Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We examined the relationship between the school principal's leadership style, as perceived by the school teachers, and improvement in the performance of students with special education needs enrolled in specialized schools for students with conduct disorders. Our motivation originates in the increasing trend in their share within the general population and the premise that this unique population may respond differently to school principal leadership style. Datasets on students’ previous performance, students’ background characteristics, teacher profiles, and school features were collected. In addition, a questionnaire on teachers’ perceptions of their school principal's leadership style was distributed. Datasets were collected from 92 teachers who worked in special education needs public schools that specialized in conduct disorders. Using STATA software, we measured multilevel fixed-effects models. We found that the more the school principal is perceived as a transformational leader, the higher the students’ performance. Additionally, secondary school advantaged students (i.e. having a high level of previous performance, high socioeconomic strata), who are taught by more educated teachers, exhibit higher performance compared with their counterparts. Based on our finding, we recommend that policy makers would consider assigning transformational leaders to low-performing schools. In addition, policy makers may want to allocate extra learning resources and to provide access to learning services to support the disadvantaged students’ learning process.

Keywords

School leadership improvement special education school principal performance

Introduction

The goal of education, as stated in the Sustainable Development Goals 2030, is to encourage learning, development, and improvement among students (UN General Assembly, 2015). In the contemporary era of globalization, most national and international assessments focus on measuring student performance. The demand for accountability increases expectations that educators and school principals will enhance student learning and improve their performance (Bartanen and Husain, 2021; Törnsén and Ärlestig, 2014).

School leaders affect school capacity and facility needs as well as influence student performance (Bartanen and Husain, 2021). School capacity is defined as the collective power of a school staff to raise student performance (Youngs and King, 2002). An effective educational leader is someone who can develop a school's capacity by motivating teachers, staff, and students (Guarino et al., 2006). Such leadership is determined by the followers, not the leaders. Therefore, it can be claimed that student performance is influenced by the teacher's perception of the school principal's leadership style (Hardman, 2011; Nir and Hameiri, 2013).

There is a growing body of literature on the relationships between the school principal's leadership style and students’ performance (Hoy and Smith, 2007; Printy and Marks, 2006). Moreover, the literature emphasizes the importance of the school principal's leadership style to improve the learning outcomes (Atenio, 2013; Kambambovu, 2018; Printy and Marks, 2006; Rautiola, 2009).

Nonetheless, the relationships between the school principal's leadership style and students’ performance have been largely studied within the main education schools (e.g. Breyer et al., 2014; Kremer et al., 2016). Less attention has been devoted to examining these relationships within a special education needs (SEN) student population, which is the focus of this study.

SEN children, especially those with behavioral disorders, are in dire need of a suitable education system. Their schooling differs from that of the main system (Carroll et al., 2017). In this work, we focus on a particular group of students with SEN: those with conduct disorders; they exhibit a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior, characterized by the violation of the basic rights of others. This behavioral disturbance causes a clinically significant impairment of social, academic, or occupational functioning (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2013). In addition, conduct disorders are also characterized by limited prosocial emotions.

Longitudinal studies have shown that conduct disorders negatively affect many aspects of life, including school participation, social life, relationships with parents, and self-perception (Chacko et al., 2009). In an educational setting, conduct disorders are associated with regular absence, disciplinary problems, violence, abuse and exploitation of others, as well as school dropout (Breyer et al., 2014). Additionally, there is a strong negative relationship between students with conduct disorders and their academic performance (Barriga et al., 2002; Kremer et al., 2016; Wynn et al., 2011).

Thus, these children behave and react differently and, consequently, may respond differently to a school principal's leadership style. Therefore, we cannot straightforwardly assume that insights gained with the main school system are applicable to specialized schools for students with conduct disorders. Research on the improvement of SEN students’ performance is scarce, whereas there is an increasing trend of more SEN students among school-aged children (Reinke and Herman, 2002). This emphasizes the need to examine these relationships within the SEN student population.

Additionally, the relationships between the school principal's leadership style and students’ performance are commonly examined in the literature with little or no attention to students’ previous performance (Chen, 2018; Kitur et al., 2020; Tilahun, 2014). Students’ previous performance might explain a large part of the variation among students’ performance; thus, it might influence the strength of the examined relationship (BenDavid-Hadar, 2018; Jerrim et al., 2020).

The objective of this research is to examine the relationships between school principals’ leadership style, as perceived by teachers, and improvement in student performance, while controlling for students’ previous performance, students’ background characteristics, teachers’ profiles, and school characteristics.

The next subsection reviews the relevant literature (Background section), which is followed by Research questions and hypotheses section. The methodology is described in Method section. Results section presents the results. Discussion section discusses the results. Finally, Conclusions and policy implications section presents the conclusion.

Background

This subsection addresses the literature on the examined relationships. First, the factors that influence the performance of students with SEN are reviewed. This is continued with a short review of leadership styles, emphasizing the influence of the school principal's leadership style on student performance in general, and on the performance of students with SEN in particular. Next, the background of Israeli students will be briefly discussed.

The Israeli context

The state of Israel provides free education for all school-age children within its geographic borders (Wininger and Zered, 2019). Many school-age children in Israel are migrants or have a migrant background, since their families come from the diaspora; others are refugees or asylum seekers without a clear civil status; however, under Israeli law, they are all entitled to receive an education (ASSAF, 2020). These children experience many complex difficulties that affect their needs. They suffer from many difficulties, for example, lack of familiarity with the local language, cultural differences, social difficulties, and parents’ acclimation difficulties. Additionally, this population is usually characterized by low socioeconomic strata (SES), and their parents suffer from job insecurity, lack of stability at work, and an insufficient supportive family as well as environmental anchors. Among these children in Israel, those who crossed the border from Egypt are likely to have suffered many hardships throughout their journey and some may have witnessed or have been victims of severe violence, torture, and human trafficking phenomena (Moshe, 2014). Research participants are mostly migrant students: some are refugee students or asylum seekers, who have experienced humanitarian crises.

In line with this international trend, the Israeli education system strives to encourage learning, development, and improvement (Arcavi and Mandel-Levy, 2014). However, the multifaceted diversity of the Israeli student body makes achieving the desired improvement even more challenging. Classrooms are populated by students with diverse background characteristics (e.g. ethnicity, sociocultural groups, socioeconomic status, and family background). This diversity is also evident in numerous categories of students with SEN. One such category is that of students with conduct disorders, which is the population under investigation in this research (Arcavi and Mandel-Levy, 2014).

Individuals with conduct disorders constitute 5–15% of the overall population. In Israel, the number of students with conduct disorders enrolled in the education system (from preprimary to secondary education) has doubled over the past seven years. Specifically, students with conduct disorders constitute about 27,000 students in 2019, when compared with about 18,000 in 2017 and about 13,000 in 2012 (Bukobza, 2011; CBS, 2019: Tables 4.4, 4.10, 4.25; Weisblei, 2015, 2019).

Factors that influence the performance of students with SEN

According to the research literature, a strong positive relationship exists between conduct disorders and academic underachievement (Barriga et al., 2002; Kremer et al., 2016; Wynn et al., 2011). Academic problems are generally believed to be associated with attention deficits, a negative teacher–student relationship, a regular absence from school, and an overall lack of commitment to rules and conventions. Some evidence also indicates that the frustration and alienation that children with these disorders experience in the school environment may actually result from academic underachievement (Hascher and Hadjar, 2018). Whatever the case, a child with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) or conduct disorder is often significantly disadvantaged in terms of achieving academic success and overcoming obstacles (APA, 2013).

