Abstract

The study examined the effect of instructional leadership on school performance.  Instructional leadership is a process that how quality practices: building and sustaining the school vision, monitoring of curriculum and instruction, leading a learning community, data gathering and assessing, and shared leadership were implemented by head teachers effectively. School performance is defined as the attainment of targets by teachers, students and schools. In district Sahiwal, head teachers were evaluated for instructional leadership by their SSTs (N=1026) on HTEQ. For school performance, a score of student achievement were obtained from their schools, while data on factors: cleanliness of schools, student presence, the functionality of facilities, and teacher presence were obtained through monthly visit reports of MEAs. The study revealed that head teachers were used practices of instructional leadership effectively and excellent level of schools' performance were found. The study explored a moderate relationship between variables (r=.54), and a 39 % variance in school performance could be explained through instructional leadership. The recommendations were also added in the study.

Key Words

Instructional Leadership Quality of Head Teachers, Building and Sustaining School Vision, Shared Leadership, Leading a Learning Community, Data Gathering and Assessing, Curriculum and Instruction Monitoring, School Performance

Introduction

The multiple management and leadership roles were performed by the school principal known as the head teacher to improve the school performance (Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Malik et al., 2022a; McCullough et al., 2016).  Instructional leadership is required to manage the instructional process by ensuring quality teaching (Fullan, 2010), create a supportive culture to ensure equality, high expectations, and academic success of all learners (Robinson et al., 2008), provide leadership, vision, and direction to obtain school targets (Day & Sammons, 2013), make sure the effective use of the resources to obtain the goals (Khan et al., 2009), create a conducive environment to meet the needs of learners (Karatas, 2016), cultivate leadership in teachers to uphold the vision of school (Akram et al., 2017), and work also on improving the student outcomes (Herrera, 2010). Different expectations such as programs and policy directives, achievement benchmarks and curriculum standards put also great pressure on instructional leaders and responded by them through improving teaching and learning, and collaborating with stakeholders (Ali, 2017; Ontai-Machado, 2016). Instructional leaders are, therefore, held answerable for their instructional leadership and how well both their teachers and students performed.

Multiple studies were conducted through using effective practices of instructional leadership in different countries (Akram et al., 2017; Brown, 2016; Louis et al., 2012) that were predicted student outcomes and school performance. Similarly, in Pakistan, various studies were also conducted on instructional leadership through emphasizing on effective practices or skills (Akram & Malik, 2021; Ali, 2017; Khan et al., 2020: Malik & Akram, 2020; Malik et al., 2022b) that were also predicted and as well as correlated with student learning and school outcomes. Based on the effective practices, various models are being employed globally to measure instructional leadership such as Sergiovanni (1984) model, Andrew and Soder (1987) model, Hallinger and Murphy (1985) model, Weber (1996) model, Whitaker (1997) model, Akram, Kiran and Ilgan (2017) model, and Akram and Malik (2021) model that were also predicted the student outcomes and school performance (Akram et al., 2017; Akram & Malik, 2021; Andrew & Soder, 1987: Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Sergiovanni, 1984; Weber, 1996; Whitaker, 1997). In overall, different studies that were conducted globally or in Pakistan, employed effective practices to measure instructional leadership, similarly effective practices were also emphasized in different models of instructional leadership that are being  employed in all over the world to enhance the quality of head teachers.

The major emphasis in education is greater accountability to increase student achievement and school performance. It is required from schools to make certain that all learners achieve curriculum related objectives through implementing all requirements to meet the national expectations. Previous, Akram and Malik (2021) developed a model by using the quality practices of instructional leadership such as leading a learning communities, shared leadership, data gathering and assessing, sustaining and building school vision, and monitor the instruction and curriculum. Further, Malik and Akram (2020) also revealed in their study that school performance were predicted through instructional leadership but actually did not provide in depth literature on instructional leadership through exercising effective practices or skills of the head teacher. In Pakistan, there is a dire required to perform a study to evaluate the instructional leadership of the head teacher through employing effective practices or skills which might not be tested before, which would predict and correlate with the school outcomes to fulfill the existing gap in the literature.




