Trust in school leadership is widely recognised as central to effective schools, yet remains underexamined in empirical research.
A 2023 study titled ‘Factors contributing to and detracting from relational trust in leadership: The case of primary schools in South Africa’ looks at this gap, focusing on how trust is built and eroded in South African primary schools. Using a relational lens, the study examines the everyday factors that strengthen or undermine trust between leaders, staff, and school communities.
The study: eight schools across two provinces
The research draws on a case study of eight primary schools in South Africa: four high-performing and four low-performing. These are located in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal, selected using national datasets including the 2014 Annual National Assessments and 2017 Schools Master List.
The sample includes 84 respondents in low-performing schools and 129 in high-performing schools, with data gathered through semi-structured interviews, documentary analysis, and detailed case reports. A preliminary exercise found no difference in how participants understood the concept of trust, despite linguistic and cultural diversity.
Context: inequality shapes trust
The study is set against a deeply unequal education system. It cites evidence that only 16% of Grade 3 learners perform at the appropriate level, with a widening gap between poorer and wealthier learners. In some contexts, just 4% of learners read at grade level. Within this system, distrust between principals, teachers, governing bodies and districts is identified as a persistent barrier to improvement.
What builds and breaks trust
The study identifies 10 broad themes shaping trust in leadership and reports 31 factors that detract from trust and 29 that contribute to it. Across the sample, low-performing schools report more factors that undermine trust, particularly those linked to social and structural conditions. These include high levels of poverty, fractured community relationships, and language barriers between schools and parents.
School governing bodies play a prominent but contested role. In some cases, regular reporting between principals and governing bodies is associated with trust. However, governing bodies are often viewed more as support or fundraising structures than as accountability mechanisms, and in some schools they are associated with perceptions of nepotism and mismanagement.
Leadership behaviour emerges as a decisive factor. In high-performing schools, leaders are described as reliable, supportive, and open, with practices such as regular meetings and transparent communication. In low-performing schools, respondents report weak communication, a lack of transparency, and limited support, which, in some cases, leads teachers to bypass leadership and seek support elsewhere.
The role of unions and systems
Teacher unions feature strongly in the findings. In some schools, they provide development and support where leadership is weak, strengthening trust among staff. At the same time, when unions take on leadership roles, this is associated with reduced trust in school leadership itself. The study notes that, despite broader concerns in the literature, it found no evidence that teachers neglected their duties due to union activity.
Procedural factors – especially accountability and communication systems – also differentiate schools. Low-performing schools report weak or inconsistent systems, “blame cultures,” and limited support. High-performing schools, by contrast, report clearer structures and more open internal processes.
The bottom line
The study shows that both internal practices and wider context shape trust in school leadership. High-performing schools are more likely to exhibit coherent leadership practices and structured systems that support trust. Low-performing schools report more factors undermining trust, including weak leadership, limited accountability, and challenging social conditions.
Across all cases, one finding holds: where senior leadership establishes clear processes and supportive relationships, trust is more likely to take hold. Where this is absent, trust weakens – often replaced by reliance on unions or informal support networks.
