Abstract

The study examined the effect of self-evaluation of head teachers’ effectiveness on school performance through quality indicators: teacher evaluation, instructional leadership, organizational management, school climate, and communication and community relations. School performance is defined as the extent to which long or short-term educational targets are achieved by teachers, students and schools. In district Sahiwal, 104 head teachers evaluated their own effectiveness on HTEQ developed by researchers by selecting them conveniently. For school performance, MEAs' monthly visit reports were used to collect the data on the factors: teacher presence, school cleanliness, functioning of facilities and student presence, while data on student achievement scores were obtained from their schools. The study found that head teachers implemented these indicators effectively and their schools' performance was also at an excellent level. The study revealed a moderate relationship between both of the variables (r=.54). The study also revealed that a 41% variance in the performance of schools was explained through all five factors of head teachers’ effectiveness.

Key Words

School Performance, Head Teachers’ Effectiveness, Teacher Evaluation, Instructional Leadership, Communication and Community Relations, Organizational Management, School Climate

Introduction

The school principals also known as head teachers perform multiple management and leadership role to maximize the school outcomes (Karatas, 2016), ensure quality education by managing the process of instruction (Ch. et al., 2018, Fullan, 2010), develop supporting climate to learning (Robinson et al., 2008) and make sure of implementation of the curriculum through using multiple resources (Khan et al., 2009) to improve the school performance (Day & Sammons, 2013). Due to the importance of an effective head teacher for school effectiveness, it is essential to comprehend the qualities of an effective headteacher that are being used globally. It is a very complex construct which is operationally defined by different researchers to measure and involves multiple contextual factors due to its significance in each society or culture. The effectiveness of head teachers can be described as the intended or expected effect of head teachers’ work (Clifford et al., 2012). Multiple studies revealed that head teacher effectiveness is a process to measure how quality indicators recommended by the state are used by head teachers in their schools that improve the results (Jones et al., 2018; Stronge et al., 2013).

To identify the effective head teacher, various studies have been conducted using quality indicators in different countries (Akram & Malik, 2021; Day & Sammons, 2013; Karatas, 2016; Malik & Akram, 2020; McCullough et al., 2016; Robinson et al., 2008). Based on quality indicators, various models are also being used globally to measure head teachers’ effectiveness such as the New Leader Model (2012), Pennsylvania Model (2014), Wisconsin Framework of Head Teacher Leadership (2018), School Leader Impact Model (2015) and Stronge et al. Model (2008) that improves the school performance (Dee & Wykoff, 2015; Jones et al., 2018; Teh et al., 2014; Sanders & Kearney, 2012; Stronge et al., 2008). The quality indicator-based framework is emphasized to evaluate head teacher effectiveness in the world, particularly from China, the UK, Canada, Turkey and USA (Day & Sammons, 2013; Shelton, 2013; Zheng et al., 2017). On the other hand, in Pakistan, the Performance Evaluation Report (PER) is being employed involving some personal characteristics only which is not a reliable and valid document to evaluate the effectiveness of head teachers and make further decisions about their promotion. It is essential to use research-based quality indicators which might be a different lens to recognize the effective head teachers in Pakistan. For that purpose, the researcher and co-author also developed an instrument to evaluate head teacher effectiveness based on important quality indicators of Stronge et al. (2008) model: teacher evaluation, instructional leadership, community relations and communication, organizational management and school climate (Akram & Malik, 2021).