Research Questions

There are some following research questions, the study in hand involved:

1. What are the perceptions of teachers about instructional leadership of their head teachers?

2. What is the school's performance level in public high schools?

3. Is there any relationship between the instructional leadership quality of head teachers and school performance?

4. Is their any effect of instructional leadership on the school performance?

Conceptual Framework of the Study

The conceptual model gives a written and visual result of the unified ideas of instructional leadership quality of head teachers that is interlinked with school performance (Akram et al., 2017; Hou et al., 2019). Five effective practices based on Akram and Malik (2021) model such as shared leadership, building and sustaining the school vision, data gathering and assessing, leading the learning community, and curriculum and instruction monitoring were employed to evaluate the instructional leadership quality of head teachers. On the other hand, presence of teachers, student achievement, school cleanliness, student presence, and functionality of the facilities were the factors employed to measure the school performance. Based on the given framework, it was supposed that the instructional leadership quality of head teachers would predict and also correlate with school performance.

Figure 1



Literature Review

Quality Practices and Instructional Leadership

While performing the instructional leadership role, head teachers works with their teachers to shape the schools through collaborating with their staff, developing the shared leadership, arranging training for the professional development of teachers, and improving the commitment of teachers and their students (Louis et al., 2012). The most essential roles of instructional leader are to deal both administrative and instructional activities effectively. Instructional leaders put their maximum to ensure quality education through their team to enhance the learning of the students (Hou et al., 2019). The provided services as instructional leaders should be implemented in the classroom and also encouraged best practices by head teachers to improve quality of instruction through employing their experiences (Fullan, 2010).

Accountability is much emphasized in education to increase student learning and success of school (Robinson et al., 2008). Through implementing the entire requirement, it is most essential to ensure that all learners are achieved the curriculum related objectives to meet the national expectation (Ontai-Machado, 2016; Stronge et al., 2008). Akram and Malik (2021) provided a model based on the essential skills or quality practices to evaluate instructional leadership that were predicted and correlated with school performance. According to them, instructional leadership is much emphasized on these effective practices or skills such as leading the learning communities, building a school vision, shared leadership, monitoring the instruction and curriculum, and data gathering and assessing to improve the school outcomes.




Building and Sustaining a School Vision

To operate the school process effectively, the instructional leader develops and implements a clear vision that further puts his efforts on the right direction (Ali, 2017). There are two types of visions such as head teachers' role in their school and how the change process will proceed. Successful head teachers understand the importance to establish learning school wide and community wide goals, and commitment to achieve them. Instructional leader of high achieving school has a great focus on the progression of a clear vision and the goals of learning of the student (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003) and also confident as well to achieve the goal despite of great challenges and serves as role model for their staff and learners (Cotton, 2003).




Sharing Leadership

Sustained and Intensive collaboration is most required to attain a common vision through guiding the school staff (Brown, 2016; Feye, 2019). It is not possible to meet the instructional goals alone but through the collaboration of the staff, head teacher may sustain the learning in the institution which is very essential for the success of the school (Akram et al., 2017; Hargreaves & Fink, 2003). Instructional leaders set the direction after establishing the vision and motivate their staff to work through collaboration to meet the goals by providing the securing models of best practices, individual support, examining teachers' own practices, and creating opportunities to work together (Khan et al., 2020; Leithwood et al., 2004; Mendel et al., 2002).

Through sharing leadership roles with teachers, head teachers strengthen the reflection and mutual investigation to enhance learning and teaching, and contribute to school improvement (Malik & Akram, 2020; Malik et al., 2022b; Reason & Reason, 2007). Instructional leaders discuss with staff, make arrangements of staff development, support teaching, and learning, evaluate the problems related to curriculum, instruction and assessment through collaboration, and received valuable ideas from teachers to improve the school performance (Ch. et al., 2018; Yasser & Amal, 2015). Instructional leaders who employ different strategies to obtain the targets about instruction through the collaboration of their teachers and tap the expertise of staff to school improvement are more successful at their valuable positions (Blase & Blase, 1999; Marks & Printy, 2003; Muasya et al., 2017).




Leading a Learning Community

An instructional leader as a role model for learning leads a learning community through participating in learning activities and communicating about instruction, curriculum and learning objectives that foster school improvement (Lashway, 2003). Visibility of the head teacher in every matter about learning is required to ensure the implementation of effective learning models in school. Instructional leaders are not only to arrange training for their staffs but also ensure their own participation which fosters the idea of shared learning community that may develop trust, build combined responsibility and enhance learning of their students (Portin et al., 2003).

