Enhancing high-quality education through systemic school leadership: a systematic review Open Access

Education systems worldwide strive to provide high-quality, equitable learning opportunities that enable all students to thrive as engaged citizens, regardless of background (UNESCO, 2022). However, persistent global disparities in educational outcomes highlight ongoing challenges in achieving this vision (Walker et al., 2022). Bridging the gap between rhetoric and reality demands complex, interconnected leadership reforms spanning governance philosophy, system policies, organizational operations and frontline capabilities (Woulfin and Weiner, 2022).

While teachers have the most direct instructional interactions with students, principals and school administrations play a crucial systemic role in shaping positive school cultures, allocating resources strategically and ensuring best practices reach classrooms (Leithwood et al., 2004). Decades of research demonstrate that effective leaders positively impact student learning and drive school improvement (Day et al., 2016). However, vast distances often separate macro-policy processes from classroom-level decision-making, creating deleterious gaps between principles and practice that selectively benefit privileged groups while excluding others (Young et al., 2022).

This systematic review aims to consolidate insights on leadership transformations fostering impactful, equitable education for all. Specifically, it explores how systemic school leadership influences high-quality inclusive education, examining the interplay between policy frameworks, organizational structures and leadership attributes.

The concept of inclusive education has evolved significantly over the past few decades, moving beyond its initial focus on special education to encompass a broader vision of addressing all forms of exclusion and marginalization in educational settings (Ainscow, 2020). This shift reflects a growing recognition of education as a fundamental human right and a key driver of social equity and cohesion (UNESCO, 2020). As such, the role of school leadership in fostering inclusive educational environments has become increasingly critical.

Historically, school leadership models have often reflected hierarchical and managerial approaches, with limited emphasis on inclusivity and equity (Bush, 2020). However, the changing demographics of student populations, coupled with a growing awareness of persistent educational disparities, have necessitated a reimagining of school leadership practices (Khalifa et al., 2016). This reimagining involves a shift toward more collaborative, culturally responsive and systemically oriented leadership approaches that can effectively address the complex challenges of creating truly inclusive schools.

The theoretical underpinnings of inclusive school leadership draw from various fields, including social justice theory, organizational change theory and culturally responsive pedagogy. Theoharis (2007) posited that social justice leadership in education involves leaders actively working to address and eliminate marginalization in schools. This perspective aligns with the work of Shields (2010), who argued for transformative leadership that questions inequitable practices and offers new possibilities for inclusive schooling.

Concurrently, the field of educational leadership has seen a growing emphasis on distributed leadership models (Harris, 2013). These models recognize that leadership in schools is not confined to formal positions but is spread across various actors within the educational system. This distributed approach has significant implications for inclusive education, as it allows for a more diverse range of voices and perspectives to influence school practices and policies.

The intersection of inclusive education and school leadership has also been informed by developments in the field of culturally responsive school leadership (CRSL). Khalifa et al. (2016) synthesized existing research to develop a framework for CRSL, emphasizing the importance of critical self-reflection, culturally responsive curricula and teacher preparation, inclusive school environments and engagement with students’ communities.

Moreover, the role of data-driven decision-making in promoting inclusive education has gained prominence. Datnow and Park (2018) highlighted how effective use of data can help school leaders identify and address equity gaps, tailor interventions and monitor progress toward inclusive goals. This emphasis on data aligns with broader trends toward evidence-based practices in education.

International policy frameworks have also played a crucial role in shaping the discourse around inclusive education and leadership. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4 explicitly calls for inclusive and equitable quality education for all (United Nations, 2015). This global commitment has spurred national and local initiatives to promote inclusive education, placing additional demands on school leaders to implement and sustain inclusive practices.

Despite these theoretical advancements and policy imperatives, the implementation of inclusive education remains challenging. Ainscow (2020) noted that while there is broad agreement on the importance of inclusion, there is less consensus on how it should be operationalized in diverse educational contexts. This gap between theory and practice underscores the need for empirical research on effective leadership strategies for promoting inclusion.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought new challenges and opportunities for inclusive education. The rapid shift to remote learning highlighted existing inequities and created new ones, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds (UNESCO, 2021). At the same time, it has accelerated the adoption of digital technologies and flexible learning approaches, which have the potential to enhance inclusivity if implemented thoughtfully.