In Pakistan, various studies failed to use these quality indicators to measure head teachers’ effectiveness (Niqab et al., 2015; Salfi, 2011; Salfi et al., 2014) but Malik and co-author made a serious effort to fill that gap in the literature (Akram & Malik, 2021; Malik & Akram, 2020). Previous, various studies used these quality indicators separately in Pakistan such as teacher evaluation (Akram & Zepeda, 2015), school climate (Anwar & Anis-ul- Haq, 2014), organizational management (Khan et al., 2009) and instructional leadership (Akram et al., 2017) to recognize effective head teachers that did not provide a true picture of head teachers' effectiveness. Based on quality indicators, Malik and his co-author provided valid and reliable HTEQ to evaluate head teachers’ effectiveness and also examined the effect of head teachers’ effectiveness evaluated through teachers’ perception of school performance (Akram & Malik, 2021; Malik & Akram, 2020). Headteachers which are the main stakeholders for school improvement were ignored to measure their own effectiveness in Pakistan. There is a dire need to conduct a study if head teachers evaluate their own effectiveness on HTEQ that would predict and correlate with the performance of the school. The present study focused on self-evaluation of head teachers’ effectiveness by involving quality indicators that would predict and correlate with the school's performance to fulfil the existing gap in the literature.

Theoretical Framework

Effectiveness is the capacity and ability to obtain desired outcomes (Clifford et al., 2012). The study hypothesized on goal-oriented approach that is based on whether goals are achieved (Schermerhorn et al., 2004) that further provides feedback to head teachers which is essential for improvement (Stronge et al., 2013). Previous studies revealed that the self-evaluation of head teachers based on quality indicators provided reliable evidence as the ratings about their own effectiveness would remain consistent and predict school performance (Herrera, 2010; Karatas, 2016). The study framed previous findings that self-evaluation of head teachers’ effectiveness based on quality indicators would correlate and predict school performance.




Head Teachers’ Effectiveness and Quality Performance Standards

Stronge et al. (2008) provided some important quality indicators of head teacher: teacher evaluation, instructional leadership, communication and community relation, school climate and organizational management. Through employing Instructional leadership, the head teacher emphasized the culture of shared goals (Malik & Akram, 2020), staff collaboration, opportunities for learning for teachers (Brown, 2016), analyzing of gathered data (Ch et al., 2018) and ensuring the effective use of resources that are most required to improve the student achievement (Akram et al., 2017). There are multiple studies revealed that instructional leadership correlates with and predicts school performance (Hou et al., 2019; Louis et al., 2012). School climate can be defined as the stakeholders’ perceptions of friendly and sympathetic interaction with head teachers (Nichols, 2019; Rapti, 2013). Various studies revealed that school climate is the most essential indicator of school performance (Maxwell et al., 2017; Shindler et al., 2016). Teacher evaluation is most required to review and rate the teachers’ effectiveness which also provides feedback to teachers to improve their professional growth (Akram & Zepeda, 2015).  Multiple studies provided evidence that teacher evaluation predicts student achievement (Akram, 2019; Malik & Akram, 2020).

Organizational management is another quality of an effective headteacher that assist to adjust and monitor the structure of the institution, use of time, space and all required resource, operational activities and use of data effectively to improve the school performance (Khan et al., 2009). Multiple studies revealed that school performance can be predicted through the quality of organizational management of head teachers (Jacobson, 2011; Ndinza, 2015). Through community relations and communication, head teachers inform the vision of their staff (Keyton, 2011) and develop a relationship with the community to achieve the targets (Watson, 2019). A plethora of research revealed that student achievement correlated and predicted through the communication and community relations quality of head teachers that told the importance of this skill for school improvement (Wahed & El-Syed, 2012; Waswa, 2017). Due to the importance of these qualities, the research employed these quality indicators to evaluate head teachers’ effectiveness that would correlate and predict school performance.




School Performance

School performance is defined as the extent to which long or short educational targets are achieved by the teachers, students and schools. It is the combination of efficiency and effectiveness that means school targets are obtained within time and are less expensive (Habib, 2010). Some important models of school performance were reviewed: School Reforms Roadmap Model, Pakistan (2016), Louisiana Model (2016), and School Manual Model, Pakistan (2004) and five factors: teacher presence, school cleanliness, student presence, student achievement and functioning of facilities were used to measure school performance. Teacher presence in the classroom has a direct effect on student outcomes (Garrison, 2007). Student presence in the classroom is highly required for their success (Hufford, 2014). The functioning of facilities is another factor of school performance that involves functionality and provision of facilities that enhance student achievement (Kaur, 2016). School cleanliness involves the cleanliness of all classrooms, corridors, toilets, lawns, playgrounds, and surroundings of the school that must be according to hygiene. School cleanliness is required for a better environment and school improvement (Kausar et al., 2017). Student achievement is defined as the attainment of objectives that can be measured with the help of tests (Nyagosia, 2011).




