Abstract
This paper aimed to investigate successful practices of school leadership that lead to school improvement. To achieve this, the paper adopted the mixed-method approach and utilized two instruments: The first instrument is teachers’ and leadership members’ perceptions of school improvement questionnaire to collect quantitative data, the second instrument is a semi-structured interview with the school principal for the qualitative data. The analysis of both collected data led to a conclusion that school principal careful and professional practices have a significant impact on the overall school improvement. These practices include parents’ engagement, curriculum reform, teachers’ well-being, and professional development for both teachers and leadership members. This case study is an evidence-based guideline for educators and decision makers seeking quality education in their personalized- context learning community.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
1.1 Statement of the Problem
In recent years, deliberate educational policies and strategies have been implemented as attempts to improve students’ achievement and reform the whole schooling process in many countries (Fullan, 2009). School leadership practices are considered the most significant factor of the major impacts on students’ learning (Hattie, 2009). Moreover, Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) suggest that school leadership has to seek for ceaseless changes to cope with the developing needs of the learners. Since school leaders are responsible for schools’ improvement, they need to develop their staff to reach their optimum performance (Ellett & Teddle, 2003) as their teaching approaches and practices are closely linked with students’ achievement and thus the overall school improvement (Lambert, 2003).
1.2 Rationale for the Study
Since The Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA) in Dubai established the Dubai School Inspection Bureau (DSIB) to provide information on the standard of private schools in the emirate of Dubai, schools ratings (weak, acceptable, good, very good, outstanding) have been the major indicator of the quality of teaching and learning each school has (KHDA, 2009). Therefore, school owners, parents, educators, and other stakeholders are becoming close observers of the inspection process and reports. In addition, the researchers have been working in the educational field as teachers and academic heads of departments for more than 15 years and have recently witnessed the improvement of school rating from “acceptable” to “good” soon after a new principal was appointed which is a worthy case study to be examined.
1.3 Aim, Objectives, and Research Questions
The aim of this paper is to investigate the successful practices of school leaders that lead to school improvement. To effectively achieve this, the broad aim of the study is divided into three objectives: to identify school leaders and teachers’ perception of school improvement, to look into the different dimensions of school improvement, and to identify the most significant practices of school leadership on school improvement. These objectives are structured as research questions as follows:
-
1.
What are school leaders and teachers’ perceptions of school improvement?
-
2.
What are the different dimensions of school improvement?
-
3.
What are the successful practices of the school leadership that lead to school improvement?
2 Literature Review
2.1 Conceptual Analysis
School leadership refers to both managerial and administrative decisions and behaviors by the school governing body to influence students’ achievement considering both their needs and desires (Sergiovanni, 2009). Moreover, Cuban (1988) states that there is an obvious distinction between leadership and management as leadership is linked with change while management is regarded as maintaining activity.
School improvement refers to the planned educational change that increases learners’ outcomes (Gordon, 2016). It can be also conceptualized as the continuous progress of the school in achieving the educational goals it was established for. Teaching and learning, school environment, equal learning opportunities, clear and focused mission, school-home relationship, and monitoring students’ progress are all aspects that can clearly identify school improvement (Bush, 2007).
2.2 Theoretical Framework
The capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement has four major concepts that are closely linked with learners’ achievement. According to Hargreaves (2001), these four concepts are: outcomes, leverage, intellectual capital, and social capital. For him, outcomes refer to the achievements of the broad educational goals that are either cognitive or moral. He also defines leverage as the relationship between teachers’ input and the educational output. He elaborates on this relationship and links between school improvement and the balance between teachers’ efforts and the change in students’ intellectual and moral dimensions. He concludes that both intellectual and social capitals are key factors in the school improvement process.
In transformational leadership theory, subordinates are stimulated and inspired to fulfill goals set by their leader (Odumeru & Ifeanyi, 2013). This theory identifies four major components of the transformational leader style: charisma or idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and personal and individual attention (Jung & Sosik, 2002). Charisma refers to the admirable manners according to which the leader behaves and deals with subordinates in different situations. Inspirational motivation is the extent to which the leader can push the followers to reach their optimum performance by setting clear framework and specific objectives. Personal and individual attention identifies the leader’s individualized attention to each follower’s needs.
