Developing primary schools as professional learning communities: the “why” and “how”

Recent socioeconomic and technological changes and related crises have reinforced the perception that education is crucial to strengthen nations and facilitate social unity and economic growth (UNICEF, 2025). Education, especially in primary schools, helps form children’s character and academic abilities and empowers them to become future citizens of an unpredictable, complex world (Alexopoulos & Dimas, 2023; Minciu, Veith, Dobrea, & Ciocoiu, 2025; UNICEF, 2025; Ventista & Brown, 2023). Primary schools must simultaneously consider student achievement and well-being to ensure educational quality, the “society of knowledge” and student assessment (e.g. Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA]) (Antinluoma, Ilomäki, Lahti-Nuuttila, & Toom, 2018; Farrugia, 2015). Although policymakers focus on strategies for improving schools, there are concerns with the efficacy and equity of student achievement (Welsh, Williams, Bryant, & Berry, 2021) because organisational learning capacity is not considered sufficiently (Senge, 1990, 2012). Therefore, the European Commission, Council of Europe, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recommend considering schools as learning communities. Hence, primary schools must reconsider their pedagogical approaches (Flecha, 2015; Minciu et al., 2025; OECD, 2018) and support the quality and professional development of educators (Mydin, Xia, & Long, 2024; OECD, 2019; Ventista & Brown, 2023).

Educators must continuously adapt to meet students’ needs, which requires alternative instructional methods and collaborative professional learning (Huijboom, Van Meeuwen, Rusman, & Vermeulen, 2021; Sharmahd et al., 2017; Ventista & Brown, 2023). However, conventional professional growth methods (e.g. top-down strategies and attending conferences, workshops or courses) often do not emphasise educator cooperation and development (Hudson, 2024; Huijboom, Van Meeuwen, Rusman, & Vermeulen, 2021; Sharmahd et al., 2017). These methods are often fragmented, episodic and misaligned with teachers’ professional needs and adult learning styles (Mydin, Xia, & Long, 2024; Sancar, Atal, & Deryakulu, 2021; Sharmahd et al., 2017). As an alternative, professional development should be organised through professional learning communities (PLCs) that view learning as a collaborative and social process based on bottom-up strategies involving teachers, students, families, communities and educational institutions (Hord, 1997a, 1997b, 2004; Senge, 1990; Sharmahd et al., 2017). PLCs foster (co-)reflective, cooperative, inclusive, learning-oriented and growth-oriented environments that focus more on learning than teaching (Sharmahd et al., 2017; Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006). These environments enhance teachers’ instructional skills and professional competencies, thus enhancing educational quality, student learning outcomes and school innovation (Clark, Zhan, Dellinger, & Semingson, 2023; Huijboom et al., 2021; Hudson, 2024; Mydin et al., 2024; Sancar et al., 2021; Sharmahd et al., 2017). This holistic framework is considered the most appropriate professional development strategy to improve the entire school while simultaneously promoting individual, team and systemic organisational development (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005; Farrugia, 2015; Hord, 2004; Huijboom et al., 2021; Mydin et al., 2024; Senge, 1990; Sharmahd et al., 2017).

PLCs benefit teachers, students and schools. They improve teachers’ effectiveness; self-efficacy (Liang, Song, & Sun, 2020); performance (Mydin et al., 2024); professional learning; competencies; teamwork (Liu, 2024); ability to bond with students (Hord, 1997a); identity and agency (McPherson & Asghar, 2023); innovative teaching practices (Clark et al., 2023; Liang et al., 2020); job satisfaction (Zhang & Yuan, 2020); confidence; and attitudes towards innovation, research, improvement and professional development (Toole & Louis, 2002). PLCs increase students’ performance, achievement scores, academic gains and social development (Akram, Taj, & Malik, 2023; Hord, 1997a; Stoll et al., 2006). These teacher and student benefits contribute to organisational well-being and foster a cohesive, supportive and adaptable school environment (DuFour et al., 2005; Hord, 2004; Huijboom et al., 2021; Mydin et al., 2024; Sharmahd et al., 2017). However, these benefits can vary across different conditions, contexts and school environments (i.e. the degree of centralisation or decentralisation (Christensen, Nielbo, & Gümüş, 2024; Huijboom et al., 2021; Mydin et al., 2024).