Evaluation of Head Teachers’ Effectiveness and School Performance

There are multiple studies that were conducted to measure head teachers’ effectiveness based on quality indicators and also correlated or predicted the school performance or student outcomes. Waters et al. (2003) revealed the relationship between important leadership qualities with student achievement. Hallinger and Heck (2004) investigated the association between leadership qualities and school effectiveness and revealed that leadership affects student achievement or school effectiveness. Cotton (2003) provided some leadership skills: student learning, interaction and relationships, school culture, instruction and accountability that contribute to student achievement. Another study examined the compatibility between tools of head teacher evaluation and quality indicators in the USA which found that authorities were much emphasized developing valid and reliable instruments based on quality indicators: community relations, instructional leadership, and management of the organization to evaluate their effectiveness (Catano & Stronge, 2006). Robinson et al. (2008) investigated the effect of different effective leadership practices on student achievement. The study provided quality indicators: evaluation of instruction and curriculum, setting high expectations and goals, effective planning and resourcing, promoting the professional development of teachers through participation, and ensuring an orderly and supportive environment that affects student achievement which indicated the importance of these qualities in student learning. 

Goldring et al. (2009) examined different tools that were being used in multiple studies to evaluate the leadership qualities of head teachers and revealed that external environment, management and personal traits were employed with less concern for the quality of teaching and curriculum to evaluate their effectiveness in the past that did not provide a vivid picture of effective head teachers and tools were also not valid and reliable. This study highlighted the importance of to use of valid and reliable instruments to measure head teachers’ effectiveness. Herrera (2010) examined the effective practices of head teachers that promote student achievement and school success. The data were gathered from head teachers and teachers to get their perceptions by using the questionnaire. This study provided seven effective head teachers’ practices such as order, culture, discipline, resources, focus, intellectual stimulation and input that predict the school performance. Grissom and Loeb (2011) provided skills of effective headteachers such as instructional management, organizational management, internal relations, external relations and administration that affect school performance. Salfi (2011) revealed the important qualities of a head teacher: promoting collaborative culture, developing a shared vision, empowering the staff through distributed leadership, developing and maintaining good relationships, and shared decision-making involving all stakeholders. 

Clifford et al. (2012) provided quality indicators to evaluate head teachers such as developing and maintaining the school mission, examining the instructional quality through analysis of data, effective use of resources, safe and supportive learning environment, maintaining a good relationship with the community, and professionalism that influences school outcomes. Day and Sammons (2013) examined the nature and purpose of leadership and its association with school performance. The study revealed that a combination of different strategies adopted by the head teacher: developing a shared vision and strategic plan, leading teaching and learning, managing the organization, establishing healthy relations and professional community, holding accountability and strengthening the community have a positive effect on the school performance. Salfi et al. (2014) identified the qualities of a head teacher: awareness about leadership, influential personality and role model, communication and management skills, professional development and personal qualities that are highly required for school outcomes.

Kransnoff (2015) provided qualities of an effective headteacher such as setting high expectations for the students and staff, creating a positive learning climate, cultivating leadership in the school community, improving instructional quality and managing people, data and processes. Niqab et al. (2015) examined effective leadership attributes or qualities in Pakistan. The data were gathered from teachers and head teachers by using the questionnaire. The study provided effective leadership attributes or qualities: self-management and decision-making, comfort and commitment, empathy, and time management. The results revealed that there was a significant difference in the perceptions of teachers and their head teachers, and results suggested that head teachers lack leadership skills. The analysis revealed that most head teachers considered them good leaders, but their teachers negated that. However, this study explored some important leadership qualities of head teachers despite the difference in their opinions. Karatas (2016) explored the professional standards of effective head teachers and employed a mixed-method approach to gathering the data from head teachers through interviews and questionnaires. The study identified some quality indicators of head teachers such as organizational management, educational and technology leadership, school environment and effective communication to evaluate their effectiveness in his study.

