School Leaders’ Instructional and Administrative Competencies

School Leaders’ Instructional and Administrative Competencies

Arden L. Caritativo¹, Sanny F. Fernandez²

¹Department of Education, Passi City, Philippines

²Iloilo State University of Fisheries Science and Technology. Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9020211

Received: 04 February 2025; Accepted: 08 February 2025; Published: 12 March 2025

ABSTRACT

This descriptive – correlational study determined the level of competencies of school leaders in terms of instructional and administrative capabilities conducted among the randomly selected school heads and master teachers in the elementary schools in the Schools Division of Passi City during the School Year 2021-2022. Using the adopted Instructional Leadership Practices and Administrative Management Capabilities Assessment Tool of School Principals (NHSAs – TDNA Modified Tool) Survey Checklist, and employing statistical tools such as means, standard deviations, t– test, One–way Analysis of Variance, and the Pearson’s r set at .05 alpha, the results revealed that the school leaders were most competent in instructional and administrative competencies. However, the 10 years and below in length of service appeared to be more competent. Further, the school leaders did not differ significantly in their instructional competence when classified as to school size, length of service, school category and educational qualification. As to administrative competence, no significant difference was noted as to school size, but the rest of the category like length of service, school category and educational qualification, significant differences manifested. Finally, positive significant relationships existed in the level of instructional and administrative competencies of school leaders. As an offshoot of the study, an enhancement of School Improvement Plan was developed by the researcher.

Keywords: Educational Management, instructional  competencies, administrative competencies,  descriptive-correlational, Passi City

Background of the Study

In the past 40 years, school leaders have been the subject of multiplicities of educational research. Not only school administrators considered as leaders but master teachers as well. Master teachers have capability to lead the school particularly in improving the academic performance of the students. Like school administrators, they are called as competent school leaders because of their exceptional management skills.

It was viewed that they functioned the different roles as building manager, administrator, politician, change agent, boundary spanner, and instructional leader. These roles were based on the findings that were correlated to the school administrator attribute relative to the varying standpoints consigned by the researchers.  These value stances in the last decade however, have changed its course on the principal as instructional leader to be a responsible school officer for the academic achievement of students. This was manifested on the collective studies on effective schools which profusely concluded that school administrators had the direct accountability for improving instruction and learning. For a fact, school leaders can make a difference in school and student performance if they are granted autonomy to make important decisions.

Republic Act 9155 or otherwise known as “Governance of Basic Education Act of 2021” is an act instituting a framework of governance for basic education. Its stated policy is to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality basic education and to make such education free and accessible to all Filipino children. In line with this, the country encourages local initiatives for improving the quality of basic education and making emphasis to school administrators as instructional leaders is a very essential role to play.

Bamburg & Andrews (1990) termed instructional leaders as strong, directive leaders who had been successful at “turning their schools around”. Although a handful of descriptions assigned to effective instructional leaders in typical schools since schools differ widely in terms of their needs and resources, as well as in the type of leadership required to move them forward.

Instructional leaders were also viewed as culture builders. Barth (2002) mentioned that they wanted to create an “academic press” that set high expectations and standards for students, as well as for teachers. Notably, instructional leaders are a unique minority of the principals who dedicated and assured quality curriculum, instruction, and the classroom for a guaranteed excellence.

Instructional leaders were goal-oriented according to Goldring & Pasternak (1994). They have the capability to define a clear direction for the school and to motivate others to move towards this direction and influence in achieving. In instructionally effective schools, this direction focused primarily on the improvement of student academic outcomes. Vision, goals, and mission became strongly situated in the vocabulary of principals who wished to succeed in the evolving environment of school reform. They can strategize the alignment of school’s activities with the academic mission. Thus, instructional leaders focused not only on leading, but also on managing. Their managerial roles included coordinating, controlling, supervising, and developing curriculum and instruction (Leitner, 1994).