Instructional leader deals with teachers as learners and provides opportunities frequently to staff development (Day & Sammons, 2013). Instructional leaders not only improve student learning but also enhance the instructional skills of teachers and mobilize teachers' energy and capacities. Through modeling expected behaviors and consistently focus on learning, an instructional leader can improve the instructional activities and programs (Fullan, 2010). Furthermore, instructional leaders make efforts to become learners through participating in curriculum, instruction and assessment. Instructional leaders also demonstrate high visibility through interaction and contact with students, teachers, and parents which can be promoted the idea of leading a learning community (Marzano et al., 2005).  




Using of Data to Make the Instructional Decisions

Through collecting meaningful data about the school, an instructional leader can observe and evaluate the effectiveness of school initiatives that informs how much the school is meeting defined goals and further use the collected information to improve the approaches which are designed to achieve or expand the goals, and staff work can also be challenged and improved if they are not performing well (Feye, 2019). Instructional leaders not only possess the capability to gather and analyze the data, but also have the skills to set directions, develop people, and improve school outcomes through using data (Brown, 2016). It provides help to maintain focus on improving instruction and learning in a consistent way (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003).

Through examining the data, instructional leaders can address the inconsistencies to meet the targets for continuous improvement and also determine the gaps between desired outcomes and present school performance (Hou et al., 2019). Furthermore, instructional leaders not only use the data to rank schools and students but also use to assist teachers to improve instruction, student achievement and school outcomes. Formal and informal data not only shape the instruction but also determine the effectiveness. Data collection through multiple methods and its analysis are very essential for continuous improvement (Khan et al., 2020).




Monitoring Curriculum and Instruction 

Instructional leader supports programs and instructional activities through modeling expected behavior, participating in staff development and preferring instruction on daily basis, and further makes efforts to remove all the issues of teachers that would detract teacher from their instructional responsibilities to protect the instructional time (Marzano et al., 2005). Instructional leaders are also involved in teaching and the provision of all resources that helps teachers to promote student learning and awareness about curriculum and instruction to improve student outcomes (Cotton, 2003). Through observations and conversations with staff, head teachers can support the teachers to improve their effectiveness (Cooper et al., 2005). It is essential to spend enough time in the classroom by the head teacher to monitor and encourage quality instructional practices, and also have the ability to evaluate and improve the quality of instruction (Fink & Resnick, 2001). It is required for leaders to observe how well the curriculum is taught and also participate in curriculum development (Ruebling et al., 2004). Instructional leaders are confident of their ability to judge teachers' effectiveness and take actions, and it is only possible when leaders understand the curriculum and ensure the development of staff (Portin et al., 2003).




School Performance

School performance is defined as the attainment of all short or long term educational targets by teachers, students and schools through within time and less expensive (Habib, 2010). After reviewing some main models of school performance: School Manual (2004) Model, Chief Minister School Reforms Roadmap (2016) Model, and Louisiana (2016) Model, the study used factors such as student achievement, school cleanliness, presence of teachers, the functionality of facilities and presence of students to measure the school performance. Cleanliness of all lawns, corridors, classrooms, playground, toilets, and premises of the school are included in the school cleanliness which is the most contributing factor for a supportive environment and the success of the school (Kausar et al., 2017). Student achievement, the most important factor of school performance, can be described as attained objectives that can be measured through standardized test (Nyagosia, 2011). Teacher presence in classroom is most essential for student outcomes (Garrison, 2007). Functioning of the facilities ensures the availability and proper functionality of the facilities that maximize the student outcomes (Uko, 2015). Student presence in classroom is also most required for their quality learning (Hufford, 2014).

Linking Instructional Leadership and School Performance

The multiple of studies provided evidence that how quality practices or skills of instructional leadership are essential for the student learning and school performance. Relationship has been examined between the instructional leadership and school performance by Bendikson et al. (2012), and explored that both indirect and direct practices of instructional leadership predicted the student learning and school effectiveness. Direct instructional leadership practices ensures that how well their teachers taught their learners involving quality of teaching, understanding about curriculum, assessment, and development of teachers through giving the feedback. On the other hand, indirect instructional leadership practices involves supportive environment for instructional process through executing the policies, making effective decisions and utilizing the resources effectively. The study emphasized on the importance of instructional leadership skills for school success.

