Effects of school leadership in enhancing learners’ achievement in South African rural schools

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Jan 11, 2021
https://doi.org/10.47434/JEREDA.1.3.2020.202
Download
PDF
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Vol. 1 No. 3 (2020)

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

George Nervious Shava
National University of Science and Technology, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
Lwazi Sibanda
National University of Science and Technology, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

Abstract

Introduction: School leadership has increasingly been gaining attention from educational policymakers, and the entire educational society.  Research has also confirmed that school principals are essential for developing and maintaining effective school systems. The role of school leadership in schools is highly complex and dynamic such that strategies are needed to change underperforming schools. This article reported on a small scale exploratory qualitative study that investigated the effects of school leadership in enhancing the learning outcomes of a cohort of schools in a rural setting in South Africa.


Purpose: The purpose of the study was to analyse the role of principals in enhancing learning achievement in schools.


Methodology: The study took a qualitative research approach with an interpretive epistemological and constructivist ontological perspective. Qualitative evidence was collected from six schools in the same district through semi-structured interview question with educators and school principals. Purposive sampling techniques were used to select information-rich cases from the schools and in selecting the schools.


Results: Grounded in the accounts of our study participants, results from the study indicated that school principals are the cornerstones of achieving quality teaching and learning through motivating educators, training and providing distributed leadership


Recommendations: From the study findings, it was recommended that there is need to improve the basic unit of the educational institution which include structural, cultural and agential conditions to enhance the effective operations of school principals. There is a need to motivate and enhance existing forms of agency in ways that expand learners’ achievement.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Shava, G. N. ., & Sibanda, L. . (2021). Effects of school leadership in enhancing learners’ achievement in South African rural schools. Journal of Educational Research in Developing Areas, 1(3), 202-213. https://doi.org/10.47434/JEREDA.1.3.2020.202
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist socialist theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press.
  2. Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge University Press.
  3. Bernard, H. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. 3rd ed. Walnut Creek. Altamira Press.
  4. Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science. 2nd ed. Harvester.
  5. Boylan, M. (2016). Deepening system leadership: Teachers leading from below.Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 57-72.
  6. Cosner, S. (2011). Teacher learning, instructional considerations and principal communication: Lessons from a longitudinal study of collaborative data use by teachers. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39 (5), 568-589.
  7. Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  8. Creswell, J. W.2007.Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Sage.
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Sage.
  10. Department of Basic Education. 2016. National Education Policy Act,1996 (Act 27 of 1996): Policy on the South African Standard for Principals. Gazette 39827. Government Printing Works.
  11. Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4 (3), 221-239.
  12. Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or misleading? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32 (1), 11-24.
  13. Heystek, J., & Minnaar, L. (2015). Principals’ perspectives on key factors that contribute to sustainable quality education. Journal of Education, 63, 137-157.
  14. Hoy, W. (2012). School characteristics that make a difference for the achievement of all students: A 40-year odyssey. Journal of Educational Administration, 50 (1), 76-97.
  15. Klar, H. W., Huggins, K. S., Hammonds, H. L., & Buskey, F. C. (2016). Fostering the capacity for distributed leadership: A post-heroic approach to leading school improvement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(2), 111-137.
  16. Krüger, M. L., Witziers, B., & Sleegers, P. (2007). The impact of school leadership on school level factors: Validation of a causal model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18 (1), 1-20.
  17. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28 (1), 27-42.
  18. Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2009). Distributed leadership according to the evidence. Routledge.
  19. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Epistemological and methodological bases for naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  20. Ng, S. W. (2013). Equipping aspiring principals for the principalship in Hong Kong. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41 (3), 272-288.
  21. Özdemir, M., & Demircioğlu, E. (2015). Distributed leadership and contract relations: Evidence from Turkish high schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43 (6), 918-938.
  22. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A.& Rowe,K.J. 2008. The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
  23. Sayadi, Y. (2016). The effect of dimensions of transformational, transactional, and non-leadership on the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of teachers in Iran. Management in Education, 30 (2), 57-65.
  24. Shava, G. N., & Heystek, J. 2015.Achieving educational goals through effective leadership: Experiences from a district in Zimbabwe.Journal of Educational Studies, 14(2), 1-24.
  25. Shava, G. N., & Ndebele, C. (2016). Enhancing learner achievement through effective school leadership: Experiences from selected rural schools in South Africa. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 14 (3), 205-216.
  26. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
  27. Storey, A. (2004). The problem of distributed leadership in schools. School Leadership & Management, 24(3), 249-265.
  28. Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 48-52.
  29. Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Krüger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39 (3), 398-425.
  30. Wynn, D., & Williams, C. K. (2012). Principles for conducting critical realist case study research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 36 (3), 787-810.
  31. Yang, Y. (2014). Principals’ transformational leadership in school improvement. International Journal of Educational Management, 28 (3), 279-288.