Expertise and charisma were both essentials for instructional leaders who were hands-on school administrators, hip-deep in curriculum and instruction (Cuban 1984). They were undaunted in working directly with teachers on the improvement of teaching and learning (Hallinger et al., 1996).

The growing role of the principal as an instructional leader has generated advance investigations into the detailed effects of instructional leadership on student achievement, either direct or indirect. Direct effects of educational leadership are defined by Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger (2003) as leaders ‘practices that can have effects on school outcomes, and these effects can be measured apart from other related variables. Indirect effects of educational leadership are demarcated as a leader’s influence which is mediated by other people, events, and organizational and cultural factors (Witziers et al.).

However, there are inconclusive research of the direct effects of instructional leadership on student achievement and the relatively burgeoning research on its indirect effects. Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) stated that leaders ‘ability to improve learning is not a new or controversial idea, but the question which is less clear today is: What are the essential ingredients of successful instructional leadership to create effective schools?

This study focuses on the data analysis related to instructional and administrative leadership of school leaders of elementary schools based on competencies.

Hence, by searching for the instructional and administrative competencies of school leaders in elementary schools in Passi City, the researcher hopes to understand the relationship between instructional and administrative capabilities of the school leaders. On a macro scale, this information will help other school leaders to realize their roles in improving the effectiveness of their school.

Statement of the Problem

This study determined the instructional and administrative competencies of school leaders in the Schools Division of Passi City.

 Specifically, this study sought answers to the following questions:

1. What is the level of instructional competence of the school leaders of Passi City when taken as a whole and when categorized according to school size, school category, educational qualification and length of service?
2. What is the level of school administrative competence of the school leaders in Passi City when taken as a whole and when categorized according to school size, school category, educational qualification and length of service?
3. Are there significant differences in the instructional competence of school leaders in Passi City when categorized according to school size, school category, educational qualification and length of service?
4. Are there significant differences in the administrative competence of school leaders in Passi City when categorized according to school size, school category, educational qualification and length of service?
5. Is there a significant relationship between instructional and administrative competencies of the school leaders in Passi City?

Hypotheses

Based on the problems stated, the following hypotheses were tested:

1. There are no significant differences in the instructional competence of school leaders in Passi City when categorized according to school size, school category, educational qualification and length of service.
2. There are no significant differences in the administrative competence of school leaders in Passi City when categorized according to school size, school category, educational qualification and length of service.
3. There is no significant relationship between instructional and administrative competencies of the school leaders in Passi City.

Theoretical Framework

In a general sense, leadership is naturally displayed either a situation calls for an urgency or simple constrains. In the past, research findings revealed considerable evidences on leadership relative to organizational context and variables that might affect a leader’s effectiveness in different situations. There has been far more research on the consequences of leader behavior than on the determinants of a leader’s behavior. Our understanding of these circumstances has been constrained by a prevailing view that leaders shape organizations, not that organizations shape leaders.

This study is anchored on three theories to deepen our understanding of how conditions shape leader behavior: role, expectancy, and adaptive-reactive theory.

Role theorists (Kahn and Rosenthal 1964, Pfeffer and Salancik 1975) put forward that the school administrator’s leadership behavior is fashioned by the perceptions of how other people like the superintendent, other principals, teachers, students, and parents want the leader to behave. The principal’s perception of role requirements is influenced by prescriptions such ad job description, memorandum letters and orders, and directions spume from the office of the superintendent or the Division office in general. Role expectations of teachers and students are transmitted in a more indirect manner where a perceptive school administrator soon learns to adopt and behave to these expectations. But there are moments when several people make dissenting demands on the principal that create “role conflicts” (Yukl 1981). In addition to these role expectations from other people, the school administrator’s perception of role requirements depends on the nature of the school’s mission and vision. Their role expectations are also tangible or inclusive since they usually manage to shape their own roles over time.