2.3 Dimensions of School Improvement
Academic performance, learning environment, and efficiency are the main dimensions of school improvement according to Eastern Kentucky University (2008). These dimensions are examined as follows:
Academic Performance
Curriculum
Curriculum improvement includes leveling up grade level expectations, abolishing ongoing assessment, and replacing end-of-subject exams with periodic summative exams (Winter, 2014). Furthermore, Apple and Jungck (2014) advocate teachers’ engagement in the processes of curriculum design and development. They believe that practitioners’ inputs in the curriculum are the right approach as multiple perspectives are considered which allow a simple, yet effective curriculum design.
Classroom Instructions and Evaluation
Many education policy-makers worldwide believe that effective classroom evaluation leads to a successful educational process (Barzanò & Grimaldi, 2013). Furthermore, literature has confirmed the effect of school leadership on nurturing teachers’ learning and development as a key role of school leadership (Flores, 2004). The purpose of teachers’ evaluation is to judge both accountability and improvement. However, tensions and ambiguity might exist by the emerging of the two functions (Flores, 2018). Inconsistent or unfair application of these two functions is regarded as lack of integrity (Campbell & Derrington, 2017). Consequently, a general and specific approach is required when chasing effective teachers’ evaluation (Flores & Derrington, 2017).
Learning Environment
School Culture
The impact a principal has on the school is of indirect nature through its culture which in return has a direct influence on students’ achievement (Watson, 2001). Consequently, Fink and Resnick (2001) suggest that it is the role of the school leader to maintain a hospitable and welcoming culture that promotes teaching and learning. Gerrard and Farrell (2013) likewise highlight the importance for principals to apprehend the school culture prior to any intended change as they are in the front line of the educational system, and their perception of the appropriate culture is a key factor determining the success or the failure of enhancing teaching and learning.
Student, Family and Community Support
Positive school-family relationships have a vital impact on students’ achievement and progress in all levels of education (Morera et al., 2015). Consequently, Gilroy (2018) names parents’ involvement in the young learners’ education as the most significant key in any desired progress in the quality of teaching and learning. Moreover, Bush (2007) argues that it is the school leadership role to have more parents engaged in the learning of their children which can be monitored through the number of parents keen on attending school-parents’ meetings.
Professional Development
The relationship between professional development and quality education was examined in a recent study by Giraldo (2014). The findings he concluded after analyzing qualitative and quantitative data collected from four different instruments showed a dramatic change in teachers’ performance and students’ achievement. Hannay et al. (2003) add that professional development and performance appraisal need to be consistent to accurately measure the academic growth.
3 Methodology
3.1 Research Paradigm
To get unbiased and truthful answers to the research questions, a pragmatic paradigm is utilized to allow flexibility. Consequently, singular and multiple realities will be concluded from both qualitative and quantitative methods (Creswell & Clark, 2011). Accordingly, this paradigm supports a relational epistemology, non-singular reality ontology, a mixed methods methodology, and a value-laden axiology (Kivunja & Kuyini, 2017).
3.2 Research Design
This paper benefits from the mixed method to reach the best understanding of the research topic. In spite of being relatively new, the mixed method ensures the optimum results, candid analysis, and accurate understanding of the investigated topic (Creswell, 2014). Furthermore, objectivity and subjectivity integrate to emphasize inductive and deductive approaches which give a valued opportunity to segregate concepts from practical perceptions (Morgan, 2007).
3.3 Setting and Data Collection Plan
The setting of this research is a private school in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Three instruments representing the mixed method will be used to collect data. A questionnaire is distributed to teachers and administrative members to collect data related to the first research question. Moreover, an interview is conducted with the school principal and data collected will be analyzed to answer the third research question. The research also investigates DSIB inspection reports for the school of the academic years 2014–2015 and 2018–2019 to answer the second research question. With this document analysis, data selection is required instead of data collection (Bowen, 2009).
3.4 Population and Sampling
The population of this study is 170 teachers and administrative members representing the teaching and nonteaching staff working in the school along with the school principal. For the quantitative method, 100 participants are involved in the questionnaire, 90 teachers and 10 administrative staff. To increase the efficiency of the research, stratified random sampling technique is implemented. This approach fortifies the study and makes its findings more reliable (Creswell, 2014). Furthermore, since it is a case study, a purposeful sample technique is applied and the school principal is interviewed when conducting the qualitative method.
3.5 Instruments
The first instrument is teachers’ and leadership members’ perceptions of school improvement questionnaire. The second instrument is a semi-structured open-ended question interview with the school principal. The third instrument is the DSIB school reports of the academic years 2014–2015 and 2018–2019.