Another study developed an instrument to evaluate the head teachers’ effectiveness through quality indicators such as professional and community leadership, instructional leadership, and leadership about system and culture that found the strongest relationships between these standards of head teachers and student achievement (McCullough et al., 2016). O’Neill (2016) determined the qualities of effective head teachers and data were gathered from teachers and head teachers with the help of questionnaires, observation and interviews. This study found that an effective head teacher was a strategic thinker and ensured that the school was managed effectively through the meaningful system and distributive leadership. An effective headteacher leads the school effectively through an excellent relationship with staff, has extensive knowledge of practices and the educational world within and outside the school, expects high standards of students and staff, and communicates the vision clearly among staff members. 

Ontai-Machado (2016) investigated the association between the qualities of leaders and their school effectiveness and provided some quality factors: sharing leadership, a positive climate of school and improvement of student learning through analyzing of data, and structured activities that were predicted and correlated with school effectiveness which indicated that head teachers with essential qualities are essential to improve the school performance. Salem (2016) identified some dimensions of an effective headteacher: focus on the instructional program, develop and communicate vision, mission and goals, and develop organizational structures that affect student achievement. Zheng et al. (2017) provided effective practices of head teachers: planning and personnel, visibility and participation, external relations and internal environment, and instructional organization that were correlated with student outcomes.

Malik and Akram (2020) evaluated the head teachers’ effectiveness through teachers’ perceptions based on quality indicators: management of an organization, climate of the school, instructional leadership, community relations and communication, and evaluation of teachers that were also predicted and correlated with school performance. Further, Akram and Malik (2021) also developed and validated HTEQ based on these quality indicators that might be employed to evaluate head teachers’ effectiveness. To summarize, head teacher evaluation based on quality indicators is highly required that might helps head teachers to enhance their professional development and school outcomes. The researchers reviewed previous studies, models and evaluation systems of different countries which revealed that quality performance standards are essential to measuring head teachers’ effectiveness that improves school outcomes. In Pakistan, previous studies lack to measure head teachers’ effectiveness through head teachers which perceptions are most important for the school's improvement. There is a dire need to conduct a study on self-evaluation of head teachers' effectiveness based on quality indicators and its effect on the school performance to fulfil the existing gap which might further strengthen the idea that effectual head teachers are the most essential for school success and realized by the policy maker as well to implement these quality indicators in schools to evaluate head teacher effectiveness rather than Performance Evaluation Report (PER) that are being used and made decisions for their promotions in Pakistan which are having reliability and validity issues but only contains some personal characteristics. 

Research Objectives

The objectives of this study were to:

? Measure head teachers’ effectiveness through self-perceptions of head teachers.

? Measure the school performance of male and female, rural and urban high schools.

? Measure the relationship between the head teachers’ perception of their effectiveness and their school performance.

? Predict the school performance through head teachers’ effectiveness score.




Research Question

The research questions of the study were the following:

1. What do headteachers perceive of their own effectiveness? 

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

3. What is the relationship between the head teachers’ perceptions of their effectiveness and their school performance?

4. Do head teachers’ perceptions of their effectiveness combine to predict school performance?

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual model gives a written and visual output of the unified ideas of head teachers’ effectiveness that is interlinked with the school performance (Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Ontai-Machado, 2016). Five quality indicators of head teachers based on the model of Akram and Malik (2021): evaluation of the teacher, climate of a school, instructional leadership, community relations and communication, and organizational management were employed to evaluate head teachers’ effectiveness. Five factors: teacher presence, school cleanliness, student presence, student achievement and functioning of facilities were employed to measure school performance. Based on the provided framework, it was presumed that self-evaluation of head teachers’ effectiveness would predict and correlate with school performance in Pakistan.

Figure 1



Research Methodology

The survey method was adopted for data collection in this correlation study.