In decentralised systems, schools and educators can align learning opportunities with local needs (Boeskens, Nusche, & Yurita, 2020). By contrast, a centralised system with top-down regulation of professional learning and cooperation may decrease initiatives, motivation and innovation; increase workload and isolation; and constrain teachers’ professional development (Chen, 2022; Toole & Louis, 2002). There has been limited research on how the autonomy and (in)ability of schools to make decisions regarding key practices and policies for PLC implementation (Christensen et al., 2024). Furthermore, PLCs are conceptualised and implemented based on universal models. While there has been quantitative research focusing on PLCs’ effects/positive outcomes, in-depth investigation of the school micro- and macro-contexts, particularly in centralised educational systems, is needed.

The Greek educational system is highly centralised, bureaucratic and hierarchical, with limited school autonomy (OECD, 2018). The Ministry of Education makes key decisions for long-term educational objectives and regulates curriculum content, staff recruitment and funding (Eurydice, 2023), and principals have limited decision-making authority. In this qualitative study, we explore how PLCs are implemented in the highly centralised Greek school system based on the five dimensions of Hord’s PLC framework (i.e. supportive and shared leadership, shared values and vision, collective learning and application, shared personal practice and supportive conditions). Specifically, the objective of this study is to identify how teachers and principals experience PLC implementation in Greek primary schools and the developmental/maturity level (i.e. initiation, implementation and institutionalisation/maturity) of these schools as PLCs. Our research questions (RQs) are as follows:

Although PLC is a collective school phenomenon, research on educators’ perceptual differences is scarce. Thus, we include primary school teachers and principals to determine variations in their perceptions, visions and interactions within the primary school environment based on professional roles, thus avoiding potential bias from relying on a single group of informants (Veletić, Price, & Olsen, 2023). Given Greece’s very low PISA performance (OECD, 2018) and limited PLC implementation (Alexopoulos & Dimas, 2023; Balasi & Iordanidis, 2024; Koutouzis & Papazoglou, 2022; Oikonomou, 2025), it is necessary to examine which PLC developmental/maturity level schools could achieve in a highly centralised school system, such as in Greek while simultaneously revealing implications and challenges.

Schools that want to support, optimise and maintain teacher learning should develop the processes and practices of “learning organisations”. Senge (1990, p. 3) defined a “learning organisation” as an “organisation where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free and where people are continually learning how to learn together”. This definition highlights systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning. Moreover, Senge (1990, 2012) argued that schools function as learning organisations when their structures enable their staff to learn and develop professionally, transforming them into genuine communities focused on student learning (and less on teaching), synergy and accountability. In education, this adaptation of the learning organisation has evolved into the PLC framework (Hord, 1997a).

Although there are a myriad of PLC definitions that vary depending on the context (Christensen et al., 2024; Hord, 1997a, 1997b; Huijboom et al., 2021; Stoll et al., 2006; Toole & Louis, 2002), the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory credited Hord’s definition. Hord (1997a) defined PLCs as workplaces where school leadership and teachers intentionally work together, seek and share learning and act on their learning to enhance their professional effectiveness and student achievement. Hord’s PLC theoretical framework includes five dimensions: supportive and shared leadership, shared values and vision, collective learning and application, shared personal practice and supportive conditions (relationships and structures). This five-dimensional model highlights the conducive structural conditions, supportive leadership policies and actions and shared beliefs and values that favour intentional team/collaborative learning and, in turn, the ability of schools to be guided by a common vision based on trust and support among colleagues and to improve student learning (Hudson, 2024; Mydin et al., 2024).

The Greek Ministry of Education has not established a concrete plan to develop PLCs, but the concept appears as an objective in Greek legislation, which addresses Collective Planning and Internal and External Evaluation of School Units Regarding Their Educational Work (Government Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, 2021). Moreover, the Ministry has established online seminars (conducted outside school) for newly appointed teachers, covering topics like (professional) communities of learning and practice. These PLC seminars focus on shared vision and values; individual and collective learning, reflection and professional development; mutual respect, trust and support; a culture of collaboration, sharing and exchange; tools for sharing information/practices, structures and space for communication and social interactions; and supportive and facilitative leadership (Greek Institute of Educational Policy, 2022). These aspects align with Hord’s (1997a) PLC dimensions, suggesting that this framework is suitable for researching the Greek educational context.