In this context, understanding the role of systemic school leadership in fostering inclusive education is more critical than ever. This systematic review seeks to synthesize recent empirical evidence on leadership practices that promote inclusivity, the challenges leaders face in implementing inclusive education and the outcomes of inclusive leadership approaches. By doing so, it aims to provide a comprehensive picture of the current state of knowledge and identify areas for future research and practice in this crucial field.

The review used a rigorous search strategy adhering to PRISMA guidelines, followed by a convergent integrated approach to evidence synthesis. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple academic databases, including ERIC, PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, Emerald Insight, SAGE Journals, Taylor & Francis Online and Google Scholar. Search terms included combinations of “school leadership,” “principal,” “effectiveness,” “performance,” “improvement,” “practices,” “student outcomes,” and “school outcomes.”

Inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2014 and 2024, focusing on formal leadership roles across district, school or classroom levels, examining both systemic factors and individual leadership attributes. The selection process involved title/abstract screening followed by full-text review, conducted independently by three reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved through consensus-oriented discussion.

Data extraction collected information on study characteristics, sample details, leadership constructs examined, system/policy factors, outcomes measured, analysis methods, key findings and limitations. The review used a convergent integrated approach, synthesizing qualitative and quantitative analyses. Grounded theory analysis was used to identify themes, followed by triangulation to enhance validity and reliability.

The analysis of the included studies followed a rigorous, multistep process to ensure a comprehensive and systematic synthesis of the evidence. We used a convergent integrated approach, which allows for the synthesis of both qualitative and quantitative findings (Pluye and Hong, 2014). This approach was chosen for its ability to provide a more holistic understanding of complex phenomena, such as systemic school leadership and inclusive education, by integrating diverse forms of evidence (Fetters et al., 2013).

The convergent integrated approach involved simultaneously analyzing qualitative and quantitative data, then merging the results into a coherent whole. This method is particularly suitable for reviews that aim to address multifaceted research questions and incorporate a wide range of study designs (Noyes et al., 2019). In our case, it allowed us to synthesize findings from various methodological approaches, including case studies, surveys and longitudinal studies, providing a more comprehensive understanding of systemic school leadership for inclusive education.

We began with a thorough reading of all included studies to familiarize ourselves with the content and context of each. During this initial review, we began to identify recurring themes and patterns across the studies, following the principles of qualitative synthesis (Thomas and Harden, 2008).

Next, we applied a grounded theory approach to coding and analyzing the data. Grounded theory was selected for its systematic yet flexible approach to qualitative data analysis, allowing themes to emerge from the data rather than imposing predetermined categories (Charmaz, 2014). This approach is particularly valuable in areas where existing theory may be limited or where the goal is to generate new theoretical insights (Corbin and Strauss, 2015).

The grounded theory analysis involved open coding, where we assigned initial codes to segments of text, identifying key concepts related to systemic school leadership and inclusive education. This was followed by axial coding, where we grouped these initial codes into broader categories, exploring relationships between different concepts and themes. Finally, we engaged in selective coding, identifying core themes that emerged across the studies, focusing on those most relevant to our research questions (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).

Throughout this process, we used constant comparative analysis, continuously comparing new data to previously coded data to refine our understanding and ensure consistency in our coding approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). This iterative process allowed for the development of a nuanced understanding of the complexities of systemic school leadership in inclusive education contexts.

To enhance the validity and reliability of our findings, we used multiple triangulation strategies (Denzin, 2017). We compared findings across different types of studies and across various contexts, engaged multiple researchers in independent coding and analysis and integrated findings from different methodological approaches. This multifaceted triangulation approach strengthened the credibility and transferability of our findings (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).

For quantitative data, where available, we extracted effect sizes and conducted a narrative synthesis of the findings, following the guidelines proposed by Popay et al. (2006). Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a meta-analysis was not deemed appropriate, a decision supported by current best practices in systematic review methodology (Munn et al., 2014).