Population and Sample

From district Sahiwal, all head teachers of male and female public high schools were the population of the study. To select a sample, 104 

head teachers were taken conveniently from the population. Among them, 60 were male head teachers, while 44 head teachers were female.




Instrumentation

The study used two tools for data collection. First, the study used Head Teacher Effectiveness Questionnaire (HTEQ) to evaluate head teachers' effectiveness developed by researchers which contained 83 items and were grouped into five domains: school climate, instructional leadership, community relations and communication, teacher evaluation and organizational management. The response scales (ineffective, less effective, moderately effective, effective, or very effective) ranged from the lowest to the highest level of quality indicators. HTEQ revealed the highest level of reliability (?=0.81) by employing the Cronbach Alpha. Secondly, five factors: teacher presence, school cleanliness, student presence, student achievement and functioning of facilities were selected tomeasure school performance.

Data Collection

After getting permission, HTEQ were distributed among head teachers of public high school in district Sahiwal and got data about their effectiveness was from 60 male head teachers and 44 female head teachers (N=104). Data of school performance for factors: the presence of teachers, functioning of facilities, student presence and cleanliness of schools were gathered through monitoring & evaluation assistants (MEAs) visit reports and student achievement scores were through grade 10th annual results of BISE Sahiwal for the 2017-2018 session. After that, all the data on school performance were summed up which was available in per cent form and further used the mean score of all these five factors as the overall score of school performance. 

Data Analysis

The study used a quantitative approach and data were entered into SPSS version 20. Analysis of data is provided in the following.




 

Table 1. Descriptive Level of Head Teachers’ Effectiveness

Factor	N	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Instructional Leadership	104	3.952	0.562	2.14	4.91
School Climate	104	3.881	0.593	2.08	4.88
Teacher Evaluation	104	3.614	0.712	2.11	4.89
Organizational Management	104	4.182	0.532	2.57	4.93
Communication & Community Relations	104	3.712	0.640	1.60	5.00
Overall Head Teachers’ Effectiveness	104	3.854	0.505	2.51	4.88

 




Table 1 showed that the most demonstrating quality of the head teachers was organizational management (M=4.18, SD=0.532), followed by instructional leadership (M=3.95, SD=0.562), school climate (M=3.88, SD=0.593). Finally, overall, the effectiveness of head teachers which is rated by themselves (M=3.854, SD=0.505) revealed an above average on all the five quality indicators of effective head teachers in this study.




 

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of School Performance Factors

Factor	N	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Presence of Teachers	104	95.06	2.582	85.4	100
Student presence	104	92.58	2.371	82.8	97.1
Functioning of Facilities	104	96.23	2.531	85.8	100
School Cleanliness	104	90.21	4.344	77.2	98.6
Student Achievement	104	78.40	12.11	52.5	100
Overall School Performance	104	90.12	14.39	78.4	97.2

 




Table 2 shows that the highest level of school performance was on the functioning of facilities (M=96.23, SD=2.53), followed by teacher presence (M=95.06, SD=2.58) and student presence (M=92.58, SD=2.37).  Finally, overall, the level of school performance (M=90.12, SD=14.39) revealed that schools were at an excellent level in terms of their performance.




 

Table 3. Relationship of Head Teachers’ Effectiveness with School Performance

School Performance
Factor	1	2	3	4	5
Instructional Leadership	.413*	.357*	.242*	.236*	.524*
School Climate	.291*	.394*	.221*	.216*	.425*
Teacher Evaluation	.324*	.301*	.230*	.244*	.457*
Organizational Management	.362*	.254*	.289*	.373*	.438*
Community Relations & Communication	.403*	.340*	.215*	.220*	.502*
Overall Headteachers’ effectiveness      Relationship=.539*

* p=.05 level (2-tailed Sig.)                                                                                                                                                        

*5=Student Achievement, 4=School Cleanliness, 3=Functioning of Facilities, 2= Student Presence, 1=Teacher Presence

 




Table 3 shows that positive and significant relationships were found between all the factors of head teachers’ effectiveness and all the factors of school performance. Finally, overall, the study also revealed a significant and positive relationship between the overall Head teachers’ effectiveness and overall school performance (r=.54) in this given study.