Hord’s (1997a, 1997b, 2004, 2009) framework includes five PLC dimensions: supportive and shared leadership; shared values and vision; collective learning and application; shared personal practice; and supportive conditions (relationships and structures). Supportive and shared leadership refers to the sharing of leadership roles, authority, power and decision-making. Shared values and vision refer to the collective vision of teaching and student learning. Collective learning and application refer to staff collaboration and collective learning through constructive dialogue, research and reflection. Shared personal practice refers to a culture of trust, collegial support, feedback and respect owing to sharing knowledge, materials and expertise. Finally, supportive conditions refer to human relationships (trust, respect, solidarity) and physical/structural conditions (allotted time, space, resources, physical proximity, communication, school autonomy, etc.) that support PLC operations. These supportive conditions define when, where and how staff members have opportunities to attend training together, engage in collaborative learning and work, resolve issues and problems, receive feedback and make collective decisions (Hord, 2004).

As described by Huffman and Hipp (2003), based on Fullan’s (2007) change ideas, schools gradually transform into PLCs through three stages: initiation, implementation and institutionalisation. Initiation is connected to student needs, school values and norms, but there is not a collective school culture (Leclerc, Moreau, & Lépine, 2009). Implementation involves high expectations; feedback; support; and sharing of power, authority and responsibilities, all of which increase student performance. Institutionalisation concerns the change initiative embedded in the school’s organisational culture. Bolam et al. (2005) mentioned three PLC stages: starter (low percentage of staff involvement in key PLC activities), developer (moderate percentage) and mature (high percentage). Verbiest (2011) described three stages/concepts of PLC capacities: broadening (more people than before are active towards a PLC perspective), deepening (increased quality of the learning and organisational conditions for individual and team learning) and anchoring (individual and team learning processes are embedded in the school policy).

Various internal and external factors are crucial for implementing PLCs. The internal environment is influenced by meetings time allocation, training, collaboration, technical and physical resources, professional development support, a collective culture of continuous learning and a trustworthy climate, solidarity, learning and societal relationships (Huffman & Hipp, 2003; Leclerc et al., 2009; McPherson & Asghar, 2023; Mydin et al., 2024; Saks, Hunt, Leijen, & Lepp, 2025; Sancar et al., 2021; Zhang & Yuan, 2020). School leaders are also important in learning communities (Boeskens et al., 2020; Hord, 1997a, 1997b, 2004; Truong et al., 2025). External variables include relationships and collaborations between schools and external stakeholders, political decisions (Bolam et al., 2005; Boeskens et al., 2020; Hord, 1997a; OECD, 2019; Truong et al., 2025) and school autonomy or centralisation and bureaucracy (Boeskens et al., 2020; Chen, 2022). However, the literature is limited and not many studies have investigated inhibiting factors and/or school autonomy (Christensen et al., 2024; Mydin et al., 2024).

This study received ethical approval from the University’s of Western Macedonia Human Research Ethics Committee. We used stratified sampling to select one school from each of the 13 Greek regions to achieve a broad sample of a specific case; that is, a highly centralised school system. We called the school principals to gauge their willingness to participate. After agreeing to participate, we emailed an informed consent letter that stated participation was voluntary and all data would be anonymised. Then, we applied convenience/purposive sampling to select participants who could provide detailed, in-depth information (Sarfo, Debrah, Gbordzoe, Afful, & Obeng, 2021). We included one school principal and one teacher from each of the 13 participating schools, and six additional school principals who asked to participate and we agreed. Table 1 lists the profiles of the participants, who are assigned a code with the letter “T” (teacher) or “P” (principal) and a number.

We conducted semistructured interview based on a predetermined interview guide that we pilot tested to adapt to the Greek school context. Each interviewer began by asking the participant about their background to collect demographic information and to break the ice. There were six main questions for teachers and principals, adapted from the interview guide of Blacklock (2009) and related to the five PLC dimensions (see Supplementary_ material_appendix). The interviewer could ask follow-up questions (e.g. “Can you clarify a bit more?”; “Where/when do you apply this?”) after the participant had answered the question to get clarification.

We interviewed the 26 principals and teachers from the 13 schools via Zoom, with each interview lasting 35−40 min. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed prior to analysis by the authors. The participants checked the transcripts and confirmed their validity. The other six participants provided written responses to open-ended questions to provide their thoughts, feelings and opinions. The entire duration of our 26 interviews was 1,016 min (17 h and 33 min), and 54 pages of transcripts emerged for analysis.