Louis et al. (2012) measured instructional leadership through involving two dimensions such as instructional supervision and management, and revealed that student outcomes can be predicted through the instructional leadership. The study recommended that quality of instructional leadership can be improved through making the standardized accountability. In another study, Yasser and Amal (2015) provided some quality practices of instructional leadership: developing school vision, creating supportive learning environment, one factor solution and organizing instructional activities. The study found the moderate level of implementation of instructional leadership, and developing school vision is the most dominant factor among other quality practices. Brown (2016) also identified the quality practices of instructional leadership: cultivate leadership in teachers, develop and maintain the culture of continuous professional development, and make decisions through using of data. These studies provided evidence that quality practices of instructional leadership mainly contributes in the school progression and student outcomes. 

Heaven and Bourne (2016) revealed the positive association of instructional leadership with student outcomes and school effectiveness, and also found that school outcomes can be predicted through the instructional leadership. In another important study, Akram et al. (2017) provided mainly a valid tool of instructional leadership through main quality practices or dimensions of instructional leadership such as sustaining visible presence, provider of resources related to instruction, maximizing instructional design, development of teachers, providing instructional feedback, and monitoring the progress of learning. The study found the significant relationships between all the factors of the scale and recommended to use this scale to evaluate the instructional leadership quality of head teachers that is most essential factor for school progress and student learning and effectiveness of their teachers.

Ali (2017) investigated the relationship between both instructional leadership and school effectiveness, and identified some effective practices of instructional leaders such as developing school vision, instructional program, and learning climate to evaluate head teachers. The study revealed the relationship between both these variables which is significant and positive, indicated the essentiality of instructional leadership for the school effectiveness. Similarly, Muasya et al. (2017) also examined to what extent instructional leadership contribute in the student learning through quality practices such as managing the instructional program and building school vision, developing supportive environment, and arranging incentives for teachers. The study found that all factors of instructional leadership mainly contribute in student outcomes and school success. Both of the research suggested to using quality skills of instructional leadership for the school progression and student achievement.

Ch et al. (2018) also provided quality skills of instructional leadership such as monitoring students’ progress, supervising and evaluating the instructional activities, given motivation to teachers, infrastructure and resources, and professional development of teachers. The study found that instructional leadership was implemented by head teachers effectively to improve the school performance. Feye (2019) also identified some main quality practices of instructional leaders that were implemented at low or moderate level such as improving instructional process, supervising the curriculum implementation, and evaluating and monitoring student performance on continuous basis. On the other hand, there were some other quality practices that were not implemented by head teachers in their institutions such as develop common vision, motivated and active, provide feedback, encourage new ideas, self confident, self-esteem and analytical ability. The study revealed that leader of the schools were failed to provide instructional leadership due to the capacity or low skills and recommended them trainings to improve the instructional leadership.

Hou et al. (2019) also predicated the student achievement in their study through the quality practices on instructional leadership such as developing school mission and healthy relations with workforce, and managing instructional process and professional development of their teachers. Similarly, Khan et al. (2020) also determined the knowledge of head teachers about quality practices of instructional leadership such as supervision and evaluation of teachers that is most essential for student learning and school effectiveness. Both of studies emphasized head teachers to use quality practices of instructional leadership to maximize school performance.

Malik and Akram (2020) explored effect of instructional leadership measured through the teachers’ perceptions on school performance and revealed that school performance can also be predicted through the instructional leadership quality of head teachers. Further, Akram and Malik (2021) also provided the model based on quality practices to evaluate instructional leadership of head teachers. In another study, Malik et al. (2022a) compared instructional leadership and school performance through gender-based and location-based, and school performance was found better in which head teachers implemented better instructional leadership. Similarly, Malik et al. (2022b) also evaluated the effectiveness of leaders involving instructional leadership that was measured through head teachers’ perceptions and found moderate relationship between both instructional leadership and school performance. In Pakistan, All these studies heavily contributed in the area of head teachers’ effectiveness which might not been conducted before through quality indicators. Therefore, in Pakistan, it was required to conduct the study on instructional leadership through using these quality practices which might predict the school performance to fulfill existing gap in the existing literature.

Material and Methods

In this correlation design study, data collection was made through survey method. All public high schools were the population from Sahiwal division and 1026 SSTs were the sample, selected randomly through multistage sampling technique. In overall, sample of the study included 570 (56%) male and 456 (44%) female teachers.




