes students’ voice in every step of their schooling life, rarely has research dealt with young adult students [by the end of their schooling] and their attitudes towards school. Young adult students [16-18] have a “double” identity in the sense that they are both treated as students [minors] and at the same time they enjoy certain privileges of the adult life. Depending of the legal/juridical system in each country a number of rights are recognized to them: they have “legal” capacity to act as adults in a number of cases, they can vote or drive a car. However, they are in a critical phase of their lives; they are faced with various dilemmas regarding their full transition to adult life and their integration to the labour market. They perceive schooling and school success in a differentiated way than the rest of the school partners. They feel that their voice is equally important to be heard especially when decisions are taken for them. Their voice being heard [or not] is often the reason for creating [or not] meaningful relations within schools. These mature students have a quite “crystallized” view of what school means to them and how it contributes to personal and general success. This paper is based on the assumption that young adult students’ voices are worth of being heard. Conceptual / Theoretical framework Schools are conceptualized as systems per se and at the same time as sub-systems of a wider social, economic and cultural eco-system (Brofenbrenner, 1979) in which various factors exercise their impact on school operation, ideology and policies on how education is/ should be conceived and enacted (Argyropoulou and Lintzerakou, 2024). This study is grounded on the humanistic epistemological paradigm and the framework of social constructivism (Rachmad, 2025; Tsiolis, 2014) as it gives emphasis on students as members of the wider system and the schooling subsystem and seeks to probe into the way the participants understand, reason and appropriate their experiences; in other words, how 16-18 students construct their immediate reality and give meaning to their attitudes and deeds. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Research questions: Three major questions guided this qualitative research: a. How do young adult students perceive success in school? b. Is their voice “heard by their teachers and the school leader? c. How do their perceptions of success and their wellbeing guide the building of meaningful relations in school? Sample and data collection: The study is based on semi-structured interviews with focus groups of 75 students in total from two different state Upper Secondary schools (lyceums), one from the greater area of Athens and one from another densely-populated borough in the south of Greece. The students were between 16 and 18 years old and were members of the two senior lyceum classes. Permission was asked and granted from both themselves [as legally capable for themselves] and the school. Parents were also informed about the research and were asked for their consensus regarding their children’s participation. The students’ interviews were recorded. To avoid participants’ identification, the students were given pseudonyms beforehand and were instructed to use their pseudonym every time they wanted to speak. Students were free to participate and answer to whatever question they felt they had something to say. Data analysis: Thematic Analysis was employed to analyze the data from each group. Data were organized in major meaningful categories and subcategories and then a comparison was made between the two sets of data. Ethics: This research has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens [NKUA]. Approval no: 7555/2471-7-2025 Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study produced interesting findings and reflection on how young adult students at the end of their schooling conceptualize school leadership,their whole school experience, the meaning of school for them, the assessment of the educational system and the pressures exercised on them during the last two school classes. They reported on societal stereotypes and “anomalies” marking their transition to adult life and labour market and the so-called “free will” to decide for their own lives. In their opinion, school success is associated with their feeling of wellbeing when in school but not with academic achievements. Students’ answers indicated the importance of sincere and meaningful relationships with teachers and the school leader and the significance they attribute to the adults’ behavior towards them. This study is significant as it puts forward mature students’ attitudes towards school leadership and schooling, in general; it covers a research gap between younger students’ voices and views of schooling from university/college students. Thus, the study can encourage education policy designers’ reflection on the importance of students’ attitudes and feelings towards a school full of “useless information” and “luck of applicability” to real life and their “need of capacity building” in order to “face the challenges of adult life successfully” [quotes from students’ answers]. It is also interesting because it outlines mature students' perceptions of school leadership and teacher leadership and their attitudes towards the persons elected to lead. This study is also expected to contribute important outcomes regarding Greece in the framework of country's participation in the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP). References Argyropoulou, E., & Lintzerakou, E. E. (2025). Contextual Factors and Their Impact on Ethical Leadership in Educational Settings. Administrative Sciences, 15(1), 23 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15010023 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press, https://khoerulanwarbk.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/urie_bronfenbrenner_the_ecology_of_human_developbokos-z1.pdf Rachmad, Y. E. (2025) Social Constructivism Theory, United Nations Economic and Social Constructivism Theory Social Council, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yoesoep-Rachmad/publication/396447055_Social_Constructivism_Theory/links/68ec9bd3e7f5f867e6deef21/Social-Constructivism-Theory.pdf Tsiolis, G (2014) Methods and analysis procedures in Qualitative Research, Kritiki publications, Athens (in Greek), www.kritiki.gr/methodoi-kai-texnikes-analysis | ||