The second theory is expectancy theory by Nebecker and Mitchell (1974) which proposes that the school administrator’s behavior can be anticipated from other expectations about the significance of the behavior. For example, if a school administrator perceives that keeping a neat, orderly physical environment is more likely to win prize, she will keep a neat, orderly physical environment. If proper accounting proved accurate budget utilization brings an award, the school administrator will take great care in the administration of the school budget. School administrators, in a way, take courses of action that they perceive to have a high probability of attaining the desired outcomes. However, applying expectancy theory alone does not explain how leaders formulate expectancy or why they value some outcomes more than others.

Finally, Osborn and Hunt’s (1975) adaptive-reactive school of thought suggests that principal behavior is influenced by larger variables such as the structure of the school, centralized versus building-based decision making, the school’s community and district, and the size of the school. The task at hand and teacher attitudes and traits have some influence on how school administrators perform their jobs. The type of school, junior and senior high or elementary school, on whether the school is large or small, and whether the school is in a rural or urban community would better predict the school administrator’s behavior. The adaptive-reactive theory assumes that the principal adapts to the structure, size, and external environment variables and reacts to teacher attitudes and traits.

Conceptual Framework

The key to a successful management in achieving and maintaining quality education lies on the effectiveness of the school leaders. According to Denzin and Lincoln (1994) derived from Levi-Strauss’s image of bricoleur, the school leaders are perceived as jack of all trades who are able to draw on a variety of methods to serve their leadership agenda.

In this study, school leaders were grouped according to school size, school category, educational qualification and length of service as independent variable. They were presumed to cause variations in the dependent variables such as instructional and administrative competences of school leaders. Likewise, instructional competencies can be correlated to administrative competences. Thus, based on the findings, an enhancement of school improvement plan could be developed and implemented to help them become more effective in their roles in instructional and administrative functions.

Figure 1 shows the relationship between and among the variables of the study.

Figure I. Schematic Diagram of the Relationship of the Variables

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the research design, locale of the study, respondents and sampling procedures, research instrument, validity and reliability of the instruments, data gathering procedures, statistical data analysis, and ethical considerations.

Research Design

This study utilized the descriptive-correlational method of research to determine the level of competencies of school leaders in terms of instructional and administrative capabilities and their relationship to personal factors as independent variables.

Correlational research is also a form of descriptive research describing a relationship between and among study variables either directly or indirectly influencing each other by the correlation – coefficient (Dela Cruz citing Frankel and Walken, 1993).

In this study, the mean of the responses of the school leaders in the instructional and administrative competencies can be the basis of the enhancement of the School Improvement Plan.

Locale of the Study

This study was conducted in the Schools Division of Passi City. Passi City is located in the Fourth District of Iloilo.

Respondents of the Study  

The respondents involved in this study were the 29 school heads/principals and 35 master teachers of elementary schools in Schools Division of Passi City during the School Year 2021-2022.

Slovin’s Formula was used to determine the 64 respondents as the total sample of the population, and stratified – proportionate random sampling formula was employed to obtain the number of samples for master teachers and school heads. Fishbowl method was utilized in picking out the names of the school heads and master teachers who were finally included as respondents.

Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents of elementary school leaders in Passi City.

Table 1  Distribution of Respondents of Elementary School Leaders in  Passi City

Research Instruments

The data used in this study were the results of Instructional and Administrative Competency Survey Checklist administered among the respondents.

The Instructional and Administrative Competency Checklist. The Instructional and Administrative Competency Checklist was adopted from the study of Aguilar (2017), entitled Needs Assessment of Newly-hired School Administrators: Basis of Capability Building Training Program that was validated and reliability tested. This Checklist was given to the newly-hired school administrators of the Schools Division of Iloilo as the basis of Capability Building Training Program.