Previous performance

Empirical studies conducted in the main education system reveal several dominant factors that can explain the variation in student performance. These factors may be related to the students (e.g. their previous academic performance), the students’ background characteristics (e.g. SES), the teacher profiles (e.g. the teacher's level of education), and the school characteristics (e.g. the school level) (BenDavid-Hadar, 2018; Jerrim et al., 2020; Tekwe et al., 2004).

Previous performance is one of the most dominant factors that can explain the variation in students’ current performance (BenDavid-Hadar, 2018; Jerrim et al., 2020). Academic performance is commonly measured by using status models, indicating the extent to which an individual has met specific goals addressed by activities in instructional environments, specifically in schools, colleges, and universities (Goldschmidt et al., 2005). Recently, this type of measurement has been exemplified by international tests, such as Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). In these status models, the measures of academic performance assess outcomes at a specific point in time (Anderman et al., 2014).

Some countries still use status models to evaluate school and student improvement. These models are often contrasted with growth models. A status model (such as the one in use in Israeli final national examinations for eighth graders, namely, Meitsav, and the matriculation examinations taken in high school) takes a snapshot of a subgroup or a school's level of student proficiency at one point in time. Status models often compare the proficiency level with an established target. Therefore, progress is defined by the percentage of students whose achievements are at the desired level of proficiency for that particular year.

A more recent approach to evaluate school improvement is based on growth models, which generally measure progress by tracking the performance of the same students over time. Growth models assume that student performance, and by extension, school performance, is not simply a matter of where the school is at any single point in time and that a school's ability to facilitate academic progress is a better indicator of its performance. In these models, previous performance is used to evaluate the current performance, at the student level, along with other student background characteristics, teachers’ profiles, and school characteristics (e.g. BenDavid-Hadar, 2018; Jerrim et al., 2020).

SES

Students from disadvantaged backgrounds perform at lower levels academically, compared with those from more affluent backgrounds (Benkovitz, 2008; Dagan, 2002). Some examples of a disadvantaged background are a lower family income, a lower level of parental education, and a lower level of social status in the community (Saifi and Mehmood, 2011).

Berliner (2006) found a positive statistically significant relationship between poverty and low educational attainment, especially among urban minorities, more specifically, that the environmental factors associated with low socioeconomic status (e.g. family and environment) will limit a student's existing talent. In general, a small improvement in the family's poverty conditions leads to improvements in positive behavior at school and to a higher level of performance (Nelson and Sheridan, 2011).

The relationship between social disadvantage/poverty and SEN is very well established (Essen and Wedge, 1982; National Research Council, 2002). SEN students are more prevalent among students with a low socioeconomic status than among their less disadvantaged peers (Kvande et al., 2018; Shaw et al., 2016). Parents often need more time away from work to provide care for their child with SEN; consequently, this often decreases the family income (Blackburn et al., 2010). Furthermore, care often comes at a high cost (Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), 2014). Childhood SEN can lead to an increasing financial disadvantage for families. Having a child with SEN can also lead to family stress and breakdown. This results in the heightened prevalence of children with SEN living in single-parent households (Blackburn et al., 2010). This, in turn, has a small causal effect on child poverty, which is greatly increased if the parent is out of work (DWP, 2014). Children with SEN from low-income families have poorer educational outcomes—whether in terms of academic achievement, well-being, or exclusion rates; these outcomes have a direct effect on their earning potential later in life.

Teacher's education

Many studies show that the quality of teachers is the key to boosting student performance. High-quality teachers significantly influence student performance (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Dobbie and Fryer, 2011; Kane et al., 2008; Milanowski, 2004; Rivkin et al., 2005; Rockoff, 2004).

Moreover, the teachers’ education level is viewed as a key characteristic that is associated with teacher quality; thus, a higher level of teachers’ education is associated with a higher level of performance (Rugraff, 2004; Zhang, 2008).

Although many studies have examined the relationships between teachers’ education and students’ performance regarding general main education (Dial, 2008; Robinson, 2017; Sirait, 2016; Zhang, 2008; Zuzovsky, 2008), this relationship has not been studied, in depth, regarding SEN students. However, several studies have examined the influence of training programs for teachers (who work with SEN students), and their impact on students’ performance. Importantly, a positive relationship was found between teacher's education and students’ performance. SEN students who were taught by teachers who were qualified to work with them improved their achievements, compared with those who were taught by teachers that were not qualified to work with them (Brussino, 2020; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Davis et al., 2004; Robinson, 2017; Suleymanov, 2014).

Furthermore, within teachers’ education, the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and student performance appears to be empirically strong and sustained (Marzano, 2003). Similarly, more traditionally trained teachers performed better than teachers possessing content background but with little educational training (Darling-Hammond et al., 2001; Mincu, 2015).

Leadership style and student performance

Leadership style

Leadership is a concept that has been widely studied and researched across a variety of domains, including both business and education) Daniëls et al., 2019; Hoy and Smith, 2007; Leithwood et al., 2020a, 2020b). Leadership could be defined as the ability to motivate people to commit voluntarily, willingly, and totally to accomplish or achieve beyond the organizational objectives (Kolzow, 2014). It is a process, not a personal characteristic (Vroom and Jago, 2007). According to Gallos (2008), leadership results from relationships between those people within an organization who want to lead and those who are willing to follow. Bush (2011) proposed three dimensions important for defining leadership: influence, vision, and values (for a further elaboration on the definition of leadership, see the review by Daniëls et al., 2019).

Effective educational leadership is vital to improve the efficiency and relevance of education. Educational leadership can contribute to providing guidance on the main characteristics, tasks, and responsibilities of proficient leaders (Pont et al., 2008). The literature distinguishes between three primary different leadership styles: transformational and transactional leadership, which were proposed by Burns (1978) and further developed by Bass and Avolio (2000, 2004), who also included a laissez-faire style. Transformational leadership articulates a vision of the future that can be shared with peers and subordinates; it intellectually stimulates subordinates and notes the individual differences between people (Orphanos and Orr, 2014). Transactional leadership is defined as “relationships of exchange,” namely, a system of rewards and goals. This leadership style determines school goals that teachers should achieve and rewards them according to their achievements vis-a-vis those goals (Shields, 2010). Finally, laissez-faire leadership involves the avoidance or absence of leadership (Tosunoglu and Ekmekci, 2016).

There is vast empirical work on how leadership styles affect outcome variables in an organizational setting (e.g. Bolkan and Goodboy, 2009; Shapira-Lishchinsky and Raftar-Ozery, 2018). However, the literature examining the relationship between leadership styles and SEN student outcomes is limited, especially students with conduct disorders. Nonetheless, the literature reviewed herein was useful for developing the hypotheses for this study.

For transformational leaders to become effective, they must be perceived to be following their own recommendations. The transformational leader is not exempt from the rules imposed on followers (Balyer, 2012). Transformational leaders have a great ability to influence organizational commitment by promoting values related to accomplishing goals by emphasizing the relationship between employees’ efforts and accomplishing goals and by creating a greater degree of personal commitment on the part of both the followers and leaders (Sayadi, 2016). The effectiveness of transformational leadership has been proven in several settings and in many countries worldwide (Anderson, 2017; Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Specifically, academic performance is positively affected by transformational leadership (Knab, 2009; Turan and Bektas, 2013).