We used NVivo software to assist with the organization and analysis of the qualitative data, allowing for efficient coding, theme development and cross-referencing of findings. The use of computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software has been shown to enhance the rigor and transparency of qualitative synthesis (Houghton et al., 2017).

Throughout the analysis process, we maintained a focus on our research questions, ensuring that our synthesis addressed the role of systemic school leadership in promoting high-quality inclusive education. We paid particular attention to identifying effective leadership practices, challenges in implementation and outcomes of inclusive leadership approaches, as emphasized in the literature on inclusive education leadership (Ainscow and Sandill, 2010).

Finally, we synthesized the findings into five key themes that emerged consistently across the literature:

1. Collaborative leadership;

2. Equity-focused decision making;

3. Commitment to professional development;

4. Building a community of support; and

5. Data-driven practices.

These themes formed the basis of our results and discussion sections, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding systemic school leadership in inclusive education contexts.

This multifaceted analysis approach allowed us to develop a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge regarding systemic school leadership for inclusive education, while also identifying gaps and areas for future research. By integrating diverse forms of evidence and employing rigorous analytical techniques, we aimed to provide a robust and nuanced synthesis that can inform both theory and practice in the field of inclusive education leadership.

The initial database search identified 757 records. After removing duplicates, 738 records remained for screening. Based on title and abstract review, 513 records were excluded. The remaining 225 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, of which 163 were excluded for the following reasons:

• not focused on systemic leadership (n = 67);

• outside the specified date range (n = 34);

• non-empirical studies (n = 51); and

• not in English (n = 9).

This process resulted in 64 studies being included in the final qualitative synthesis (see Figure 1).

The 64 included studies were from various countries, predominantly employing qualitative methodologies such as interviews and case studies, with some utilizing survey methods and mixed-methods approaches.

Table 1 presents an analysis of the 64 articles included in the systematic review, mapping each article to the research questions it addresses. This mapping provides valuable insights into the focus and distribution of research across the four primary research questions of the study:

1. Research Question 1 (RQ1), addresses governance and policy aspects of systemic school leadership for inclusive education, is addressed by 30 of the 64 articles. This indicates a substantial body of research focusing on macro-level structures and policies that support inclusive education.

2. Research Question 2 (RQ2), concerns organizational leadership and meso-level policies and procedures, is the most frequently addressed question, with 45 articles contributing to this area. This suggests a strong emphasis in the literature on the organizational aspects of implementing inclusive education.

3. Research Question 3 (RQ3), focuses on administrative and instructional leadership practices at the micro-level, is addressed by 47 articles, making it the most commonly explored area in the reviewed literature. This highlights the significant attention paid to the practical, day-to-day aspects of inclusive leadership in educational settings.

4. Research Question 4 (RQ4), related to optimal configurations and interactions between different levels of leadership and policy, is addressed by 23 articles. While this is the least frequently addressed question, it still represents a substantial portion of the research, indicating growing interest in understanding the complex interplay between different aspects of systemic school leadership for inclusive education.

All but two articles address multiple research questions, demonstrating the interconnected nature of the issues involved in systemic school leadership for inclusive education. For instance, 14 articles address three research questions, and 4 articles (numbers 54, 62, 63 and 64) address all four research questions, suggesting these studies take a particularly comprehensive approach to the topic.

The distribution of articles across research questions indicates a balanced approach in the literature, with slightly more emphasis on organizational and micro-level leadership practices (RQ2 and RQ3) compared to macro-level policies (RQ1) and system-wide interactions (RQ4). This balance suggests that the field recognizes the importance of addressing inclusive education at multiple levels, from broad policy frameworks to specific leadership practices in schools.

Overall, the analysis of questions being addressed by the included literature reveals a rich and diverse body of research that collectively provides a comprehensive examination of systemic school leadership for inclusive education, addressing policy, organizational and practical aspects of the issue, as well as their interactions.

Analysis revealed several key themes related to systemic school leadership and its impact on high-quality inclusive education.