The revised rating scales for the responses are as follows:

5 – Always – at all times, on all occasions

4 – Often – frequently, repeatedly at short intervals, in a number of instances

3 – Sometimes – occasionally, now and then

2 – Seldom – not often, rarely

 1 – Never – not at any time, not at any occasion

In interpreting the scores of the instructional and administrative competencies, the following scales and description were used (Likert):

Validity of the Instrument

The adopted instrument was subjected to another cycle of validity to conform to the new Department of Education Orders and Memoranda. It will be sent to the panel of experts for revisions and suggestions.  

Reliability of the Instrument

This study adopted the Instructional Leadership and Administrative Management Practices Survey, utilized in the study of Aguilar (2017) entitled Needs Assessment of Newly-Hired School Administrators: Basis of Capability Building Training Program administered in the Division of Iloilo had a Cronbach Alpha of 90%, therefore, reliability testing was not pursued.

Data Gathering Procedure

An approval letter to conduct the study was secured from the office of the Schools Division Superintendent. It was attached to the instrument and was given to each of the school leader.

The accomplished Instructional Leadership and Administrative Management Practices Survey Questionnaire was retrieved, and the responses were tallied, analyzed and interpreted to give information regarding the instructional and administrative practices of the school leaders regarded as the evidence that supported the findings.

Statistical Data Analysis

For this study, the data gathered were subjected for statistical analysis using the following tools: mean, the weighted average of the whole or, in short, the general description of the population according to a specific category; standard deviation, to show the deviation from the mean of responses of  each variable per category; t – test, to test the significance of mean responses between the two factors of the variables,  One–way ANOVA or analysis of variance, to test the significance of three or more mean responses of the respondents; Pearson’s r to analyze the significant relationship between the two categorical capabilities of the school leaders.

Ethical Considerations

The research upholds the ethical norms to the best of the researcher’ ability. The respondents were provided with appropriate information about the research and were not forced to respond to the instrument. It also considers the principle of autonomy, beneficence, and integrity in the conduct of this study.

School Leaders Level of Instructional Competence

The over-all results showed that the school leaders’ level of instructional competence was at the “most competent” level (M=4.49, SD=.40). However, as to the length of service, the ten years and below appeared to be “more competent” M=4.18, SD=.61). The longer the length of service makes the leader most competent than to the shorter ones. Furthermore, when grouped according to the following categories, specifically in terms of school size, those who belong to small size (M=4.57, SD=.40) and large size (M=4.46, SD= .39); those with school category of A (M=4.45, SD=.40), school category B (M=4.46, SD=.49) and school category C (M=4.6, SD=.33); those with the educational qualification like baccalaureate degree (M=4.52, SD=.37), master’s degree (M=4.44, SD=.42) and doctorate (M=4.80, SD=.22);those with length of service 10 years and below (M=4.18, SD=.61), 11 years and above (M=4.51, SD=.38) were all most  competent in terms of their instructional management. This implies that, according to Lumen (2014), the quality of school leaders and managers is one of the fundamental factors influencing the quality of teaching and learning processes very significantly at each level of the system of education and at each kind of a school. Moreover, it also impacts the staff’s initiative, activity and cooperation, and public relations of the school institutions. Practicing school leaders were considered to demonstrate the most significant competencies to create motivational strategies based on the shared values of the school, competency to create  and develop learning environment effective for learners’ learning, competencies to define, distribute and delegate responsibilities, power scopes and task clearly, and competency to lead and control colleagues respectively. This means that just ones present topics and issues which should be reflected in further career training of school leaders, and are those on which we should focus the attention to offer school leaders and school managers and adequate professional education and training to improve and develop the appropriate key competencies of a good school leader should depose. Table 2 shows the data.

Table 2 School Leaders Level of Instructional Competence

School Leaders’ Level of Administrative Competence

The over-all school leaders’ administrative competence was at the “most competent” level (M=4.49, SD=40). However, those school leaders under ten years’ length of service were found to be “more competent”. It implies that the school leaders who have a longer length of service are more competent when compared to the less experienced school leaders.