The second leadership style that is often cited in the literature is transactional leadership (Bolkan and Goodboy, 2009). This type of leadership focuses on results, conforms to the existing organizational structure, and measures success according to the organization's system of rewards and penalties (Odumeru and Ifeanyi, 2013). Transactional leaders have formal positions of authority and responsibility in an organization. This type of leader is responsible for maintaining routine by managing individual performance and facilitating group performance. Leaders of this type set the criteria for their employees according to previously defined requirements. Performance reviews are the most common way to judge employee performance. Transactional or managerial leaders work best with employees who know their jobs and are motivated by the reward–penalty system. The status quo of an organization is maintained through transactional leadership (Geyer and Steyrer, 1998; Leithwood et al., 2004; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2005; Nsubuga, 2008).

The third leadership style that is often discussed in the literature is defined as the absence of leadership, also known as laissez-faire leadership (Tosunoglu and Ekmekci, 2016). Laissez-faire leadership involves the avoidance or absence of leadership. Leaders who score high on laissez-faire leadership avoid making decisions, hesitate in taking action, and are absent when they are needed. Although laissez-faire leadership bears some resemblance to “leadership by exception” or “passive leadership,” researchers have argued that because laissez-faire leadership represents the absence of any leadership (transformational or transactional), it should be treated separately from other transactional dimensions (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998).

Obviously, given the dynamic nature of the educational landscape, principals might incorporate a wide range of leadership skills and styles to direct their school organization toward achieving common goals and possessing a well-directed, clear vision (Savas and Toprak, 2014; Urick, 2016).

Leadership style, teachers’ perceptions, and student performance

The importance of principals to students’ performance is stressed in both academic and public discourse. The demand for accountability has increased expectations that educators and school principals will enhance student learning and improve their performance (Bartanen and Husain, 2021; Törnsén and Ärlestig, 2014). Principals also hold themselves accountable for teaching, learning, and student performance (Printy and Marks, 2006). The school principal's leadership style is related to student performance (Hoy and Smith, 2007) and the improvements in learning outcomes (Atenio, 2013; Kambambovu, 2018; Printy and Marks, 2006; Rautiola, 2009).

As previously mentioned, leadership is determined by the followers and the staff; therefore, it is plausible that student performance is influenced by the teacher's perception of the school principal's leadership style (Hardman, 2011; Nir and Hameiri, 2013). The empirical work by Farhat and Usman (2016) strengthens this claim. They conducted a quantitative study on a sample of 2350 teachers from 235 Pakistani secondary schools, both public and private. Teachers’ perceptions were identified through a Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire—a 5× Rater Form developed by Bass and Avolio in 1995 and revised in 2004. They found that teachers’ perceptions are one of the most important factors that determine students’ academic performance.

Similar results were obtained by Hardman (2011). Her research examined teachers’ perceptions of the leadership style of their principals as transformational, transactional, or passive avoidant in either improving or not improving schools in relation to student achievement. She found that all three leadership styles (perceived by the school's teachers) were statistically significant predictors of student achievement. Specifically, transactional leadership had a negative association, whereas transformational and passive-avoidant leadership styles had a positive association with student achievement (Hardman, 2011).

Transformational leaders encourage their followers to innovate and try new things. They support teachers to “think outside the box.” When leaders promote creative thinking and give their teachers fruitful opportunities to grow and change, this translates into increased student learning and performance (Healey, 2009).

The influence of leadership style on the performance of students with SEN

Scott and McNeish (2013) stated that there are a few specific studies on leadership in SEN schools. Nevertheless, the few existing studies point to the importance of the role that principals play in SEN children's performance. For example, SEN students make outstanding progress in schools with a commitment by leaders to ensure that all students have opportunities to succeed (Ofsted, 2006). Scott and McNeish (2013) also found that leadership promotes the achievement of children with SEN and disabilities.

The importance of principals’ leadership in SEN schools is also prominent in the report by Chapman et al. (2011), who asserted that there are some special issues pertinent to an adequate understanding of special education leadership. These include, among others, the changing nature of students with SEN, and the increment trend in the number of children with severe and complex impairments (see also the report by Carroll et al., 2017).

Chapman et al. (2011) suggested that leaders need to build and sustain an inclusive culture and pay particular attention to building a consensus around inclusive values within school communities. To this end, they should encourage staff teamwork and collaborative problem-solving. In this setting, principals can model their deep commitment to adequately teaching every child, despite his or her physical or mental disabilities and thereby help generate and sustain organizational cultures, within which differences are seen as being less as a source of difficulty and more as a stimulus for continuous school improvement.

Research questions and hypotheses

This research examines the following questions:

What is the strength of the relationships between principals’ leadership styles (as perceived by the teachers) and academic performance among the examined population, after statistically controlling for previous student performance, students’ background characteristics (SES and migration background), teacher profiles, and school features?

What is the strength of the relationships between students’ background characteristics (SES and migration background) and academic performance among the examined population, after statistically controlling for previous student performance, teacher profiles, and school features?

What is the strength of the relationships between students’ previous performance and academic performance among the examined population, while controlling for students’ background characteristics (SES and migration background), teacher profiles, and school features?

Based on the research questions, our hypotheses are as follows:

The transformational school principal's leadership style will be positively related to improving the academic performance of students with conduct disorders, while statistically controlling for previous student performance, students’ background characteristics, teacher profiles, and school features.

High SES background will be positively related to academic performance among the examined population, after statistically controlling for previous student performance, teacher profiles, and school features.

The migration background of students will be positively related to a higher level of academic performance among the examined population, after statistically controlling for previous student performance, teacher profiles, and school features.

Previous performance will be positively related to academic performance among the examined population, while controlling for students’ background characteristics (SES and migration background), teacher profiles, and school features.

Method

Questionnaire

The questionnaire on leadership style comprised 37 of the 64 items in the original leadership questionnaire developed by Bass and Avolio (1991); it was designed to assess teachers’ perceptions regarding the leadership style of their school principal. The Hebrew version of this questionnaire was developed by Popper (1994). In the current study, three main leadership styles were reviewed: transformative leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership.

A preliminary study was conducted among 10 teachers from different schools to examine the structural validity of the 37 selected items. Twenty-one of 37 items were relevant to perceptions of the school principal as transformative (e.g. “indicates the importance of having a strong sense of purpose”). Ten of 37 items were relevant to perceptions of the principal as transactional (e.g. “talks to us about the values and beliefs that are most important to him/her”). Six of 37 items dealt with perceptions of the principal as a laissez-faire leader (e.g. “The principal is not there when I need him/her”). Scales for questionnaire items phrased in the negative were reversed (e.g. “he or she avoids interfering when important issues arise”).

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and range) and the reliability (Cronbach's alpha values) for all items in the leadership style questionnaire and for each factor separately.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and reliability (Cronbach's alpha) for the school principal leadership questionnaire.

Factors	Mean	SD	α
Transformational leadership	3.709	0.97	0.95
Transactional leadership	3.030	0.66	0.68
Laissez-faire	1.972	0.79	0.71

After the scales were reversed, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability level was found to be very high (α = 0.94).