 

Table 4. Multiple Regression Analysis: Predicting Head Teachers’ Effectiveness through School Performance

Model	Sum of Square	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Regression	603.464	5	120.693	3.84	.002*
Residual	20728.882	98	211.519
Total	21332.346	103

 




All five factors of head teachers’ effectiveness significantly combined to predict the performance of schools (R²=.41, F(5, 98)=3.84, p=.002). The value of R square confirmed that 41 per cent variance in the performance of schools could be explained though head teachers’ effectiveness score measured through head teachers’ perceptions.




 

Table 5. Factor-wise Regression Analysis

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	T	Sig.
	B	Std. Error	Beta (?)
Instructional Leadership	.049	.035	.080	4.17	.001
Climate of School	.055	.045	.085	4.12	.003
Evaluation of Teacher	.047	.034	.077	3.08	.002
Management of Organization	.055	.036	.078	3.19	.004
Communication & Community Relations	.062	.046	.101	3.41	.002

 




All factors of head teachers’ effectiveness, individually, significantly predicted the performance of the school as teacher evaluation (?=.077, p=.002), the climate of the school (?=.085, p=.003), instructional leadership (?=.080, p=.001), community relations and communication (?=.101, p=.002), and organizational management (?=.078, p=.004).

Discussion

The study examined the effect of self-evaluation of head teachers’ effectiveness on school performance. The study revealed that head teachers evaluated their own effectiveness on HTEQ which is above average which means headteachers implemented these quality indicators effectively in their school. The performance of high schools was revealed at an excellent level. The study found that the effectiveness of head teachers measured through their perceptions was correlated with school performance (r=.54) that are consistent with various research findings (Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Malik & Akram, 2020; McCullough et al., 2016; Ontai-Machado, 2016; Waters et al., 2003), showed the importance of effective head teachers identified through quality indicators for their school performance. The study also revealed that 41% variance in the performance of schools could be explained through all five indicators of head teachers’ effectiveness that are also consistent with previous research (Clifford et al., 2012; Day & Sammons, 2013; Grissom & Loeb, 2011; Hallinger & Heck, 2004; Herrera, 2010; Malik & Akram, 2020; Ontai-Machado, 2016). Overall, the results based on HTEQ confirmed previous findings, models and theories that evaluation of head teachers’ effectiveness based on quality indicators predicts and correlates with the school performance.

Waters et al. (2003) found that the leadership qualities of head teachers significantly correlated with student outcomes. Robinson et al. (2008) explored that the evaluation of head teachers based on quality standards predicted student achievement. Herrera (2010) provided some important qualities of head teachers that also predicted their school performance. Grissom and Loeb (2011) also examined head teachers’ effectiveness based on quality indicators that predicted school performance positively. Clifford et al. (2012) evaluated head teachers' effectiveness through quality indicators that influence school outcomes. Day and Sammons (2013) also revealed that effective strategies adopted by head teachers have a positive effect on school performance. In another study, McCullough et al. (2016) developed a valid and reliable tool based on quality indicators of head teachers that were also correlated with student achievement. Ontai-Machado (2016) evaluated head teachers through effective practices that were predicted and correlated with school effectiveness. Zheng et al. (2017) provided effective practices of head teachers that were also correlated with student achievement. The most important study conducted by Malik and Akram (2020) revealed that head teachers' effectiveness based on quality standards was predicted and correlated with school performance. All the studies provided evidence that head teachers' effectiveness measured through quality indicators predicts and correlate with school performance which is consistent with this study and further strengthens the idea that effective head teachers identified through quality indicators are necessary for student outcome and school improvement.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The study examined the effect of self-evaluation of head teachers’ effectiveness on school performance to further investigate the extent to which quality indicators of head teachers predicted school performance. The study revealed a significant and positive relationship between both of the variables and head teachers’ effectiveness measured through the perceptions of headteachers also predicted the school performance that is also in line with various research findings which further proved that evaluating head teachers’ effectiveness based on quality factors of head teacher predict and correlate with the school performance. PER is being used to evaluate head teachers in Pakistan which is not a valid and reliable document. There is a dire need to employ quality indicators in the school to identify effective head teachers.  HTEQ developed by Akram and Malik (2021) provides a new lens to identify effective head teachers which might be used in public schools as an alternative to PER. The findings of the study revealed the importance of these quality indicators of the effective head teacher and the federal government might ask policymakers to implement these indicators by head teachers in the institutions. Further, HTEQ based on Akram and Malik's (2021) work involving quality indicators might be introduced to evaluate the effectiveness of head teachers in the schools rather than PER which involves reliability and validity issues and only contains some personal characteristics. The present study involved one district (Sahiwal) of Punjab which is a relatively smaller sample size, so the generalization over the other districts may kindly be made with caution. The study recommended future studies to conduct with a larger sample size to obtain a vivid and better picture of head teachers’ effectiveness in Pakistan. 

