Differentiation in Educational Leaders’ Approaches to Student Psychosocial Support: A Latent Profile Analysis
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify and explicate differentiated approaches adopted by educational leaders in organising systemic psychosocial support for students, with particular attention to both direct student-focused interventions and indirect strategies aimed at strengthening teachers’ professional capacities. Additionally, the study sought to examine how specific configurations of leadership practices differentiate schools in terms of the degree of institutionalisation of psychosocial support, and to identify leadership characteristics conducive to coherent, proactive support models. Design/Methodology/Approach: The study employed a quantitative research design and was conducted on a sample of 474 principals and deputy principals representing primary, secondary, and vocational schools. Data were collected using a standardised questionnaire encompassing five dimensions of institutional practice: the presence of systemic psychosocial support structures, collaboration with psychological and pedagogical counselling services, teachers’ access to specialist counselling, participation in external professional development initiatives, and the implementation of internal professional development activities. Data analysis was carried out using Latent Profile Analysis (LPA), with model selection guided by the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and entropy indices. Findings: The latent profile analysis revealed qualitatively distinct school profiles differing in the scope, coherence, and level of integration of psychosocial support activities. The identified profiles demonstrated significant variation in the intensity of collaboration with external support institutions, the availability of specialist support for teachers, and the degree of systematic professional development. Schools characterised by integrated and proactive leadership exhibited a markedly higher level of sustainability and institutional embeddedness of psychosocial support than schools operating within fragmented or predominantly reactive frameworks. Practical implications: The findings provide an empirical basis for designing differentiated support strategies tailored to distinct leadership profiles. They offer valuable guidance for leadership development programmes, the strategic planning of teacher professional development, and the formulation of educational policies aimed at strengthening schools’ systemic capacity to support students’ psychosocial well-being. Originality/Value: This study contributes a novel perspective to research on educational leadership by applying latent profile analysis to identify patterns in the organisation of psychosocial support within schools. Its originality lies in conceptualising psychosocial support as a durable, systemic school capacity rooted in leadership practices, rather than as a set of ad hoc responses to crisis situations.