Instrumentation

Two instruments were employed in overall for

collection of data. First, HTEQ developed by the researchers, was adapted to evaluate the instructional leadership quality of head teachers that contained 23 items and grouped into five domains: shared leadership, building and sustaining school vision, data gathering and assessing, leading a learning communities, and monitor curriculum and instruction. The scales of the tool are as: 1) ineffective, 2) less effective, 3) moderately effective, 4) effective, and 5) very effective were ranged from minimum to the maximum level effectiveness of instructional leadership (Akram & Malik, 2021). The overall reliability of the tool was 0.83 which is acceptable level in social sciences. Secondly, to measure performance of school, five factors: student achievement, functionality of facilities, student presence, cleanliness of school, and teacher presence were selected.

Data Collection

After getting the consent from each participant, data were obtained from 1026 SSTs with the help of questionnaire through visiting the sampled high schools. All ethical concerns of study were ensured by researchers. Data on factors of school performance: cleanliness of schools, presence of students and functioning of facilities, and teacher presence were obtained through visit reports of MEAs, and scores on student achievement were got through BISE Sahiwal annual results of grade 10th for 2017-2018 session. After that, the data were summed up for performance of schools which was in percent form and for overall school performance, mean score was used.

 

Data Analysis

The study employed quantitative approach and data were entered and analyzed by using SPSS version 20. In the following, analysis of data is being given.




 

Table1. Instructional Leadership Factor-wise and Overall Reliability

Factors	Items	Cronbach Alpha
Sustaining and Building the school Vision	05	.76
Leading a Learning Community	06	.78
Sharing Leadership	04	.70
Monitoring Curriculum and Instruction	05	.74
Using of Data to Make the Instructional Decisions	03	.75
Overall Instructional Leadership	03	.83

 

The reliabilities of the instructional leadership were initially calculated factor-wise and overall through using the Cronbach Alpha.

 

Table 2. Instructional Leadership Descriptive Statistics (N=1026)

Factors	N	Mean	SD
Building and sustaining a school Vision	1026	3.98	0.735
Sharing Leadership	1026	3.79	0.774
Leading a Learning Community	1026	3.70	0.760
Using Data to Make Instructional Decisions	1026	3.75	0.862
Monitoring Curriculum and Instruction	1026	3.73	0.754
Overall Instructional Leadership	1026	3.80	0.654

 




Table 2 revealed that most demonstrating factor of instructional leadership was sustaining and building the school vision (M=3.98, SD=0.735), while the lowest demonstrating factor was leading a learning community (M=3.70, SD=0.760). In overall, instructional leadership which were rated by the teachers (M=3.80, SD=0.654) showed an above average on all the factors of instructional leadership.




 

Table 3. School Performance Descriptive Statistics (N=1026)

Factors	N	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Presence of Teachers	1026	92.04	2.524	82.5	100
Student presence	1026	90.54	2.412	81.2	96.4
Functioning of Facilities	1026	95.42	2.016	80.4	100
School Cleanliness	1026	86.57	4.628	68.2	97.4
Student Achievement	1026	74.21	15.43	48.6	100
Overall School Performance	1026	89.56	3.178	77.4	94.0

 




Table 3 showed that school performance was the highest on functioning of facilities (M=92.04, SD=2.52), while the lowest was on the student achievement (M=74.21, SD=15.43). In overall, Level of schools’ performance (M=89.56, SD=3.18) was found at the excellent level.




 

Table 4. Relationship of Instructional Leadership with School Performance

	School Performance
Factor	1	2	3	4	5
Building and sustaining a school Vision	.392*	.364*	.254*	.284*	.543*
Sharing Leadership	.278*	.402*	.284*	.314*	.464*
Leading a Learning Community	.332*	.442*	.264*	.287*	.482*
Using of  Data for Instructional Decisions	.374*	.243*	.309*	.393*	.451*
Monitoring Curriculum and Instruction	.426*	.362*	264*	.267*	.524*
Overall Instructional Leadership	Relationship=.542*

* p=.05 level (2-tailed Sig.) , *5=Student Achievement, 4=School Cleanliness, 3=Functioning of Facilities, 2= Student Presence, 1=Teacher Presence




Table 4 revealed the significant and positive relationships between all factors of instructional leadership and all factors of school performance. In overall, the study revealed the positive and significant relationship between both instructional leadership and school performance (r=.54).