Confirmatory factor analysis

To validate the questionnaire, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using R software. CFA gave further strength to the structure's validity by enabling us to quantitatively assess the quality of the dimensions of the proposed structure (Hinkin, 1998). The CFA analysis revealed three main factors. The first, transformational leadership, comprises items 2, 14, 19, 25, 27, 34, and 36. The second, transactional leadership, comprises items 1, 10, 15, and 35. The third factor, non-leadership, comprises items, 3, 4, 6, and 24. Model fit indices indicated a valid model, χ² (87) = 107.28, p > .05, CFI = 0.967, TLI = 0.960, RMSEA = 0.050, and SRMR = 0.050 (Table 2).

Table 2.

Loading pattern.

Factors	Question	Items	Loading pattern
Transformational leadership	His/her behavior radiates powerfully	A2	**0.539
	Indicates the importance of having a strong sense of purpose	A14	**0.511
	Acts in ways that build my appreciation for him/her	A19	**0.350
	Treats each of us as an individual with different needs, abilities, and aspirations than others	A25	**0.678
	Helps me develop my strengths	A27	**0.503
	Makes me do more than I thought I could do	A34	**0.410
	His/her actions enhance his/her power	A36	**0.653
Transactional leadership	Helps me in return for my efforts	A1	**0.551
	Makes me feel proud to be connected to him/her	A10	**0.474
	Invests time in my training and mentoring	A15	**0.829
	Works with me satisfactorily	A35	**0.354
Laissez-faire	Avoids intervening until problems become serious	A3	**1.053
	Avoids intervening when important issues arise	A4	**0.486
	He/she is not there when he/she is needed	A6	**0.562
	Avoids making decisions	A24	**0.636

Sample

Datasets were collected from 92 teachers who worked in SEN public schools specializing in conduct disorders.

Table 3 presents the distribution of student characteristics, teacher profiles, and school features.

Table 3.

Distribution of student characteristics, teacher profiles, and school features.

Properties	N	Variables	Values	Frequency	Mean (SD)
Student characteristics	239	Migrant	Israel 0	198 (93.4%)	0 (0)
		Migrant	Other 1	14 (6.6.%)	0 (0)
		SES	Low 3–1	4 (1.7%)	6.845 (1.457)
			Middle 7–4	110 (46%)
			High 10–8	124 (51.8%)
			No response	1 (0.4%)
		Class level	4th grade = 4	59 (24.6%)	6.268 (2.034)
			5th grade = 5	41 (17.1%)
			6th grade = 6	40 (16.7%)
			7th grade = 7	42 (17.5%)
			8th grade = 8	28 (11.7%)
			9th grade = 9	7 (2.9%)
			10th grade = 10	12 (5%)
			11th grade = 11	4 (1.6%)
			12th grade = 12	6 (2.5%)
Teacher profiles	92	Gender	Male = 0	17 (19.3%)	0.765 (0.426)
			Female = 1	60 (68.2%)
			No response	11 (12.5%)

		Education	Senior certified = 0	13 (14.8%)	1.264 (0.691)
			BA = 1	32 (36.4%)
			MA = 2	28 (31.8%)
			No response	15 (17%)
School features	5		Primary	3 (60%)	0.761 (0.428)
School features	5		Secondary	2 (40%)	0.761 (0.428)

SES: socioeconomic strata.

The examined population included fourth to 12th graders diagnosed with conduct disorders and who were enrolled in schools that specialize in working with such students. These students began their studies in regular schools. Following their diagnosis, a national placement committee placed them in the examined schools to help them cope with their disability and to improve their learning. This study also analyzed the teacher population at these schools as well as the type of school attended.

Procedure

The questionnaire on school principal leadership styles was distributed in the middle of the school year in person to 92 teachers. Each teacher received a hard copy of the questionnaire, at the end of school day, and was asked to fill it in and return it to the researcher. Afterward, the homeroom teacher of each class provided background characteristics about their students as well as the students’ grades in mathematics (at the beginning of the year and the middle of the year). Usually, we received full cooperation from the teachers, so there was no need to disqualify questionnaires that were not properly filled out. Statistical analyses of questions and hypotheses in the present study were conducted using STATA software.

The six datasets in this study were collected from five schools in Israel specializing in conduct disorders. The datasets comprise the longitudinal mathematics performance of students with conduct disorders. Performance data include performance from the beginning of the year (assessments by the homeroom teachers) and the middle of the year (midterm grades). Another file included the students’ background characteristics (immigration and SES).

Other datasets were collected on teacher profiles (gender and education) and their perceptions regarding the school principal's leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire). Finally, data on school features (primary or secondary school) were collected.

Variables

This research uses three types of variables. The first type includes an explained variable that represents the mathematics performance of fourth to 12th graders attending SEN schools specializing in conduct disorders. The data for the dependent variable are based on teachers’ assessments of their students’ knowledge in mathematics at the middle of the year, as revealed in their report cards. The second type includes the explanatory variable of leadership style as evaluated by teachers. The third type includes controlled variable information gathered from each research participant as follows: students’ previous performance, students’ characteristics (SES, migration, and class level), teacher profiles (e.g. gender, education), and school features (primary or secondary school).

Analysis methods

Three regression models were used to explain student performance by school principals’ leadership style while controlling for students’ previous performance, students’ background characteristics, teacher profiles, and school features.

Figure 1 presents the analyzed relationships.

Figure 1.

Research model.

These three models were measured using STATA software. First, we measured Model I, a simple multivariate ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model (Table 4, column 1). Since the datasets in this work are clustered (e.g. students learn in different schools), we also measured Model II, which is a hierarchical linear model (HLM) (Table 4, column 2). Finally, we measured Model III, which is a linear fixed effects model (LFM) that assigns each school a dummy variable and allows the error term to be adjusted at the school level (Table 4, column 3).

Table 4.

Multilevel fixed-effects linear regression.

	(1)ª	(2)^b	(3)^c
	Score_2	Score_2	Score_2
Score (previous)	0.714***(13.62)	0.714***(14.16)	0.714***(7.26)
SES	1.324**(2.27)	1.324**(2.36)	1.324**(1.62)
Migrant	6.665**(2.39)	6.665*(2.48)	6.665*(1.86)
Class level	0.114(0.28)	0.114(0.30)	0.114(0.30)
BA	1.235(0.36)	1.235(0.38)	1.235(0.40)
MA	3.372(1.06)	3.372(1.10)	3.372**(1.97)
Primary	−8.906***(–4.04)	–8.906***(–4.20)	-8.906***(–8.54)
Transformational	4.106*(1.92)	4.106**(2.00)	4.106**(2.23)
Transactional	–3.603*(–1.93)	–3.603**(–2.01)	–3.603**(–2.58)
Laissez-faire	2.219(1.62)	2.219*(1.69)	2.219(1.38)
N	175	175	175
R ²	0.60

Note: t statistics in parentheses.

SES: socioeconomic strata.

OLS regression.

Hierarchical regression in which students are clustered in schools.

Fixed effects regression that assigns each school a dummy variable and allows the error term to be adjusted at the school level.

*p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01.

The explained variable is student performance (i.e. students’ performance in the second period, as measured at the end of the school year examinations in mathematics). The explanatory variables are the teacher's perceptions about their school principal's leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire). Previous student performance (i.e. students’ performance in the first period, as measured in the middle of the school year examinations in mathematics), student characteristics (i.e. migrant and SES), teacher profiles (i.e. education and gender), and school features (i.e. school level: primary/secondary) were statistically controlled.