We used an interpretive phenomenological research approach to analyse the teachers’ and principals’ experiences of PLC implementation and to uncover their hidden meanings (Sarfo, Debrah, Gbordzoe, Afful, & Obeng, 2021). We used thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022) to develop themes for each PLC dimension. In brief, we read and re-read the transcribed interviews and other documents to immerse ourselves in the words of the participants and relate them to the five PLC dimensions. Then, we identified codes, and compiled clusters of codes into emerging themes and thematic axes. When necessary, we included some codes in more than one theme. The themes that emerged were situated under a thematic axis that focused on one particular aspect, bringing analytical attention and emphasis to that aspect. The thematic axes were based on the existing literature (Hord’s PLC dimensions). To confirm our analysis, we grouped all coded excerpts by theme and checked whether they made sense both on their own and within the full set of data. We achieved data saturation. In the Results, we present the themes for each PLC dimension, along with supportive quotations that we translated into English.

The findings revealed that leadership roles are assumed based on teachers’ participation in decision-making, dialogue, expressions of ideas, conversations, suggestions and taking on responsibilities and initiatives (Table 2). According to a teacher, staff members make “some suggestions for changes” and teachers “take some initiatives, as much as they can”. A principal noted they use teachers’ “ideas and support the initiatives they undertake. I try not to burden them with tasks beyond their teaching.”

The teachers and principals also referred to the contexts and methods of supportive and shared leadership. A teacher mentioned that:

A principal elaborated on these meetings, noting that they encourage “school staff to take initiative, participate in decision-making, take risks, take responsibilities, and submit proposals for changes’’.

There are also factors inhibiting supportive and shared leadership application. A teacher mentioned: “Leadership roles are held by the principal and vice principal, while some initiatives are taken during the legally mandated regular meetings of teachers”. According to a principal, “There are no intentions of taking leadership roles on the part of teachers. I always try to encourage them after discussions, but I wouldn’t say the results are satisfying.”

Based on the findings, educators share the vision of the school as a place to improve learning results for all students (Table 3). A teacher mentioned “a willingness to cooperate and help each other and a favourable climate for a fruitful exchange of opinions to improve teaching and student learning or deal with difficult situations”. A principal stated, “Teachers, in many cases, share the common goal of student learning”.

Regarding how shared values and vision are cultivated, a teacher stated that “dialogue and discussion help us share our ideas, vision, thoughts, dreams, and desires about the school vision”. In this context:

Some factors can also inhibit this vision. A teacher said, “Unfortunately, there is no explicitly expressed vision in our school, nor has there ever been discussion about it”. Another mentioned the prevalence of substitute teachers, “so is not always possible to establish a common vision”. A principal noted: “Occasional collaborations and joint actions exist, but there is no deep-rooted belief in the value of collaboration”.

The findings reveal that individual and collective learning takes place, and there is sometimes feedback and collective support to improve student outcomes (Table 4). Teachers “try to exchange views and discuss empirically proven effective methods and practices”. For principals, “the results of each teacher’s action are disseminated and shared among the school community, teachers, students, and parents so that everyone becomes part of the process and receives feedback”.

In terms of the (desired) outcomes of collective learning and application, a teacher stated, “Through collaboration with colleagues and their suggestions or recommendations, I solve problems in my teaching that hinder my students’ progress”. Likewise, a principal noted, “Through collective learning, our common goal is not only the professional development of our staff but also of our school as a whole”.

School principals referred to their contributions to collective learning and its applications. A principal “strive[s] to encourage the teachers to participate in seminars and trainings, through which the personal theory of the teachers is enriched and modified”.

Finally, the principals mentioned factors inhibiting collective learning and application, including the lack of a “cooperative culture[…]in the Greek education system” and “vertical hierarchies and undermining[…]from the system itself”. Although “there are some examples of collaborations of two or three teachers collaborating on a topic[…]it just doesn’t happen to the entire staff or at school level”.

According to the participants, a collaborative and sharing environment seems to exist (Table 5). In terms of strategies, they “use discussion, dialogue, and the exchange of views to share teaching practices” and “often represent [their] practice of teaching”. They ask colleagues for help, and they help others. According to principals, “Teachers exchange views on the best practices they learned in seminars or applied in practice” and “teachers of the same classes work together and the older ones advise/guide the younger ones”.