Collaborative leadership practices emerged as one of the most effective strategies for promoting inclusivity in educational settings. Leaders who engage in collaboration leverage the strengths and perspectives of diverse stakeholders, including teachers, parents and community members. This collaboration not only enhances decision-making but also helps ensure that various voices are represented and considered, which is crucial for fostering an inclusive atmosphere (Gómez-Hurtado et al., 2021; Holland and Fitzgerald, 2023).

For example, Johnson et al. (2019) found that principals who regularly engaged in collaborative decision-making with teachers and parents reported higher levels of staff satisfaction and student engagement. Similarly, Goddard et al. (2017) identified a positive relationship between collective efficacy and reduced achievement gaps, highlighting the importance of collaborative leadership practices in fostering inclusive environments.

School leaders who prioritize equity seek to identify and dismantle barriers that hinder access to educational opportunities for marginalized groups. This approach requires a deep understanding of the unique challenges faced by these groups and involves adjusting policies and practices to address these issues appropriately (DeMatthews et al., 2020; Ketikidou and Saiti, 2022).

Research by Martinez and Lee (2020) demonstrated that schools implementing equity audits and data-driven decision-making processes were more successful in reducing achievement gaps between different student groups. Dhakal (2024) further highlighted the importance of culturally-specific equitable leadership practices in diverse contexts, such as Nepal.

A strong commitment to professional development is vital in promoting inclusivity within schools. Leaders who invest in training teachers and staff on culturally responsive practices effectively prepare them to meet the diverse needs of their students (Crisol-Moya et al., 2020; Maich et al., 2020).

A longitudinal study by Thompson et al. (2021) found that schools with comprehensive, ongoing professional development programs focused on inclusive practices showed significant improvements in teacher efficacy and student outcomes over a three-year period. Similarly, Sider et al. (2021) developed and evaluated web-based case studies for principal professional learning, finding a positive impact on inclusive leadership skills.

Effective leaders actively work to build supportive communities within and outside of the school premises. This includes establishing partnerships with local organizations, families and other stakeholders to create a network of support for students, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds (Poon-McBrayer and Wong, 2013; Santamaría et al., 2015).

Chen and Wong’s (2018) case study of successful urban schools highlighted the importance of community partnerships in providing wraparound services and support for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Kilag et al. (2024) further identified strategies for building inclusive school communities in the Philippine context, emphasizing the role of leadership in managing diversity.

Leaders who analyze and use educational data to inform their decisions are better equipped to recognize disparities in student achievement and resource allocation. This informed approach allows leaders to implement targeted interventions aimed at improving outcomes for all students, thereby enhancing inclusivity within the school environment (Lambrecht et al., 2020; Wang and Tian, 2023).

A large-scale study by Rodriguez et al. (2022) across 500 schools found that those using data-driven decision-making practices were 30% more likely to show improvements in closing achievement gaps over a five-year period. Similarly, Stavrou and Kafa (2023) identified a positive relationship between entrepreneurial leadership and inclusive education implementation, highlighting the importance of innovative, data-informed approaches.

While the majority of included studies were qualitative in nature, several key quantitative studies provided valuable insights into the effectiveness of various leadership approaches in fostering inclusive education. Table 2 summarizes the key quantitative findings from these studies.

The quantitative studies included in this review provide robust evidence for the positive impact of various leadership approaches on inclusive education outcomes. The consistency of findings across diverse contexts and methodologies strengthens the overall conclusion that leadership plays a crucial role in fostering inclusive educational environments.

Several studies demonstrated significant positive relationships between specific leadership styles and inclusive education implementation. Lambrecht et al. (2020) found that both transformational (β = 0.32, p < 0.01) and instructional leadership (β = 0.28, p < 0.01) had substantial positive effects on inclusive education practices. This finding is complemented by Stavrou and Kafa (2023), who reported a strong positive correlation (r = 0.63, p < 0.001) between entrepreneurial leadership and inclusive education implementation.