The reason for using mathematics achievement as an indicator of student performance is twofold: first, it is the only subject in which students are given a numerical score, which is very helpful for measuring regression models. In other subjects, there is a non-numeric evaluation, which is difficult to translate into models. Second, the examinations in mathematics focus less on language skills, which is a barrier for non-native speaking students. Since our sample consists of both native speakers and newcomers, it is important to use a less language-based subject as an indicator of performance.

In this research, the data are clustered in different schools; therefore, we also measured a hierarchical model. HLM is a complex form of OLS regression that is used to analyze variance in the outcome variables when the predictor variables are at varying hierarchical levels. For example, students in a classroom share variance according to their common teacher and common classroom. This development allows for widespread application of HLM to multilevel data analysis (for development of the algorithm, see Dempster et al., 1977; for its application to HLM, see Dempster et al., 1981). Following this advancement in statistical theory, HLM's popularity flourished (Lindley and Smith, 1972; Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002; Smith, 1973).

This research also measured a fixed effects model; dummy variables were assigned to each school, and an adjusted error term was allowed at the school level (Bartanen and Husain, 2021). Fixed effects are variables that are constant across individuals; in other words, any change they cause to an individual is the same. To this end, we used the STATA command of linear mixed model (LMM); however, we used only a fixed effect at the school level, and it had no random effects (Jochmans and Weidner, 2019; Magezi, 2015).

Results

This section outlines the findings of the three models discussed above. Table 4 presents the findings of Model I, Model II, and Model III, and each explains variation in performance by school principal leadership style while controlling for previous student performance, student background characteristics, teacher profiles, and school features.

The findings of Model I are presented in Table 4, column 1. Using OLS regression reveals that school principal leadership style is not statistically significant in explaining the variation in student performance. However, previous performance is statistically significant in explaining the variations in student performance (β = 0.714***, Table 4, column 1). In addition, primary students having a high SES background exhibit a higher level of performance than their counterparts (β = 1.324**, Table 4, column 1). Interestingly, migrant students exhibit a higher level of performance than their counterparts (β = 6.665**, Table 4, column 1).

When a hierarchical model is used, in which students are clustered in a school, the regression analysis revealed that the school principal leadership style was statistically significant in explaining the variation in student performance. Specifically, transformational leadership is associated with a higher level of student performance (β = 4.106**, Table 4, column 2). Previous performance was also found to be statistically significant in explaining the variations in student performance (β = 0.714***, Table 4, column 2). Moreover, primary students having a high SES background exhibit a higher level of improvement in performance (β = 1.324**, Table 4, column 2). Additionally, migrant students exhibit a higher level of improvement in performance than their counterparts (β = 6.665**, Table 4, column 2).

Finally, the results of the fixed effects model (with the error term adjustment at the school level) revealed that the teachers’ perception of their school principal's leadership style was statistically significant in explaining the variations in student performance (β = 4.106**, Table 4, column 3). Specifically, transformational leadership was correlated with a higher level of student performance. Previous performance was also found to be statistically significant in explaining the variations in student performance (β = 0.714***, Table 4, column 3). Moreover, students having a high SES background exhibited better performance (β = 1.324**, Table 4, column 3). In addition, highly educated teachers were correlated with high student performance (β = 3.372***, Table 4, column 3), and secondary students’ performance was higher compared with primary students’ performance. (β = −8.906***, Table 4, column 3).

Discussion

A key finding of this research is that a school principal who is perceived by school teachers as a transformational leader contributes to student performance and learning. This relationship was found to be statistically significant when accounting for the clustered nature of our datasets (i.e. Model II and Model III). This finding is in line with the literature examining the relationships between leadership style and performance. The transformational leadership style has been advocated for its potential to improve schools (Allen et al., 2015; Healey, 2009; Knab, 2009; Sun and Leithwood, 2012; Turan and Bektas, 2013).

The positive relationship between a transformational leading style and the improvement of SEN students is plausible. Transformational leaders act as coaches and advisors; they do not merely aspire to identify and satisfy each individual follower's current needs—they also expand and assist followers to become fully actualized (Carroll et al., 2017). By emphasizing the followers’ personal goals and providing them with a sense of increased competence to carry out their duties, transformational leaders could enhance their followers’ commitment and capacity (Sayadi, 2016), thereby contributing to students’ improvement. In addition, when the special education school principal adopts the transformational leadership style, then teachers’ job satisfaction is enhanced (Trichas and Avdimiotis, 2020), which might explain the improvement in students’ academic achievement.

The second major finding is a statistically significant relationship between previous student performance and current performance. This finding is robust in all three models examined, and it is in line with the literature. Studies reveal that the variance among student performance is mostly explained by their past performance (Ballou et al., 2004; BenDavid-Hadar, 2018; Boyd et al., 2008; Goldschmidt et al., 2005; Jerrim et al., 2020; Ladd and Walsh, 2002; Lissitz et al., 2006; Meyer and Christian, 2008; OECD, 2008; Ray, 2006; Ray et al., 2008; Sun et al., 2017).

Third, among student background characteristics, SES is positively related to performance. This relationship is statistically significant in all the examined models. This finding is in line with the literature. Specifically, on average, students having a low socioeconomic background exhibit lower performance than their counterparts (Benkovitz, 2008; Berliner, 2006; Dagan, 2002; State Comptroller and Ombudsman of Israel, 2014).

Furthermore, the findings of the first model reveal that migrant students exhibit higher performance. This finding is in line with the literature (OECD, 2017). However, this relationship is not statistically significant when accounting for the clustered nature of our datasets (i.e. Model II and Model III).

A possible explanation, mentioned at the literature, is that although migrant students suffer from a lack of adequate support that challenges their academic performance, their resilience affects their learning outcomes. Migrant children display a determination to improve their prospects in life. The performance gap between native-born students and students with a migrant background is wider when it comes to first-generation migrant students, and especially late arrivals (students who arrived at or after the age of 12). This couples with overall challenges faced by adolescents (particularly aged 15+ years) in integrating into the formal education system, as they go beyond compulsory school age and are often not targeted by national educational integration strategies (UNHCR et al., 2019).

Teacher education is positively correlated with student performance. Specifically, highly educated teachers (MA or higher) are associated with higher levels of student performance. This finding is also statistically significant when addressing the cluster nature of the datasets (Model III). This finding is in line with the literature that finds teacher quality as the key to improving student performance. Moreover, teacher characteristics, such as educational background, experience, certificate status, and leadership experience, are correlated with student performance (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Dobbie and Fryer, 2011; Kane et al., 2008; Milanowski, 2004; Rivkin et al., 2005; Rockoff, 2004).

The fourth major finding relates to school type. Our findings reveal a positive and statistically significant relationship between secondary schools and student performance. It was found that students with conduct disorders and attended secondary schools, performed better than younger students with conduct disorders and attended primary schools. This is apparently not in line with the literature, where students’ performance in secondary schools is lower than that of primary school. Note, however, that in this study we examined the improvement in performance in both primary and secondary schools. Indeed, research shows that the transition to a new learning environment results in a decline in performance, mainly as a result of the steep rise in the level of the educational requirements and the higher standards set by the division and secondary schools (Wampler et al., 2002), since these factors may have a negative impact on students’ performance (Silverthorn et al., 2005). However, according to our findings, the improvement in students’ achievements over time is greater in secondary schools than in primary schools, at least for SEN students. More work is required to explain this difference in students’ growth as well as to determine whether it applies to students in the main education system as well.