 

Table 5. Instructional Leadership and School Performance: Regression Analysis

Model	Sum of Square	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Regression	197.182	5	39.436	3.96	.001*
Residual	10148.119	1020	9.949
Total	10345.300	1025

 




All five factors of instructional leadership combined significantly to predict overall performance of schools (R²=.39, F(5, 1020)=3.96, p=.001). The value of R square confirmed that through head teachers’ quality of instructional leadership, 39% variance in the school performance could be explained.

Discussion

The study mainly focused to explore the effect of instructional leadership quality of head teachers on school performance. The study in hand found that head teachers were used the quality practices of instructional leadership effectively in their institutions and performance of their schools were also at the level of excellence. The study also explored the moderate relationship between instructional leadership and school performance (r=.54) that were consistent with multiple research (Akram et al., 2017; Akram & Malik, 2021; Ali, 2017; Brown, 2016; Ch. et al., 2018; Heaven & Bourne, 2016; Hou et al., 2019; Malik & Akram, 2020; Malik et al., 2022a) indicated the essentiality of instructional leadership practices for school performance. The study also found that 39% variance in school performance was explained through head teachers’ quality of instructional leadership that were also in line with the various studies (Akram & Malik, 2021; Bendikson et al., 2012; Louis et al., 2012; Malik & Akram, 2020; Malik et al., 2022b; Muasya et al., 2017) provided evidence that instructional leadership is the most essential factor which mainly contributed in the student learning and school outcomes. In overall, the results of the study based on adapted HTEQ confirmed the models, theories, and previous findings that head teachers’ quality of instructional leadership evaluated through using the quality practices correlated and predicted school performance.

Brown (2016) identified the quality practices of instructional leadership: cultivate leadership in teachers, develop and maintain the culture of continuous professional development, and make decisions through using of data that mainly contributed in school improvement. Akram et al. (2017) provided a valid tool through using the main dimensions of instructional leadership: sustaining visible presence, provider of resources about instruction, maximizing instructional design, professional development of teachers, giving feedback on teaching, and monitoring of learning progress that were correlated with student outcomes. This study heavily contributed in the area of instructional leadership through providing tool to evaluate quality practices or skills of head teachers. The study in hand is also in line with both of studies that instructional leadership might be evaluated by using quality practices.

Ali (2017) identified some practices of instructional leadership: developing learning climate and school vision, and organizing the instructional program, and significant relationship was found between both instructional leadership and school effectiveness, told the essentiality of instructional leadership for school effectiveness. Muasya et al. (2017) also provided some quality practices such as managing the instructional program and school vision, developing supportive environment, and arranging incentives for teachers that were contributed in student learning. Hou et al. (2019) also predicated the student achievement in their study through the quality practices of instructional leadership such as developing school mission and healthy relations with workforce, and managing instructional process and professional development of their teachers. Similarly, all these studies evaluated the instructional leadership through using effective practices and correlated with school effectiveness.

Malik and Akram (2020) explored effect of instructional leadership on the school outcomes, revealed that school performance can be predicted through instructional leadership quality of head teachers. Further, Akram and Malik (2021) also provided the model based on effective practices of instructional leadership to evaluate head teachers. In another study, compared instructional leadership and school performance through gender-based and location-based, and school performance was found better in which head teachers used better instructional leadership practices. Similarly, also evaluated the effectiveness of leaders involving instructional leadership that was measured through head teachers’ perceptions and found moderate relationship between both instructional leadership and school performance. All these studies were also consistent with this study that instructional leader is essential for the school success.

Similarly, there are also some other studies that were used effective practices to measure instructional leadership, confirmed that how much these practices are essential to perform the instructional leadership role of head teachers. Yasser and Amal (2015) given some quality practices of instructional leadership: developing school vision, creating supportive learning environment, one factor solution and organizing instructional activities that enhance student learning. Ch. et al. (2018) also provided some skills of instructional leaders: monitoring students’ progress, evaluating and supervising the instruction, given motivation to teachers, infrastructure and resources, and professional development of teachers. Feye (2019) evaluated instructional leadership through improving instructional process, supervising the implementation of curriculum, evaluating and monitoring the student performance on continuous basis. All of these studies were also in line with the study in hand that best way to evaluate the instructional leadership is through using quality practices that also predicted and correlated with the school outcomes.