3.6 Validity and Sensitivity
Validity is an assessment of the reliability of the quantitative instrument that improves the precision of the data collected and the examination of the findings (Messick, 1995). In this study, the validity of the quantitative approach is obtained as it is taken from a dissertation research paper in the British University in Dubai (BUiD) and published on its website (BUiD, 2016). Similarly, questions of the interview are approved by academics and peer researchers in the same university.
Sensitivity is defined as whether or not the instrument is capable of accurately measuring variability in responses (Zikmund, 2003). To ensure that the study quantitative instrument is sensitive, participants choose from a five Likert-Scale ranging from strongly disagree, disagree, neither, agree, and strongly agree.
4 Results, Analysis, and Discussions
4.1 Data Analysis
For the quantitative method, questionnaires are distributed and filled in as hard copies, and all data is manually uploaded to Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. The SPSS is utilized to compare between different questions of the questionnaire. For the qualitative method, tabulating technique is used for both the semi-structured open-ended questions interview and the DSIB inspection reports.
4.2 Discussion of Quantitative Data
Responses to the questionnaire questions vary according to each domain. The first domain related to leadership and management shows dissatisfaction among participants about the relationship the school leadership has with them (questions 3–6). However, on the academic level, the overall responses express their agreement with the leadership practices (questions 1, 2, 7, 8).
The second domain of the questionnaire is about teaching and learning approaches of the school leadership. In this section, participants agree with the approaches the school leadership guides them to. On the other hand, the last domain which is about the school culture, responses largely vary from the extreme agreement about the learning opportunities offered to learners to the disagreement about parents’ engagement.
4.3 Discussion of Qualitative Data
The DSIB reports of the school inspection show the main areas of improvement of the school in the academic year 2014–2015 and 2018–2019 as follows:
-
1.
Students’ achievement improved from 18 “Acceptable” indicators in 2014–2015 to only 3 “acceptable” indicators in 2018–2019 which means that 15 different areas of improvement changed to “Good” in students’ achievement.
-
2.
Students’ personal and social development enhanced from 8 “Good” indicators in 2014–2015 to “Very good” in 2018–2019.
-
3.
Teaching and Assessment enhanced as 4 “Acceptable” indicators in 2014–2015 changed to only 2 “Acceptable” indicators in 2018–2019 which means that 2 of the areas improved to “Good”.
-
4.
Curriculum improvement is significant as it changed from 4 “Acceptable” indicators and 4 “Good” indicators in 2014–2015 to 4 “Good” indicators and 4 “Very good” indicators consecutively in 2018–2019.
-
5.
School leadership and management improved from 4 “Acceptable” indicators and 1 “Good” indicator in 2014–2015 to 4 “Good” indicators and 1 “Very good” indicator consecutively in 2018–2019.
The interview with the school principal reveals several aspects of his leadership practices that are effectively interpreted when linked with DSIB reports. The principal says that the improvement of the curriculum is due to the cumulative efforts of all teachers and coordinators along with the head of academics in the school. He also explains that parents’ involvement in the teaching and learning of their children is fostered by the regular teachers-parents and leadership-parents’ forms held along with the parents’ council that links between parents and the school administration.
The principal also reveals how the school culture is promoted by ensuring a positive relationship between the different subordinates and the school leadership. He also adds that the teachers’ council is a crucial step to ensure that teachers’ needs and demands are delivered to the governing board of the school. His personal engagement in professional development and class observation is another key behind building a healthy rapport with the teachers along with the regular meetings with the teachers.
4.4 Key Findings
There are some key findings that can be summarized as follows:
-
1.
School principal practices have a significant impact on the overall school improvement.
-
2.
Parents’ engagement in their children’s learning is a cornerstone in school improvement.
-
3.
Curriculum reform, as a main indicator of school improvement, starts with the practitioners’ engagement in its design and development.
-
4.
Data-driven professional development for both teachers and leadership members is vital for school improvement in areas of attention.
5 Conclusion
5.1 Implications of the Current Study
Many studies on the best practices of leadership practices for school improvement have been conducted. To situate this study amongst similar studies, various related works were investigated and their findings are compared with the findings of this research. What makes this study distinct from other studies is that it relies on three different instruments and the cumulative analysis of the collected data is utilized to conclude with the best practices of leadership on school improvement.
5.2 Limitation of the Current Study
Time limit is the major limitation of this case study as it was conducted in a short time. Moreover, teachers’ consents were not easily obtained particularly when they knew that they were to evaluate the practices of the school leadership regardless of the researchers’ confirmation of the absolute confidentiality.