Conclusions and policy implications

In this study, we examined the relationships between school principals’ leadership styles, as perceived by the teachers, and improvement in SEN student performance, while controlling for students’ previous performance, students’ background characteristics, teachers’ profiles, and school characteristics.

Obviously, our study has some limitations. First, our results are based on a questionnaire. Triangulation with other research tools, such as open-ended questions and interviews could be useful in shedding more light on the findings. Second, our research population consisted of teachers in SEN schools but not the principals. Future work is required to investigate principals’ perceptions of their own leadership style and the relationships between these perceptions and those of the teachers as well as students’ performance. In addition, to achieve more significant results, this study should be expanded to include a larger number of participants.

Nevertheless, the results of this study suggest that the transformational leadership style is statistically and positively significantly related to learning outcomes. Thus, for low-performing SEN schools, policy makers may wish to assign school principals who are considered as transformational leaders. Such a leadership style plays an important role in sustaining an inclusive school culture, suggested by the literature for promoting learning in SEN schools (Carroll et al., 2017; Chapman et al., 2011).

Second, we found a positive relationship between students’ SES and performance. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds may need extra hours of learning and tutoring (Berliner, 2006). SEN students need even more. They have myriad paramedical and other needs, such as visits by physiotherapists and psychologists, specific technologies, and so forth. Low SES SEN students might suffer from a lack of resources, which might add to their difficulties in adjusting to changes and stressful situations, which in turn, might hinder these students’ ability to succeed academically. Therefore, policy makers may wish to allocate additional resources, both educational (such as providing extra hours of learning and access to private tutors) and supporting services (such as para-medical services) to enable these students to perform better.

However, given the complexity of SEN students’ schooling and the fact that there is an incremental trend in their proportion in the population, the empirical evidence indicating that transformational principals do make a difference is encouraging. More work should be devoted to perusing ways to enhance principals’ ability and desire to adopt a transformational leading style as well as a commitment to educate all students, despite any learning differences.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-mie-10.1177_08920206211054654 - Supplemental material for Teachers’ perceptions of their school principal's leadership style and improvement in their students’ performance in specialized schools for students with conduct disorders

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-mie-10.1177_08920206211054654 for Teachers’ perceptions of their school principal's leadership style and improvement in their students’ performance in specialized schools for students with conduct disorders by Uri Even and Iris BenDavid-Hadar in Management in Education

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Dr Zahavi Mor for his assistance with the STATA procedures and analysis.

We also wish to thank our anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments that contributed to the improvement of our paper.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Iris BenDavid-Hadar

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Uri Even is a graduate of Bar Ilan University’s Department of Educational Management and Leadership, where he completed his MA and thesis research. He presented his thesis results in the Comparative International Education Society (CIES) annual conference 2019. He is the vice-principle in a Specialized School for Students with Conduct Disorders.

Iris BenDavid-Hadar is a faculty member at the School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Dr BenDavid-Hadar's research foci are Education Finance Policy and Economics of Education. She is the founder and previous chair of the Economics and Finance of Education SIG in the Comparative International Education Society (CIES) and a Member of the Board of the National Education Finance Academy (NEFA). Her papers have been published in books and journals such as International Journal of Educational Development. Her book Education Finance, Equality, and Equity was recently published by Springer.

References

Allen

Grigsby

Peters

(2015) Does leadership matter? Examining the relationship among transformational leadership, school climate, and student achievement. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation 10(2): 1–22.

American Psychiatric Association (APA) (2013) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Anderman

Gimbert

O'Connell

, et al. (2014) Approaches to academic growth assessment. British Journal of Educational Psychology 85(2): 138–153.

Anderson

(2017) Transformational leadership in education: A review of existing literature. International Social Science Review 93(1): 4.

Arcavi

Mandel-Levy

(2014) Hinuck lackol – ve'le'ckol ehad be'ma'arecket ha'hinuck be'Yisrael [Education for all and for each and every one in the Israeli education system]. The Israeli Science Foundation, Jerusalem: Israel. Available at: http://education.academy.ac.il/SystemFiles/23181.pdf. Accessed: May 2, 2021.

ASSAF (2020) Children of asylum seekers in Israel: Mapping of key educational issues and needs. Available at: https://assaf.org.il/en/sites/default/files/Children%20of%20asylum%20seekers%20-%20mapping%20of%20key%20issues%20-%20EN_0.pdf (accessed 20 June 2020).

Atenio

(2013) Influence of principals’ leadership styles on students’ achievement in Kenya certificate of secondary education in Awendo District, Kenya. Master’s Thesis, University of Nairobi, University of Nairobi Digital Repository, Kenya.

Avolio

(1999) Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ballou

Sanders

Wright

(2004) Controlling for student back-ground in value-added assessment of teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 29(1): 37–65.

10.

Balyer

(2012) Transformational leadership behaviors of school principals: A qualitative research based on teachers’ perceptions. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences 4(3): 581–591.

11.

Barriga

Doran

Newell

, et al. (2002) Relationships between problem behaviors and academic achievement in adolescents the unique role of attention problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 10(4): 233–240.

12.

Bartanen

Husain

(2021) Connected networks in principal value-added models (EdWorkingPaper No. 21–397). Brown University. Available at https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai21-397. Accessed May 2, 2021.

13.

Bass

(1998) Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact. New Jersey, United States: Erlbaum.

14.

Bass

Avolio

(1991) Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5x). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

15.

Bass

Avolio

(1995) MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Leader Form, Rater Form, and Scoring. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.

16.

Bass

Avolio

(2000) MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.

17.

Bass

Avolio

(2004) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Manual and Sampler set. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.

18.

BenDavid-Hadar

(2018) Funding education: Developing a method of allocation for improvement. International Journal of Educational Management 32(1): 2–26.

19.

Benkovitz

(2008) Schools of excellence and equity: Closing achievement gaps through academic emphasis (Publication No. 230702317) . Doctoral Dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.

20.

Berliner

(2006) Our impoverished view of educational research. Teachers College Record 108 (6) : 949–995.

21.

Blackburn

Spencer

Read

(2010) Prevalence of childhood disability and the characteristics and circumstances of disabled children in the UK: Secondary analysis of the family resources survey. BMC Pediatrics 10(1): 1–12.

22.

Bolkan

Goodboy

(2009) Transformational leadership in the classroom: Fostering student learning, student participation, and teacher credibility. Journal of Instructional Psychology 36(4): 296–306.

23.

Boyd

Grossman

Lankford

, et al. (2008) Measuring effect sizes: The effect of measurement error (Working Paper No. 19). National Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (ED509671).

24.

Breyer

Lee

Winters

, et al. (2014) A longitudinal study of childhood ADHD and a substance dependence disorders in early adulthood. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 28(1): 238–246.

25.

Brussino

(2020) Mapping policy approaches and practices for the inclusion of students with special education needs (OECD Education Working Paper No. 227). OECD.

26.

Bukobza

(2011) Rebelliousness. In: Levesque

RJR

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Adolescent Psychology. New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 2316-2322.

27.

Burns

(1978) Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

28.

Bush

(2011) Theories of Educational Leadership and Management. Sage. London: Los Angeles.

29.

Carroll

Bradley

Crawford

, et al. (2017) SEN support: A rapid evidence assessment – Research report. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/628630/DfE_SEN_Support_REA_Report.pdf. Accessed: May 5, 2021.