Regarding the context of sharing, teachers share their strategies, best education practices and actions for improvement “during breaks in the teachers’ office”, “in legally mandated regular teacher meetings” and “during seminars, conducted outside the school”.

According to principals, they facilitate the sharing of personal practice among teachers by “gradually cultivat[ing a] climate of security and trust, and for this a feeling of constant support and the motivation to try something new are essential”. Moreover, “interpersonal discussions and provision of information by principals are essential for teachers to share their personal practice”.

In terms of factors inhibiting shared personal practice, principals mainly highlighted the isolation and privacy of the teaching profession. One mentioned “a tendency for the teacher to close in on him/herself as soon as he/she closes the classroom door”. Another said, “The teacher’s autonomy in the classroom, based on the current legislative framework, creates personal-individual teaching practices and methods”, meaning “everyone deals with their own class”. Moreover, when schools only have one or two teachers, “there is no time[…]for a common break or discussion”.

The findings indicate that certain interpersonal skills and ethical values encourage collaborative learning, teamwork and sharing (Table 6). A teacher highlighted that “daily contact helps to cultivate caring relationships” and “collegiality, solidarity, and mutual respect[…]maintain such relationships”. A principal noted that respect for others, acceptance of diversity, a democratic spirit and compliance with the principles of dialogue” promote:

There are several ways to develop relationships. According to a teacher, “mutual respect is expressed” when “roles and obligations” do not overlap. A principal highlighted “implementation of the institutional framework removes the risk of misunderstandings and arbitrariness and promotes the responsibility and seriousness of teachers”. Another said, “Relations are promoted through correct communication and understanding, fair and equal treatment of all colleagues, resolution of issues related to responsibilities, and application of regulations−rules”.

Teachers also mentioned inhibiting factors, including the belief “that the school does not facilitate caring relationships as this depends only on the moods and aspirations of each teacher”. Sometimes, “the principal[…]does not want to take responsibility for issues arising from conflicts among the staff. As a result, a negative atmosphere is created, and some issues are not resolved”.

Regarding supportive structures for teacher collaboration (Table 6), a teacher highlighted “the teachers’ office [a]s a space for dialogue and exchange of ideas” to improve teaching practices. A principal asserted, “In my school, all of the available equipment has been fully utilised and is continuously maintained and fully functional”. These means “enable the teachers to work together to improve student learning”.

Principals also referred to their role in formation, acquisition and provision of the school structures. “Given the scarcity of available resources in general”, they commit “many hours of personal work” to ensure teachers have access to the necessary structures. They “mainly promote equal treatment in the provision of resources and means” and “try to approach the municipal authorities, the parents’ association, and sponsors to equip [their] school[s] with modern media and communication systems”.

Finally, according to teachers, a major structural factor impeding their collective work is their work schedule, because they “leave after the end of [their] teaching hours”, but “could use this time more fruitfully”. Principals also mentioned “many instances[…]where teachers must supervise students during breaks, leaving them insufficient time (for other professional learning activities, communication, collaboration etc.)”. Although they:

Although the teachers and principals indicate that they interact in a learning community, they actually seem to interact in a formal bureaucratic context based on rules, regulations and institutional constraints. For example, their collective learning practices and strategies occur in legally mandated meetings or based on institutional rules and regulations. Therefore, the participating schools could function as PLCs, but we conclude that because of the formal context and inhibiting factors, they have not reached the institutionalisation stage. Moreover, the participants described heterogenous outcomes: while there is sometimes failure to achieve collaboration, supportive conditions could provide a more supportive, cooperative climate. Hence, primary schools exhibit the PLC characteristics to varying degrees and depending on the circumstances. While PLCs have similar characteristics, their complexity requires an investigation that considers contextual characteristics and local realities.

Interesting, principals and teachers had different perspectives on PLC practices. Firstly, teachers believed that principals do not share leadership roles for significant issues, while principals believed that teachers lack sufficient competency to assume leadership roles. Secondly, teachers believed that they share their practices, but principals felt this collaboration lacked depth and was limited to the classroom. Thirdly, teachers perceived positive relationships with their colleagues but mentioned their schools had limited interest in developing staff relationships. Finally, principals considered that they distribute resources equally and collaborate with outside organisations, but teachers found the resources to be limited and management inflexible.