As shown in Table 3, when they were grouped according to the following categories: school size, small (M=4.57, SD=.37) and large (M=4.56,SD=.39); those with school category  A (M=4.45, SD=.40), school category B (M=4.46, SD=.49), and school category C (M=4.6, SD=.33); those with educational qualification like baccalaureate degree (M=4.52, SD=.37), master’s degree (M=4.44, SD=.42), and doctorate degree (M=4.80, SD=.22); and those with length of service, ten years and below (M=4.18, SD=.61),and those with length of service of 11 years and above (M=4.51, SD=.38). This is consistent with that study of Basaran (1982) which stated that education is an open system, and the school and its school leaders were responsible for the production of good leadership. The school was established to achieve universal educational goals, especially those at the national level. In this process, the main duty of the school leader is to fulfill the duties and responsibilities under the purpose of the foundation, vision, and mission of the school. In the school system, the school leader is the person authorized by the highest level management. According to Stronge (1993), school leaders do not only deal with administrative matters but also other important responsibilities such as teaching leadership. School leaders of the twenty-first century are expected to manifest administrative competence that is quite capable of learning and teaching, as well as to maintaining their professional development, make data-based decisions, and have a responsibility (Yavuz, 2006). In other words, the school leaders have the primary duty and responsibility in achieving the school goals.

Competence is a trait that gives a person the power to play a certain role (Bursalıoğlu, 1981). In other words, competence is the power and capacity to fulfill a task (Şişman, 2000). To perform a profession in the best way, essential “knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes” should be defined within the scope of professional competencies. Competence is the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that an individual should have to perform his / her duty as per the predetermined goals (Başaran, 2000; Kaya, 1993; Töremen & Kolay, 2003).

Table 3 School Leaders’ Level of Administrative Competence

Differences in School Leaders’ Instructional Competence when Categorized as to Certain Identified Variables

The computed T- test results revealed that there is no significant difference in the level of instructional competence of school leaders when categorized as to school size (t =1.082,p >.05). The null hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference in the instructional competence of school leaders when categorized according to school size is accepted.

Same thing happened in the category for length of service, no significant difference was noted t= 1.622, p>.05. The null hypothesis that states that there is no significant difference in the level of instructional competence of school leaders when categorized according to length of service is accepted.

The data revealed that there were no significant differences in the instructional competences of school leaders when grouped according to school size and length of service. This is in accordance with the studies conducted by Basaran, et al. (2003). The leaders’ instructional competencies were based on their knowledge, skills, values and attitudes and were not dependent on the size of school or length of service school leaders rendered.

Table 4 t–test Results on Differences in School Leaders’ Instructional Competence

The One-way ANOVA results reflected no significant differences as to school leaders instructional competence when grouped according to school category (F = .678, p > .05; and educational qualification F =1.182, p> .05. This could be attributed to the fact that regardless of the school category, it does not guarantee success among school leaders because as to what makes school effective lies more on the skills of the well – trained school leaders as the reagent of an improved academic performance. It is also consonance with Heaven and Bourne’s (2016) study that it is a common belief that leaders have a majority impact on school quality and student’s achievement.

The results of the study are restated in Robinson’s (2015) that stresses that educational attainment and instructional leadership capabilities also have a bearing in the context of leadership. Capabilities describe what people need to be able to do and to be to carry out a particular function – the function in this case, being that of instructional leadership.

Table 5 One–Way ANOVA Results on Differences in School Leaders’ Instructional Competence Grouped according to Certain Identified Categories

Differences in School Leaders Administrative Competence when Categorized as to Certain Identified Variables

The computed t- test results revealed that there are significant differences in the level of administrative competence of school leaders when categorized according to school size (t =2.085, p <.05). The null hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference in the administrative competence of school leaders when categorized according to school size is rejected.

In the category of length of service, no significant difference was noted (t = 1.086, p>.05). The null hypothesis that states that there is no significant difference in the level of instructional competence of school leaders when categorized according to length of service is accepted.