30.

Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) (2019) Statistical abstract of Israel 2019 - No.70. Available at: https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/publications/DocLib/2019/Shnaton70_mun.pdf. Accessed: May 5, 2021.

31.

Chacko

Wakschlag

Espy

, et al. (2009) Viewing preschool disruptive behavior disorders and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder through a developmental lens: What do we know and what do we need to know? Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 18(3): 627–643.

32.

Chapman

Ainscow

Miles

, et al. (2011) Leadership that promotes the achievement of students with special educational needs and disabilities: Full report. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335726/leadership-that-promotes-the-achievement-of-students-with-sen-full-report.pdf. Accessed: May 5, 2021.

33.

Chen

(2018) The relationship between school leadership and student mathematics achievement: A comparative study between Germany and Chinese Taipei . Doctoral Thesis, Technische Universität Dortmund, Germany.

34.

Dagan

(2002) Hashpa'at ha'hatzavah shel talmidim be'bet ha'sefer’ ha'mekif al ha'hesegim ha'limudiyim [The influence of tracking on academic achievement in a comprehensive school] . Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

35.

Daniëls

Hondeghem

Dochy

(2019) A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educational Research Review 27 (1) : 110–125.

36.

Darling-Hammond

(2000) Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8 (1): 1–42.

37.

Darling-Hammond

Berry

Thoreson

(2001) Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23(1): 57–77.

38.

Davis

Florian

Ainscow

, et al. (2004) Teaching strategies and approaches for pupils with special educational needs: A scoping study. Department for Education and Skills. Research Report No. 516. Queen’s Printer, Produced by the Department for Education and Skills. Available: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6059/1/RR516.pdf. Accessed: May 3, 2021.

39.

Dempster

Laird

Rubin

(1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological) 39(1): 1–22.

40.

Dempster

Rubin

Tsutakawa

(1981) Estimation in covariance components models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 76(374): 341–353.

41.

Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) (2014) An evidence review of the drivers of child poverty for families in poverty now and for poor children growing up to be poor adults. Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/19837/1/Cm_8781_Child_Poverty_Evidence_Review_Print.pdf. Accessed: May 2, 2021.

42.

Dial

(2008) The effect of teacher experience and teacher degree levels on student achievement in mathematics and communication arts . Doctoral Dissertation, Baker University Kansas, USA.

43.

Dobbie

Fryer

Jr (2011) Are high-quality schools enough to increase achievement among the poor? Evidence from the harlem children's zone. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3(3): 158–187.

44.

Essen

Wedge

(1982) Continuities in Childhood Disadvantage. London: Heinemann.

45.

Farhat

Usman

(2016) Secondary school teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ leadership behaviors and their academic performance at secondary school level. Bulletin of Education and Research 38(1): 41–55.

46.

Gallos

(2008) Making sense of organizations: Leadership, frames, and everyday theories of the situation. In: Gallos

(ed.) Business Leadership: A Jossey-Bass Reader. San Francisco, CA: Wiley, pp. 161–179.

47.

Geyer

ALG

Steyrer

(1998) Transformational leadership and objective performance in banks. Applied Psychology: An International Review 47(3): 397–420.

48.

Goldschmidt

Roschewski

Choi

, et al. (2005) Policymakers’ Guide to Growth Models for School Accountability: How do Accountability Models Differ? Washington, DC: The Council of Chief State School Officers.

49.

Guarino

Santibanez

Daley

(2006) Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research 76(2): 173–208.

50.

Hardman

(2011) Teacher's perception of their principal's leadership style and the effects on student achievement in improving and non-improving schools . Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Florida, USA.

51.

Hascher

Hadjar

(2018) School alienation – Theoretical approaches and educational research. Educational Research 60(2): 171–188.

52.

Healey

(2009) Creating greatness. Principal Leadership 9(6): 30–33.

53.

Hinkin

(1998) A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods 1(1): 104–121.

54.

Hoy

Smith

(2007) Influence: A key to successful leadership. International Journal of Education Management 21(2): 158–167.

55.

Jerrim

Oliver

Sims

(2019) The relationship between inquiry-based teaching and students’ achievement. New evidence from a longitudinal PISA study in England. Learning and Instruction 61: 35–44.

56.

Jochmans

Weidner

(2019) Fixed-effect regressions on network data. Econometrica 87(5): 1543–1560.

57.

Judge

Piccolo

(2004) Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 89(5): 755–768.

58.

Kambambovu

(2018) Assessment of leadership styles in relation to students’ academic performance in secondary schools: A case of Tabora municipality . Master’s Thesis, Open University of Tanzania, Tanzania.

59.

Kane

Rockoff

Staiger

(2008) What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York city. Economics of Education Review 27(6): 615–631.

60.

Kitur

Choge

Tanui

(2020) Relationship between principals’ transformational leadership style and secondary school students’ academic performance in Kenya certificate of secondary education in Bomet County, Kenya. Universal Journal of Educational Research 8(2): 402–409.

61.

Knab

(2009) A comparison of the leadership of principals of making middle grades work schools as measured by the leadership practices inventory. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal 7(2): 1–13.

62.

Kolzow

(2014) Leading From Within: Building Organizational Leadership capacity. International Economic Development Council, https://www.iedconline.org/clientuploads/Downloads/edrp/Leading_from_Within.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2021. 1–314.

63.

Kremer

Flower

Huang

, et al. (2016) Behavior problems and children’s academic achievement: A test of growth-curve models with gender and racial differences. Children and Youth Services Review 67: 95–104.

64.

Kvande

Belsky

Wichstrøm

(2018) Selection for special education services: The role of gender and socio-economic status. European Journal of Special Needs Education 33(4): 510–524.

65.

Ladd

Walsh

(2002) Implementing value-added measures of school effectiveness: Getting the incentives right. Economics of Education Review 21(1): 1–17.

66.

Leithwood

Harris

Hopkins

(2020a) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management 40(1): 5–22.

67.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2005) A review of transformational school leadership research 1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools 4(3): 177–199.

68.

Leithwood

Seashore Louis

Anderson

, et al. (2004) Review of Research: How Leadership Influences Student Learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.

69.

Leithwood

Sun

Schumacker

(2020b) How school leadership influences student learning: A test of “the four paths model”. Educational Administration Quarterly 56(4): 570–599.

70.

Lindley

Smith

AFM

(1972) Bayes estimates for the linear model. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological) 34(1): 1–41.

71.

Lissitz

Doran

Schafer

, et al. (2006) Growth modeling, value added modeling and linking: An introduction. In: Lissitz

(ed.) Longitudinal and Value Added Models of Student Performance. Maple Grove, MN: JAM, 1–46.

72.

Magezi

(2015) Linear mixed-effects models for within-participant psychology experiments: An introductory tutorial and free, graphical user interface (LMMgui). Frontiers in Psychology 6(2): 1–27.

73.

Marzano

(2003) What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Virginia USA.

74.

Meyer

Christian

(2008) Value Added and Other Methods for Measuring School Performance. Nashville, Tennessee, USA: National Center on Performance Incentives.

75.

Milanowski

(2004) The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education 79(4): 33–53.

76.

Mincu

(2015) Teacher quality and school improvement: What is the role of research? Oxford Review of Education 41(2): 253–269.

77.