Based on Hord’s (1997a, 1997b) framework, we explored teachers’ and principals’ experiences of implementing the five PLC dimensions in Greek primary schools. We interpreted how the participants’ perceptions and beliefs have shaped their actions within the school context and assessed the maturity level of primary schools as PLCs. An important finding is that Greek primary schools have not yet developed as mature PLCs, primarily due to inhibiting factors that constrain their engagement in the PLC dimensions. This finding raises the question as to whether PLCs are actually enacted or merely remain a promising idea within a highly centralised school system. Overall, our study contributes to the development and understanding of PLC theory in specific educational contexts. Moreover, we identified inhibiting factors, which have rarely been investigated in the PLC context (Christensen et al., 2024). We provide insights into the level of PLC development that could be achieved by primary schools in a highly centralised school system and suggest future directions for policy, practice and research.

In Greek primary schools, participants reported experiencing supportive and shared leadership through principals’ efforts to distribute responsibilities, encourage taking risks and initiative and involve teachers in decision-making. However, power, authority and leadership roles are not always shared, as principals often make the final decisions. Moreover, shared leadership is enacted within a formal framework defined by legislation, which limits the scope and flexibility. These findings align with studies showing that primary school principals tend to embrace democratic leadership values and approaches; encourage participation in decision-making; and attempt to apply distributed, transformational and instructional leadership to develop supportive learning environments (Bush, 2018, 2020, 2023; Nadeem, 2024; Sharmahd et al., 2017). However, particularly in centralised school systems, primary schools face multiple obstacles during the implementation of distributed leadership, including resistance to change, rigid hierarchical structures, scepticism regarding shared decision-making, limited collaborative leadership skills and perceptions that assigning additional responsibilities is burdensome (Nadeem, 2024; OECD, 2018).

In Greek school system, strong centralised power, hierarchical authority and top-down decision-making limit principals’ and teachers’ autonomy and adaptability (Alexopoulos & Dimas, 2023; Iordanides, Tsakiridou, & Balasi, 2015; Koutouzis & Papazoglou, 2022). These conditions are often reflected in rigid and autocratic school leadership, limiting the possibility to apply distributed leadership (Bush, 2018, 2020). This challenge is exacerbated by the fact that Greek school principals do not receive educational and school management training and thus often lack the theoretical and practical knowledge to enact distributed leadership effectively (Alexopoulos & Dimas, 2023). Their role is more administrative than pedagogical; they lack autonomy in resource allocation, curriculum design and teacher selection; and they cannot observe teachers in their classrooms during lessons and give feedback (OECD, 2018).

In Greek primary schools, shared values and vision focus primarily on student learning and achievement. This aligns with the demand that primary schools prepare students to be successful in an unpredictable and ever-evolving future, with an emphasis on equity, well-being and respect for diversity (Sharmahd et al., 2017). Consequently, educators aim to provide safe classrooms that are conducive to learning, maintain high expectations for all students and implement educational strategies that maximise learning outcomes (DuFour et al., 2005; OECD, 2019).

Although the Greek educational community has a “national commitment” to enhance equity and student outcomes (OECD, 2018), the participants indicated the lack of data-driven metrics to assess student outcomes and accountability. This could be attributed to the Greek assessment culture, where student performance is continuous, descriptive and embedded in the teaching process (Eurydice, 2025). Although Greek primary schools and teachers are formally evaluated, they lack a strong culture of accountability and tend to avoid school rankings and comparisons (OECD, 2018). Moreover, top-down approaches in developing and implementing school vision may silence teachers’ professional voices and the dialogue about the meaning of student achievement (Daniel, Arieli, & Akerman, 2024). This may impede trust, meaningful professional collaboration and measurable results regarding learning goals (Sharmahd et al., 2017). Although parents and local communities play a crucial role in shaping school vision, they have limited participation in Greek schools (OECD, 2018). Therefore, school improvement requires a comprehensive approach that incorporates teaching practices, leadership quality, student achievement and well-being and community engagement (Sharmahd et al., 2017; Toikka & Tarnanen, 2024).