It implies that school size has a direct relationship with the administrative competence of the school leaders practice because according to Dosares and Savan, et al. (2015), the extensive responsibilities of school leaders require an in-depth understanding like finance, curriculum, child development and human resource management. And in a study by Singer (1991), it states that length of service was attributed to a leader’s self- efficacy. In as much that this only focused on aspirations and not necessarily on actual practice, the less the leader is in service, the higher is his/her aspiration level. This study explores employees’ leadership aspirations within the theoretical frameworks of valence model, self – efficacy model and attribution theory.

Table 6 t- test Results on Differences in School Leaders Administrative Competence

The one-way ANOVA results reflected in table 7 manifest no significant difference in school leaders’ administrative competence when grouped according to school category (F= 1.764, p > .05); and educational qualification (F=1.704, p>.05). This shows that the administrator’s competence of the school leader does not relate to school category and educational qualification that is in connection with the findings of the study of Yuven (2006), that school category and educational qualification is not predetermined on the duties and functions of the school leaders  to achieve administrative competence but rather depends on the attitudes, values, potentials and capabilities of the school leaders as the factors that contribute to their competence. This is also in agreement with Ashraah, Olaimat and Takash(2015) that school leaders’ consensus that regardless of qualification, the necessity of being trained  on all the skills should be done.              

Table 7 One–Way ANOVA Results on Differences in School Leaders Administrative Competence Grouped according to Certain Identified Categories

Relationship Between Instructional and Administrative Competencies of the School Leaders

Positive significant relationships were noted in the level of instructional competence (r = 1, r < .01), and administrative competences (r =.742, r < .01) of school leaders. The null hypothesis which stated that there is no significant relationship between instructional and administrative competencies of the school leaders is rejected.

The result implies that school leaders must balance their role as they perform their function in terms of instruction and administration, even though leadership differs from that of school administrators in a number of ways. Administrators usually are too pre- occupied in dealing with strictly managerial duties, while instructional leaders involve  themselves in setting clear goals, allocating resources to instruction, managing the curriculum, performs monitoring and evaluation(Flath,1989). Therefore, school leaders must be equipped with instructional and administrative competence for the realization of having effective schools.

 Vann in a 1994 article gives a sample of a principal’s vision that magnifies administrative management skills that goes hand in hand with instructional leadership competence.

The correlation between administrative management and instructional leadership is supported by the study of Al – Hosani (2015). He states that the instructional leadership capabilities of principals play an important role in the success of the students. This is emphasized by the symbiotic relationship between principals and their teachers. Today the challenges that the schools faced with were not only an abundance of knowledge and technological movements at fields but also with many challenges to have an effective learning process (Leonard, 2010, p.1; in Al –Hosani,2015). The role of the principal as an instructional leader is someone who engages in the instruction process; by observing teachers in classrooms and working with them to improve teaching and learning. Thus, it is necessary to find out their principals’ practice and examine the extent to which they were practiced in their schools. This implies that instructional leadership works vis–à-vis their capabilities have, the better the instructional leadership becomes.

Table 8 Relationships Between Instructional and Administrative Competences of the School Leaders

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the finding of the study the following conclusions were drawn:

1. The level of instructional competence of school leaders were rated as most competent. This implies that the school leaders were capable of performing their tasks effectively to achieve excellence.
2. School leaders were rated as most competent in administrative competences. Therefore, they make their school maintain and developed effective educational programs and promote the improvement of teaching and learning towards achieving the better performance.
3. School size, school category, educational qualification and length of service were factors found not to influence the instructional competence of the school leaders.

Hence, regardless of the small or large size of the school, had a 10 years below and 11 years above of experience, A mother school, 11 teachers and above and 10 teachers below, the functions of the school leaders remains the same in instructional management.