References

• Akram, M. (2019). Relationship between students’ perceptions of teacher effectiveness and student achievement at secondary school level. Bulletin of Education and Research, 41(2), 93-108.
• 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. (2021). Journal of Educational Sciences and Research, 8(2), 138-161.
• Akram, M., & Zepeda, S. J. (2015). Development and validation of a teacher self-assessment instrument. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 9(2), 134-148.
• Anwar, M., & Anis-ul-Haque, M. (2014). Development of school climate scale (SCS): Measuring primary school teachers' perceptions in Islamabad, Pakistan. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 51-58.
• Brown, L. L. (2016). Educator perceptions of instructional leadership in the school improvement process. (Doctoral dissertation), East Tennessee State University.
• Catano, N., & Stronge, J. H. (2006). What are principals expected to do? Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 221-237.
• 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.
• Clifford, M., Behrstock-Sherratt, E., & Fetters, J. (2012). The ripple effect: A synthesis of research on principal influence to inform performance evaluation design. A quality school leadership issue brief. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
• Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
• Day, C., & Sammons, P. (2013). Successful leadership: A review of the international literature. CfBT Trust, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
• Dee, T. S., & Wyckoff, J. (2015). Incentives, Selection, and Teacher Performance: Evidence from IMPACT. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 267– 297.
• Michael, F. (2010). The Awesome Power of the Principal. Principal, 89(4), 10.
• Garrison, D. R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72.
• Goldring, E., Cravens, X., Murphy, J., Porter, A., Elliott, S., & Carson, B. (2009). The Evaluation of Principals: What and How Do States and Urban Districts Assess Leadership? The Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 19–39.
• 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 inPunjab. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Education Lahore.
• Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the Principal’s Contribution to School Effectiveness: 1980-1995∗. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.
• 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.
• Jacobson, S. (2011). Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school success. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 33–44.
• Jones, C. J., Gilman, L., & Kimball, S. (2018). Measuring the effectiveness of Wisconsin principals: A study of Wisconsin framework for principal leadership ratings. University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.
• Karatas, I. H. (2016). Professional standards for school principals in Turkey. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(5), 51- 63.
• Kaur, S. (2016). Student Support Services in Higher Education: A Student Perspective. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(3).
• 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
• Keyton, J. (2011). Communication and organizational culture: A key to understanding work experiences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Khan, S. H., Saeed, M., & Fatima, K. (2009). Assessing the performance of secondary school head teachers: A survey study based on teachers’ views in Punjab. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(6), 766-783.
• Krasnoff, B. (2015). Leadership qualities of effective principals. Portland, Oregon: The Northwest Comprehensive Center, Education Center.
• Louis, K. S., Lee, M., Walker, A., & Chui, Y. L. (2012). Contrasting effects of instructional leadership practices on student learning in a high accountability context. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 586–611.
• Louisiana State Department of Education. (2016). How Louisiana calculates school performance?
• Malik, M. I., & Akram, M. (2020). Effect of head teacher’s effectiveness on school performance at secondary school level. Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(1), 76-97
• Maxwell, S., Reynolds, K. J., Lee, E., Subasic, E., & Bromhead, D. (2017). The Impact of School Climate and School Identification on Academic Achievement: Multilevel Modeling with Student and Teacher Data. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
