Abstract
Effective school leadership is widely recognized as a key determinant of student behavior and school climate, particularly in elementary settings where learners are developing foundational habits of discipline and respect. Although prior research highlights the influence of transformational and transactional leadership on student outcomes, empirical evidence is limited regarding how these leadership styles relate to student discipline in the Trinidad II District of Bohol. This study, therefore, examined the relationship between school leadership style and student discipline among elementary learners during the School Year 2025–2026. Guided by Transformational Leadership Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and Situational Leadership Theory, the research explored how leadership approaches influence classroom behavior and students’ respect for rules and authority. A descriptive–correlational, cross-sectional design was employed, involving 100 elementary teachers selected through simple random sampling across 13 public schools. Data were gathered using validated questionnaires to measure leadership style and standardized instruments to assess student discipline. Statistical analyses included descriptive measures and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Findings revealed very high levels of transformational (M = 4.49) and transactional leadership (M = 4.43), indicating that school heads actively inspire, motivate, and uphold structured expectations. Student discipline was rated highly in respect for rules and authority (M = 4.33) but moderately in classroom behavior (M = 4.18). A weak yet statistically significant positive correlation (r = 0.316, p = 0.001) was found between leadership style and student discipline, suggesting that leadership contributes to student conduct but interacts with other contextual factors. The study concludes that a balanced integration of transformational and transactional leadership fosters a more positive and disciplined school environment. Recommendations include leadership training, policy support, and further research on long-term effects.