The study by Wang and Tian (2023) further expanded our understanding by examining distributed leadership, finding a significant positive relationship with differentiated instruction (r = 0.47, p < 0.001). Importantly, this study also identified teacher leadership as a crucial mediating factor (indirect effect = 0.15, 95% CI [0.09, 0.22]), highlighting the importance of empowering teachers in inclusive education efforts.

Goddard et al. (2017) provided valuable insights into the relationship between collective efficacy and achievement gaps, reporting a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.45, p < 0.01). This finding suggests that fostering collective efficacy through effective leadership may be a promising approach to reducing educational disparities.

Ketikidou and Saiti (2022) explored the concept of sustainable leadership, finding a strong positive relationship with inclusive education outcomes (r = 0.58, p < 0.001). This result underscores the importance of long-term, systemic approaches to leadership in creating lasting inclusive educational environments.

Two studies focused on developing and validating instruments for assessing inclusive leadership. Crisol-Moya et al. (2020) validated the Italian version of the LEI-Q, demonstrating high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.92) and robust factor structure (loadings ranging from 0.68 to 0.89). Similarly, López-López and Guerrero (2021) developed a new questionnaire for assessing inclusive leadership from families’ perspectives, also showing strong reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.88) and a clear five-factor structure. These instruments provide valuable tools for future research and practice in inclusive education leadership.

Beyond the educational context, Rogozińska-Pawełczyk and Sudolska (2024) demonstrated the positive impact of inclusive leadership on proactive work behavior in nonprofit organizations (r = 0.52, p < 0.001). Their finding of psychological contract as a mediator (indirect effect = 0.18, 95% CI [0.12, 0.25]) suggests that inclusive leadership fosters a sense of reciprocal commitment that encourages proactive behavior.

The experimental study by Weinkle and Lee (2017) highlighted potential challenges in inclusive education, demonstrating significant effects of perceived instructor gender (d = 0.48, p < 0.01) and age (d = 0.35, p < 0.05) on student evaluations. These findings underscore the need for awareness of potential biases and the importance of diverse representation in educational leadership.

While the heterogeneity of measures and contexts precludes a formal meta-analysis, the consistency of positive findings across diverse studies strengthens the overall conclusion that leadership plays a crucial role in fostering inclusive education. Effect sizes, where reported, ranged from moderate to large, suggesting meaningful and practically significant impacts of leadership on inclusive practices.

These quantitative findings complement and reinforce the qualitative themes identified earlier, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the role of leadership in inclusive education. Future research would benefit from more standardized measures and consistent reporting of effect sizes to facilitate more direct comparisons across studies and potentially enable meta-analytic approaches in subsequent reviews.

The synthesis of these studies reveals a comprehensive picture of the role of systemic school leadership in fostering inclusive education. The findings underscore the importance of a multifaceted approach to leadership that encompasses not only individual leader attributes but also systemic factors and organizational structures.

The successful initiatives highlighted in this review provide valuable insights for educational practitioners and policymakers. For instance, the effectiveness of web-based professional learning for principals suggests a scalable approach to enhancing leadership capabilities in promoting inclusivity (Brown et al., 2023). This aligns with the growing body of literature emphasizing the importance of continuous professional development for school leaders (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007).

The success of distributed leadership models in promoting inclusivity is particularly noteworthy. By allowing teachers and staff to share leadership responsibilities, schools can create a more collaborative environment that values diverse perspectives and experiences. This approach not only empowers teachers but also ensures that inclusive practices are integrated across all levels of school operations, supporting the findings of Harris and DeFlaminis (2016) on the benefits of distributed leadership in educational settings.

Community engagement programs and facilitative leadership approaches highlighted in the review emphasize the importance of stakeholder involvement in creating inclusive educational environments. These findings reinforce the concept of schools as community hubs, a model that has gained traction in recent years for its potential to address educational inequities (Green, 2015).

Despite the identified successful practices, schools encounter various challenges when implementing inclusive leadership initiatives. These include resistance to change, lack of resources and the complexities of managing diverse needs. Ahmed and Johnson (2022) found that 40% of teachers expressed initial reluctance to adopt new inclusive practices due to concerns about workload and efficacy. Similarly, Thompson and Lee (2020) reported that schools in low-income areas were 50% less likely to have the necessary resources to implement comprehensive inclusive education programs.