The participants described experiencing a collective-supportive (professional) learning environment in which teachers share knowledge and practices, and collaborate. In primary schools, sharing and collective learning occur when educators work together to improve their professional skills; participate in decision-making; share materials and ideas; collaborate with peers and pupils; and engage in discussions, reflection and feedback (Sharmahd et al., 2017). School self-evaluation in Greek primary schools also contributes (OECD, 2018). However, principals often referred to teachers’ professional learning obligations as compulsory rather than intentional. Collaboration among teachers is associated with formal, top-down processes. Similarly, although teachers would sometimes share practices and observe colleagues classrooms, they were usually legally mandated and limited by inhibiting factors (e.g. classroom isolation, individual teaching practices and strong professional autonomy). Hence, teachers mainly acquire knowledge on their own.

The inhibiting factors imply a culture of privacy and limited collective autonomy, transparency and team accountability, which are consistent with the core characteristics of primary schools. Teachers typically work in isolated classrooms and have little time for collaboration with peers, in line with the historical tradition of the teaching profession (DuFour et al., 2005; Hord, 2004). Fear of criticism and concerns about professional identity and expertise make teachers suspicious of collective autonomy and accountability and collaborative training and practices, such as co-teaching, peer observation and joint reflection and research (Alexopoulos & Dimas, 2023; Saks et al., 2025; Sharmahd et al., 2017). In the Greek school system, more experienced teachers are not rewarded with mentorship opportunities; rather, they are given fewer teaching hours, indicating underutilisation of human resources in peer collaboration (OECD, 2018). Moreover, highly centralised school systems contribute to teacher isolation and a lack of a professional voice due to limited bottom‐up communication and teacher participation in policymaking (Cuomo, Balzano, Minichini, & Serpico, 2016).

Based on the findings, educators are supported by human relationships, capacities and structures. Greek primary school principals tend to cultivate a collegial and cooperative culture (Iordanides et al., 2015), manage and supervise schools more operationally and practically and build strong interpersonal relationships (De La Cruz, 2019). Nevertheless, institutional regulations strongly shape these relationships, often reinforcing formal roles, procedures and bureaucratic communication. Teachers’ reluctance to build relationships, ineffective conflict management, limited time and space for collaboration (Saks et al., 2025; Zhang & Yuan, 2020), school building structures/resources (Antinluoma et al., 2018), fragmented communication (Oikonomou, 2025) and reliance on informal interactions during breaks or formal meetings limit the development of a collective-collaborative culture, which could counteract professional isolation (DuFour et al., 2005; Hord, 1997a, 1997b, 2004).

Job insecurity among Greek teachers, many of whom hold temporary or substitute positions, further undermines trust, long-term commitment and engagement with school improvement initiatives. Heavy workloads, administrative demands, limited resources and bureaucratic procedures also restrict opportunities for collaboration among both teachers and principals. Moreover, Greek schools lack financial autonomy, as funding decisions are made centrally, limiting flexibility in resource use (OECD, 2018).

Differences in teachers’ and principals’ views indicate that the hierarchical position influences how PLC dimensions are understood and experienced, consistent with social identity theory (Van Jaarsveld & Mentz, 2021). These perceptual variations may hinder communication, trust and alignment on school improvement goals, ultimately leading to limited teacher engagement and communication. Addressing these micro-contextual barriers requires principals to foster transparent communication and shared understanding of beliefs and expectations (Veletić et al., 2023).

Based on our findings, Fullan’s (2007) stages of innovation and change, and PLC development (Bolam et al., 2005; Verbiest, 2011), Greek primary schools show early characteristics of PLCs but remain at the second developmental level (implementation). Teachers and principals are beginning to apply PLC principles, but practices remain fragmented. Schools show a shared vision for teaching and student learning with high expectations, but it is not clearly reflected in school practices and priorities. While the physical and human conditions allow collaboration, teachers mainly engage in surface-level cooperative activities rather than deep professional collaboration, and often act competitively or in isolation. Principals offer support and delegate some of their authority but their practices do not foster teacher leadership and a strong collaborative culture (Alexopoulos & Dimas, 2023; Leclerc et al., 2009; Saks, Hunt, Leijen, & Lepp, 2025). Although assessment is used to improve learning outcomes (Huffman & Hipp, 2003), teachers do not perceive it as a collective accountability process and source of information to improve their professional learning. Therefore, primary schools do not implement deeper PLC-related changes or embed professional learning opportunities.