5.3 Recommendations for Future Research
It is recommended not to limit the qualitative instrument to the school principal as it would be more beneficial to listen to teachers’ insights and suggestions for the future research. It is also recommended that a comparative analysis of similar studies in the same context be conducted to best conclude with generalized successful practices of school leadership for school improvement.
References
Apple, M., & Jungck, S. (2014). Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a Conservative Age. London: Routledge.
Barzanò, G., & Grimaldi, E. (2013). Discourses of merit: the hot potato of teacher evaluation in Italy. Journal of Educational Policy, 28(6), 767–791.
Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
BUiD, The impact of leadership styles on teachers’ professional development: a study of a private school in Dubai (2016). https://bspace.buid.ac.ae/bitstream/1234/925/1/2014201047.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2019
Bush, T. (2007). Educational leadership and management: theory, policy, and practice. South African Journal of Education, 27(3), 391–406.
Campbell, J., & Derrington, M. (2017). High-stakes teacher evaluation policy: U.S. principals’ perspectives and variations in practice. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice, 24(3), 1–17.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. California: Sage.
Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd ed.). California: Sage.
Cuban, L. (1988). The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools. New York: State University of New York Press.
Eastern Kentucky University, District Level Performance Descriptors for Kentucky’s Standards and Indicators for School Improvement (2008). https://kecsac.eku.edu/sites/kecsac.eku.edu/files/files/SISI08.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2019
Ellett, C., & Teddle, C. (2003). Teacher evaluation, teacher effectiveness and school effectiveness: perspectives from the USA. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 101–128.
Ezzani, M. (2015). Coherent district reform: a case study of two California school districts. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1–20.
Fink, E., & Resnick, L. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 598–606.
Flores, M. (2004). The impact of school culture and leadership on new teachers’ learning in the workplace. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(4), 297–318.
Flores, M. (2018). Teacher evaluation in Portugal: persisting challenges and perceived effects. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice, 24(3), 223–245.
Flores, M., & Derrington, M. (2017). School principals’ views of teacher evaluation policy: lessons learned from two empirical studies. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(4), 416–431.
Fullan, M. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2), 101–113.
Gerrard, J., & Farrell, L. (2013). ‘Peopling’ curriculum policy production: researching educational governance through institutional ethnography and Bourdieuian field analysis. Journal of Educational Policy, 28(1), 1–20.
Gilroy, P. (2018). Preparing pre-service teachers for family-school partnerships. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 251.
Giraldo, F. (2014). The impact of a professional development program on English language teachers’ classroom performance. PROFILE Journal, 16(1), 63–76.
Gordon, H. (2016). We can’t let them fail for one more day: school reform urgency and the politics of reformer-community alliances. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(1), 1–22.
Hannay, L., Seller, W., & Telford, C. (2003). Making the conceptual shift: teacher performance appraisal as professional growth. Educational Action Research, 11(1), 121–140.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The Fourth Way. California: Corwin.
Hargreaves, D. (2001). A capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement. British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 487–503.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. Routledge.
Jung, D., & Sosik, J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: the role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313–336.
KHDA, Inspection Handbook (2009). https://www.khda.gov.ae/CMS/WebParts/TextEditor/Documents/DSIB-HANDBOOK_EN.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2019
Kivunja, C., & Kuyini, A. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(5), 26–41.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership Capacity for Lasting School Improvement. Alexandria: ASCD.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.
Morera, M., Expósito, E., López-Martín, E., Lizasoain, L., Asencio, E., & Gaviria, J. (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 33–46.
Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48–76.
Odumeru, J., & Ifeanyi, G. (2013). Transformational vs. transactional leadership theories: evidence in literature. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(2), 355–361.
Sergiovanni, T. (2009). The Principalship. A Reflective Practice Perspective. Boston: Pearson.
Watson, N. (2001). Promising practices: what does it really take to make a difference? Education Canada, 40(4), 4–6.
Winter, C. (2014). Curriculum knowledge, justice, relations: the schools’ white paper (2010) in England. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 48(2), 276–292.
Zikmund, W. (2003). Business Research Methods (7th ed.). Ohio: Thomson South Western.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Abouelanein, A.E., Hossni, M. (2023). Successful Practices of Leadership on School Improvement: A Case Study in a Private School in Dubai. In: Al Marri, K., Mir, F., David, S., Aljuboori, A. (eds) BUiD Doctoral Research Conference 2022. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 320. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27462-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27462-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-27461-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-27462-6
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)