4. School size is one factor that affects the administrative competence of the school leaders. As revealed in the findings, the larger the schools size the school leaders find harder to manage the school compared to smaller ones. But other categories like school category, educational qualification and length of service does not affect the administrative function of the school leaders to perform their duties and responsibilities to make their school a better and performing one.
5. From the result of the study, instructional and administrative competences of the school leaders manifest a positive significant correlation result. This implies that both competences interrelated with one another that the school leaders should practice and apply to achieve a better performance and success in carrying the mandate of the department. Having a great leader that can provide the excellent leadership and are equipped with instructional and administrative competences in managing the school can have a positive impact and influence towards the betterment of the institution.
6. In schools where problems are becoming more complex, school leaders must be guided in their instructional and administrative management capabilities to become effective. The results of the least capabilities of school leaders in their instructional and administrative competence projected to an enhancing of the school improvement plan that will help them in practicing their greatest role in transforming their school into a highly performing one. Therefore, the school improvement plan must be enhanced and implemented.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In the light of this research findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are offered:

1. Further research about this study is encouraged for other researchers to be conducted.
2. This is a good research for the school administrators in determining their strength and weaknesses as a benchmark to empower competence both in the instructional and in administrative for personal development.
3. Researches were the key to success that the study was recommended and improve competence in the instruction and administration of the school system in general.

REFERENCES

1. Aguilar, C. (2017). Needs assessment of newly –hired secondary School administrator: Basis for capability building training program. Unpublished dissertation. University of San Agustin, Iloilo City.
2. Barth, R. S. (2013). Culture in question. In The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership (3rd ed.) (pp. 197-206). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3. Basa, J.(2016). School principals’ managerial capability, effectiveness and performance in the district of Ajuy:  Basis for executive development training. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Iloilo State College of Fisheries, Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo.
4. Blasé, J, & Blasé, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ Educational Administration Quarterly, 35 (3), 349-378.
5. Danielson, C. (2012). Observing classroom practice. Educational Leadership, 70 (3), 32- 37.
6. Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52 (2), 221-258.
7. DiPaola, M. & Hoy, W. (2008). Principals improving instruction: Supervision, evaluation, and professional development (3rd ed.). Pearson
8. Döş, İ. & Savaş, A. C. (2015). Elementary school administrators and their roles in the context of effective schools. SAGE Open, 1-11.
9. Evans, R. (2007). The authentic leader. In The Jossey-Bass  Reader on Educational Leadership (2nd ed.) (pp.135- 156). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
10. Forbes, G.M.(2011). Trends and issues: Roles of school heads as instructional leader, administrator, and manager. Department of Education, CALABARZON.
11. Green, R. L. (2009). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to implementing the ISLLC  Allyn & Bacon.
12. Green, R.L. (2010). The four dimensions of principal leadership: A framework for leading 21st century schools. Allyn & Bacon.
13. Grissom, J. A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42 (8), 433-444. doi: 10.3102/0013189X13510020
14. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2006). A leader’s legacy.
15. Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Columbia: University
16. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to practice.  Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum and Development.
17. Mc Carley, T. A., Michelle, M. L., & Decman, J. M. (2016). Transformational leadership related to school climate: A multi-level analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership , 44 (2), 322-342.
18. Mendels, P. (2012). The effective principal:5 pivotal practices that shape instructional leadership. Journal of Staff Development, 54-58.Available at Wallace Foundation website:www.wallacefoundation.org/ knowledge- center/school leadership/effective-principal-leadership/Documents/The–Effective-Principal. pdf.
19. Merriam – Webster Learner’s Dictionary, 2012.
20. Michigan Department of Education. (2012). Michigan standards for the preparation of school principals. Lansing, MI Retrieved from: https://www.michigan .gov/documents/mde/SBE-item-Adopted-AdminCentral-Ofc3-17-09-273224-7.doc
21. Mosage, M.J. and Van der Westhuizen P.C.(1998). School – based management: Implications for the new roles of principals and teachers. Koers, 63:73-87. Murphy J and Beck I 1995. School–based management as a school reform: Taking stock. Corwin.