Greek schools face several internal and external challenges to becoming mature PLCs, particularly the hierarchical school culture characterised by formalisation, individualism and isolation (Iordanides et al., 2015). These conditions hinder collaboration, innovation, trust and community engagement, thus making it difficult to implement PLC values (Alexopoulos & Dimas, 2023; Balasi & Iordanidis, 2024; Boeskens et al., 2020; Chen, 2022; Koutouzis & Papazoglou, 2022; OECD, 2018). Therefore, teacher learning and collaboration is framed as individual, top-down professional development that is disconnected from the specific school context (Alexopoulos & Dimas, 2023; Balasi & Iordanidis, 2024).

Our qualitative study revealed that in a highly bureaucratic and centralised school context, PLCs struggle to reach the institutionalisation maturity level. This finding underscores that stronger school autonomy is a key supportive structural condition of PLCs (Hord, 1997a) and an essential factor in the development of a learning community (Bolam et al., 2005). Consequently, PLCs are affected not only by leadership and teacher capacities and school level dynamics (micro-context), but also by organisational and systemic factors (macro-context), indicating a need for theoretical frameworks to be organic/holistic and adapted in distinct school environments; balancing “universal” PLC characteristics with school contextual flexibility.

Establishing a national PLC framework to support implementation at the school level, policymakers could promote PLCs. Policymakers could also provide schools with the necessary financial resources, logistical support, research-based platforms and materials. Using more permanent teaching staff would help embed a PLC vision and culture, and hiring additional staff to handle bureaucratic duties would allow teachers to focus on teaching, professional development and collaboration. We also recommend a national plan for interschool cooperation, both nationally and internationally, to facilitate the exchange of best practices. Moreover, policymakers and professional development advocates should support teachers’ professional development.

Our findings have several practical implications for principals seeking to develop PLCs. They can apply democratic, participatory and shared leadership and actively involve teachers in school processes, leadership and decision-making. They could form teams (with designated roles) to develop teachers’ leadership skills. These teams could facilitate in-school seminars and workshops to strengthen professional development, interpersonal relationships and teamwork to enhance teachers’ confidence, skills, ownership and accountability. Principals could also organise meetings with teachers and stakeholders to establish shared goals, promote innovation and support collective decision-making and problem-solving. Meetings could also focus on student achievement data to ensure a student-centred approach and link PLC activities to student learning outcomes. These initiatives address bureaucratic barriers, mediate conflicts and navigate micro-politics (Clark et al., 2023; Geletu, 2022; Hord, 2004; Mydin et al., 2024; Truong et al., 2025). PLCs could be strengthened by integrating portfolios, diaries, peer observations, coaching and team (interdisciplinary) teaching, and providing support, mentoring and essential resources. Digital platforms (e.g. school blogs, YouTube channels) could be used to establish e-PLCs and PLC networks to facilitate national and international collaboration (Boeskens et al., 2020). Finally, principals could establish a monitoring system and integrate PLC outcomes into school-wide self-assessment methodologies (Geletu, 2022).

This study has several limitations. Firstly, the findings are limited to Greek schools; therefore, comparative studies across centralised and decentralised systems and diverse cultural contexts could deepen understanding of PLCs. Secondly, data were collected solely through interviews, some based on self-report; future studies could incorporate document analysis, diaries, focus groups and participant observation. Researchers could also examine how PLC practices, contextual conditions and barriers relate to student achievement, job satisfaction and school effectiveness. External influencing factors, which were not fully captured, warrant further investigation. Interventional and longitudinal studies could explore how schools evolve into mature PLCs, identify developmental stages and support the creation of assessment tools for evaluating PLC maturity. Finally, given the identified discrepancies between principals’ and teachers’ perspectives, future research could examine school leaders’ emotional intelligence and its role in fostering emotionally supportive environments that encourage adult learning (Louis, 2016).

Based on our empirical findings, Greek primary schools, which are highly centralised, do not yet function as mature PLCs. We identified several inhibiting factors that keep them in the implementation phase. These findings highlight the need for theoretical frameworks adapted to different school environments, especially those with limited school and professional autonomy. In this way, researchers could investigate the application of context-specific strategies to ultimately create optimal PLC conditions for particular educational contexts.

The author extends special thanks to all the participants who spared the time to share their views and experiences.

This research did not receive any specific grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.