• McCullough, M., Lipscomb, S., Chiang, H., & Gill, B. (2016). Do principals' professional practice ratings reflect their contributionsto student achievement? Evidence from Pennsylvania’s framework for leadership. Working paper 46. Cambridge, MA: Mathematica Policy Research
• Ndinza, K. L. (2015). Influence of head teachers’ management practices on students’ academic performance in public secondary schools within Kitui central district, Kitui County, Kenya. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Nairobi, Kenya.
• Nichols, T. M. (2019). The relationship between school climate and academic achievement of high schools in the commonwealth of Virginia. (Doctoral dissertation), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
• Niqab, M., Sharma, S., Ali, N., & Mubarik, M. S. (2015). Perception based principal leadership measurement: Does it work in Pakistan? International Education Studies, 8(4), 29-39.
• Nyagosia, P. (2011). Determinants of differential Kenya certificate of secondary education performance and school effectiveness in Kiambu and Nyeri Counties, Kenya. (Unpublished master thesis), Kenyatta University, Kenya.
• O'Neill, N. (2016). What makes an effective head teacher?: A study to determine the qualities and experience that enable a head teacher to effectively manage and lead a South Wales primary school. (Doctoral dissertation), Cardiff Metropolitan University.
• Ontai-Machado, D. O. M. (2016). Teachers' perceptions of elementary school principals' leadership attributes and their relationship to school effectiveness. (Doctoral dissertation), Walden University.
• Rapti, D. (2013). School climate as an important component in school effectiveness. Academicus International Scientific Journal, 4(8), 110-125.
• Robinson, V. M., 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.
• Salem, N. (2016). Teachers' perceptions of effective principal practices in international schools in Egypt. (Doctoral dissertation), Lehigh University, Egypt.
• Salfi, N. A. (2011). Successful leadership practices of head teachers for school improvement: Some evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(4), 414-432.
• Salfi, N. A., Hussain, A., & Virk, N. (2014). Qualities of good leader: Perceptions of teachers and head teachers and district school managers. Public Policy and Administration Review, 2(2), 171-188
• Sanders, N., & Kearney, K. (2012). Using multiple forms of data in principal evaluations: An overview with examples. San Francisco, CA: WestEd
• Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. (2004). Core concepts of organizational behavior. John Wiley & Sons Incorporated.
• School Manual. (2004), Education department, Government of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
• Shelton, S. V. (2013). Evaluating school principals: A legislative approach. National conference of state legislatures. Washington DC: National Council for State Legislatures.
• Shindler, J., Jones, A., Williams, A. D., Taylor, C., & Cardenas, H. (2016). The school climate-student achievement connection: If we want achievement gains, we need to begin by improving the climate. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 1(1), 9-16.
• Stronge, J. H., Richard, H. B., & Catano, N. (2008). Qualities of effective principals. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
• Stronge, J. H., Xu, X., Leeper, L., & Tonneson, V. (2013). Principal evaluation: Standards, rubrics, and tools for effective performance. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Teh, B. R., Chiang, H., Lipscomb, S., & Gill, B. (2014). Measuring School Leaders' Effectiveness: An Interim Report from a Multiyear Pilot of Pennsylvania's Framework for Leadership. REL 2015- 058. Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic.
• Wahed, A., & El Sayed, M. (2012). Effective communication of urban and rural school principals. (Master thesis), The American University, Cairo.
• Waswa, N. N. (2017). Impact of the management of the school community relationship on students’ academic performance. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 7(3), 224-230.
• Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement (Working Paper). Retrieved from the McREL.
• Watson, T. (2019). Parent, teacher, and administrator perceptions of school community relationships. (Doctoral dissertation), East Tennessee State University
• Zheng, Q., Li, L., Chen, H., & Loeb, S. (2017). What aspects of principal leadership are most highly correlated with school outcomes in China? Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(3), 409-447.