Day (2020) found that school leadership is a growing interest in system leadership that we have
witnessed over the last five years also features in this edition, as does a reflection on the
expanding body of international literature focused on school leadership in low-income contexts.
The evidence examined by this review indicates that effective school leadership is important but,
in isolation, is not a sufficient condition for successful school improvement. It shows that
leadership has important effects on school organization, culture and on teachers. Effects on
student outcomes are largely indirect operating through direct effects on the organization, culture
and teaching and learning environment. The review draws particular attention to three concepts
of leadership: transformational, pedagogical/instructional and distributed. While there is
evidence that pedagogical/instructional leadership is important for promoting better academic
outcomes for students, it is concluded that the three concepts of leadership are not mutually
exclusive. It finds that most leadership effects operate indirectly to promote student outcomes by
supporting and enhancing conditions for teaching and learning through direct impacts on
teachers and their work, and that successful student outcomes are defined more broadly than
academic performance alone (including attendance, behavior, engagement and motivation, etc.).
Moreover, single leadership strategies unrelated to educational purposes and national and local
contexts are less likely to lead to success than combinations and accumulations of values-led and
context-sensitive strategies which best illustrate the dynamic and complex nature of schools in
the 21st century. Whether CEOs of multi-academy trusts, groups of schools, or principals of
individual schools, school leaders have a key role to play in setting direction and creating and
sustaining a positive school culture. This includes establishing a proactive, collaborative school
mindset, supporting and enhancing staff, as well as student motivation, engagement and well-
being, and the collective commitment needed to foster improvement and promote and sustain
success for schools and classrooms which serve a range of advantaged and disadvantaged
communities.
Tonich (2021), explained that school leadership was to determine the effect of school head
leadership abilities on school performance, both directly and through their schools’
organizational culture. This study adopted a survey design and applied a quantitative approach
when analyzing the data. The dependent variable for this research was school performance, an
interactive variable was school culture, and the independent variable was school principal
leadership. The population for this study was the school principals in charge of the
schools/madrasahs under the auspices of Palangka Raya City Education Office, with these
ranging from elementary schools to high schools and involving 46,194 people. The study’s
sample comprised 350 school principals who had served at least one year to ensure that they had
applied leadership methods and established a new school organizational culture during their one
year in office. To collect data, this study used survey questionnaires, which were divided over
three parts, namely the principal’s managerial style, school organizational culture, and school
performance. All the instruments were developed by the researcher with reference to the
theories, dimensions, and indicators that have been previously put forward by experts and
researchers. Our results show that a principal’s leadership ability can have a significant effect on
school performance, but it also influences the organizational culture of the school and improves
performance through this channel. However, the direct influence of a principal’s ability on
school performance is greater than when it transmits through the school’s organizational culture,
because a school’s organizational learning also affects school performance
Instructional Leadership
Mcbayer (2020), explained that instructional leadership practices and the degree to which
these practices predict the leadership self-efficacy of school leaders while controlling for years of
experience as a school leader. With educational reform focused on school accountability,
principals must attend to tasks that lead to school improvement. Identifying such tasks as
instructional leadership practices and gaining a more comprehensive understanding of
instructional leadership practices through leadership self-efficacy may contribute to school
improvement. The methodology utilized a survey and the participants were 100 principals and
assistant principals of public schools in the southeastern United States, spanning 18 school
districts and 180 schools. The findings revealed that supervising and evaluating instruction and
monitoring student progress were significant positive predictors of leadership self-efficacy for
the entire sample of respondents whereas coordinating curriculum was only approaching
significance. This pattern shifted, however, when the sample was divided between principals and
assistant principals. For practical implications, educational leaders and key constituents may
consider these results for reflection on practice as well as planning professional learning for skill
development to attain school improvement. Recommendations for future research include
expansion of the population to include participants in other locations as well as the inclusion of
additional instructional leadership practices.