Addressing these challenges requires a systemic approach to educational reform. This includes not only professional development but also a shift in organizational culture. School leaders must work to create a shared vision of inclusivity and demonstrate its benefits to all stakeholders. This aligns with Kotter's (1996) change management model, which emphasizes the importance of creating a sense of urgency and building a guiding coalition.

The lack of training and professional development opportunities identified in the review points to a critical area for improvement. Continuous, high-quality professional development focused on inclusive practices is essential for both leaders and teachers. This supports the findings of Ainscow (2005), who emphasized the importance of professional learning in creating inclusive schools.

The findings of this review contribute to the theoretical understanding of systemic school leadership in several ways. First, they reinforce the importance of contextual factors in shaping leadership practices, supporting contingency theories of leadership (Fiedler, 1967). The success of various initiatives across different contexts suggests that effective inclusive leadership is not a one-size-fits-all approach but must be adapted to local needs and conditions.

Second, the emphasis on collaborative and distributed leadership models aligns with social justice leadership theory (Theoharis, 2007), which posits that effective leaders must actively work to address inequities and promote inclusive practices. The findings extend this theory by providing empirical evidence of how such leadership approaches can be implemented and their impacts on educational outcomes.

Third, the identification of data-driven practices as a key theme in effective inclusive leadership contributes to the growing body of literature on evidence-based educational leadership (Spillane, 2012). It suggests that the use of data in decision-making is not just a tool for accountability but can be a powerful lever for promoting equity and inclusion.

While this review provides valuable insights into systemic school leadership for inclusive education, several areas warrant further investigation:

• Long-term impacts: Most studies included in this review were relatively short-term. Longitudinal research is needed to understand the long-term impacts of inclusive leadership practices on student outcomes, school culture and community engagement.

• Global contexts: The majority of studies were conducted in developed Western countries. Further research is needed in diverse global settings, particularly in developing countries facing unique challenges in implementing inclusive education.

• Quantitative evidence: While qualitative studies provided rich insights, there is a need for more large-scale quantitative studies to provide broader evidence of the impacts of inclusive leadership practices.

• Intersection with other reforms: Future research could explore the intersection of inclusive leadership practices with other educational reforms, such as competency-based education or personalized learning.

• Technology and inclusive leadership: The role of technology in supporting inclusive leadership practices, particularly in light of the increased use of remote and hybrid learning models is an area ripe for investigation.

This systematic review highlights the transformative potential of systemic school leadership in promoting high-quality inclusive education. By synthesizing insights from policy, administration and instructional domains, it provides a framework for leadership transformation that can sustain impactful, democratic education reforms globally.

The findings demonstrate that effective inclusive leadership is characterized by collaboration, equity-focused decision making, commitment to professional development, community engagement and data-driven practices. Successful initiatives in professional learning, distributed leadership, community engagement and specialized diversity programs offer models for implementation.

However, significant challenges remain, including resistance to change, resource constraints and the complexities of managing diverse educational needs. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach involving policy reforms, resource allocation and cultural shifts within educational institutions.

The benefits of inclusive leadership extend beyond academic performance to encompass improved teacher retention, enhanced school climate, greater student well-being and the development of student leadership skills. Moreover, these benefits ripple out into the broader community, fostering social cohesion, increasing community engagement and empowering marginalized groups.

As schools nurture inclusive leadership, they cultivate a mindset that values diversity and inclusion within the broader community, contributing to the development of more equitable and vibrant societies. This review underscores the need for continued research, particularly in diverse global contexts and over longer time frames, to further understand and optimize the impact of inclusive leadership in education.

In conclusion, systemic school leadership for inclusive education represents a powerful lever for educational reform. By embracing and implementing inclusive leadership practices, schools can move closer to the ideal of providing high-quality, equitable education for all students, regardless of their background or abilities. This not only enhances individual student outcomes but also contributes to the creation of more just and inclusive societies.

Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement: The article is based on a review of published literature and no new data were created.