Conclusion

The study mainly focused to explore the effect of instructional leadership on school performance. The study found that quality practices of instructional leadership were implemented by head teachers effectively in their institutions and performance of their schools were also at the level of excellence. Further, the study also revealed the moderate relationship between both instructional leadership and school performance (r=.54), and 39% variance in school performance was also explained through head teachers’ quality of instructional leadership. The results of study confirmed previous findings that instructional leadership quality of head teachers evaluated though the quality practices or skills correlated and predicted school performance. 

Recommendations

The study revealed that instructional leadership of head teachers are being evaluated through using quality practices or skills in the world but in Pakistan, there is no reliable mechanism to evaluate the instructional leadership except Performance Evaluation Report (PER) involves various issues of validity. Therefore, the study recommended that head teachers’ quality of instructional leadership might be evaluated through using the effective practices or skills such as shared leadership, building and sustaining the school vision, data gathering and assessing, leading a learning community, and curriculum and instruction monitoring in Pakistan that might be different lens to evaluate the instructional leadership. Further, the policy makers and authorities might also ensure to employ these quality practices in the institutions while evaluating the instructional leadership quality of head teachers.

References

• Akram, M., Kiran, S., & ILGAN, A. (2017). Development and validation of instructional leadership questionnaire. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 6(1), 73–88.
• Akram, M. & Malik, M.I. (2021). Development and validation of head teachers’ effectiveness questionnaire. Journal of Educational Science and Research, 8(2), 138-161.
• Ali, N. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions of the relationship between principals’ instructional leadership, school culture and school effectiveness in secondary schools in Pakistan. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Malaya, Malaysia.
• Andrew, R., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal instructional leadership and school achievement. Instructional Leadership, 44, 9- 11.
• Bendikson, L., Robinson, V., & Hattie, J. (2012). Principal instructional leadership and secondary school performance. Set: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 2–8.
• Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Leadership for staff development: Supporting the lifelong study of teaching and learning. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
• Brown, L. L. (2016). Educator perceptions of instructional leadership in the school improvement process. (Doctoral dissertation), East Tennessee State University, United States of America (USA).
• Ch., H., Ahmad, S., & Batool, A. (2018). Head teacher as an instructional leader in school. Bulletin of Education and Research, 40(1), 77-87.
• Chief Minister School Reforms Roadmap (2016). Parho Punjab, barho Punjab school reforms roadmap.
• Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says,Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Cooper, B. S., Ehrensal, P. A., & Bromme, M. (2005). School-level politics and professional development: Traps in evaluating the quality of practicing teachers. Educational Policy, 19(1), 112-125.
• Day, C., & Sammons, P. (2013). Successful leadership: A review of the international literature. CfBT Trust, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.
• Feye, D. D. (2019). Instructional leadership practices and challenges of school principals in governmental secondary schools in Sidama zone. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 24(10), 1-7.
• Fink, E., & Resnick, L. B. (2001). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), 598-610.
• Fullan, M. (2010). The awesome power of the principal. Principal, 89(4), 10-15.
• Garrison, D. R. (2019). ONLINE COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY REVIEW: SOCIAL, COGNITIVE, AND TEACHING PRESENCE ISSUES. Online Learning, 11(1).
• Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research, 48(5), 1091-1123.
• Habib, Z. (2010). A comparative study of performance of community model schools and government girls primary schools in Punjab. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Education Lahore.
• Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the Instructional Management Behavior of Principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247.
• Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 693-700.
• Heaven, G., & Bourne, P. A. (2016). Instructional Leadership and Its Effect on Students’ Academic Performance. Review of Public Administration and Management, 04(03).
• Herrera, R. (2010). Principal leadership and school effectiveness: Perspectives from principals and teachers. (Doctoral dissertation), Western Michigan University.
• Hou, Y., Cui, Y., & Zhang, D. (2019). Impact of instructional leadership on high school student academic achievement in China. Asia Pacific education Review, 20(4), 543-558.
• Hufford, D. (2014). Presence in the classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2014(140), 11-21.
• Karatas, Ä°. H. (2016). Professional standards for school principals in Turkey. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(5), 51-63.
• Kausar, A., Kiyani, A. I., & Suleman, Q. (2017). Effect of classroom environment on the academic achievement of secondary school students in the subject of Pakistan studies at secondary level in Rawalpindi district. Pakistan. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(24), 56-63