Moshe

(2014) Sherutey Ma'arecket Ha'hinuck Le'ucklusiyat Ha'zarim Hasrey Ha'ma'mad Ha'ezrahi [Education System Services for the Population of Children of Foreigners Without Civil status]. Jerusalem, Israel: The Knesset Research and Information Center.

78.

National Research Council (2002) Minority students in special and gifted education. Available at: 10.17226/10128. Accessed: May 5, 2021

79.

Nelson

Sheridan

(2011) Lessons from neuroscience research for understanding causal links between family and neighborhood characteristics and educational outcomes. In: Duncan

Murnane

(eds) Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances. New York, USA: Russell Sage Foundation, 27–46.

80.

Nir

Hameiri

(2013) School principals’ leadership style and school outcomes: The mediating effect of powerbase utilization. Journal of Educational Administration 52(2): 210–227.

81.

Nsubuga

(2008) Analysis of leadership styles and school performance of secondary schools in Uganda . Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Faculty of Education, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University,

Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

82.

Odumeru

Ifeanyi

(2013) Transformational vs transactional leadership theories: Evidence in literature. International Review of Management and Business Research 2(2): 355–361.

83.

Ofsted (2006) Inclusion: does it matter where pupils are taught? Provision and outcomes in different settings for pupils with learning difficulties and disabilities (HMI 2535). Available at: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6001/1/Inclusion%20does%20it%20matter%20where%20pupils%20are%20taught%20(pdf%20format)%20.pdf. Accessed: May 2, 2021.

84.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2008) Measuring improvements in learning outcomes: Best practices to assess the value-added of schools. Available at: 10.1787/9789264050259-en. Accessed: March 2, 2021.

85.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2017) PISA 2015 results: Volume III. Students’ well-being. Available at: 10.1787/9789264273856-en. Accessed: May 12, 2021.

86.

Orphanos

Orr

(2014) Learning leadership matters: The influence of innovative school leadership preparation on teachers’ experiences and outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5): 680–700.

87.

Pont

Nusche

Moorman

(eds) (2008) Improving School Leadership: Vol 1. Policy and Practice. Paris, France: OECD.

88.

Popper

(1994) Al Menahalim Cke'manhigim [On Managers as Leaders]. Tel Aviv, Israel: Ramot.

89.

Printy

Marks

(2006) Shared leadership for teacher and student learning. Theory Into Practice 45(2): 125–132.

90.

Raudenbush

Bryk

(2002) Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Atlanta, GA: Sage.

91.

Rautiola

(2009) Effects of leadership styles and student academic achievement . Master’s Thesis, Northern Michigan University, USA

92.

Ray

(2006) School Value Added Measures in England: Paper for the OECD Project on the Development of Value-Added Models in Education Systems. London, UK: Department for Education and Skills.

93.

Ray

Evans

McCormack

(2008) The use of national value-added models for school improvement in English schools. Revista de Education 348: 47–66.

94.

Reinke

Herman

(2002) Creating school environments that deter problem behaviors in youth. Psychology in the Schools 39(5): 549–559.

95.

Rivkin

Hanushek

Kain

(2005) Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica 73(2): 417–458.

96.

Robinson

(2017) Effective inclusive teacher education for special educational needs and disabilities: Some more thoughts on the way forward. Teaching and Teacher Education 61 (1): 164–178.

97.

Rockoff

(2004) The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review 94(2): 247–252.

98.

Rugraff

(2004) The relationship of teacher salaries, teacher experience, and teacher education on student outcomes (Publication No. 305116944) . Doctoral Dissertation, St Louis University, USA.

99.

Saifi

Mehmood

(2011) Effects of socioeconomic status on students achievement. International Journal of Social Sciences & Education 1(2): 119–128.

100.

Savas

Toprak

(2014) Mediation effect of schools’ psychological climate on the relationship between principals’ leadership style and organizational commitment. Anthropologist 17(1): 173–182.

101.

Sayadi

(2016) The effect of dimensions of transformational, transactional, and non-leadership on the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of teachers in Iran. Management in Education 30(2): 57–65.

102.

Scott

McNeish

(2013) Leadership of Special Schools: Issues and Challenges. London, UK: National Centre for Social Research for CUBeC.

103.

Shapira-Lishchinsky

Raftar-Ozery

(2018) Leadership, absenteeism acceptance, and ethical climate as predictors of teachers’ absence and citizenship behaviors. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(3): 491–510.

104.

Shaw

Bernades

Trethewey

, et al. (2016) Special Educational Needs and Their Links to Poverty. New York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

105.

Shields

(2010) Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly 46(4): 558–589.

106.

Silverthorn

DuBois

Crombie

(2005) Self-perceptions of ability and achievement across the high school transition: Investigation of a state-trait model. Journal of Experimental Education 73(3): 193–218.

107.

Sirait

(2016) Does teacher quality affect student achievement? An empirical study in Indonesia. Journal of Education and Practice 7(27): 34–41.

108.

Smith

AFM

(1973) A general Bayesian linear model. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological) 35(1): 67–75.

109.

State Comptroller and Ombudsman of Israel (2014) Annual report 64c for the year 2013 and 2012 fiscal year. Available at: https://www.mevaker.gov.il/he/Reports/Pages/248.aspx. Accessed May 22, 2021.

110.

Suleymanov

(2014) Academic achievements of students with special needs in inclusive education - A case study of one primary school in Azerbaijan . Master's Thesis, University of Oslo, Norway.

111.

Sun

Leithwood

(2012) Transformational school leadership effects on student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools 11(4): 418–451.

112.

Sun

Penner

Loeb

(2017) Resource- and approach-driven multidimensional change: Three-year effects of school improvement grants. American Educational Research Journal 54(4): 607–643.

113.

Tekwe

Carter

C-X

, et al. (2004) An empirical comparison of statistical models for value-added assessment of school performance. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 29(1): 11–36.

114.

Tilahun

(2014) The relationship of school principal's leadership styles to school performance in secondary school of Agnwa Zone at Gambella National Regional Satet . Master's Thesis, Jimma University, Ethiopia.

115.

Törnsén

Ärlestig

(2014) Pedagogiskt ledarskap, mål, process, resultat [pedagogical leadership, goals, processes, results, in Swedish]. In: Höög

Johansson

(eds) Struktur, Kultur, Ledarskap: FöRutsätTningar föR FramgånGsrika Skolor. Sweden: Studentlitteratur, 77–100.

116.

Tosunoglu

Ekmekci

(2016) Laissez-Faire leaders and organizations: How does laissez-faire leader erode the trust in organizations? Journal of Economics, Finance and Accounting 3(1): 89–99.

117.

Trichas

Avdimiotis

(2020) Leadership styles in special education. Journal of Contemporary Education Theory & Research (JCETR) 4(1): 3–7.

118.

Turan

Bektas

(2013) The relationship between school culture and leadership practices. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 52: 155–168.

119.

UN General Assembly (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, A/RES/70/1. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html (accessed 9 September 2021).

120.

UNHCR, UNICEF, & IOM (2019) Access to education for refugee and migrant children in Europe: Highlights [Fact sheet]. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/neu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/09/Access-to-education-europe-19.pdf. Accessed: May 15, 2021.

121.

Urick

(2016) Examining US principal perception of multiple leadership styles used to practice shared instructional leadership. Journal of Educational Administration 54(2): 152–172.

122.

Vroom

Jago

(2007) The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist 62(1): 17–24.

123.

Wampler

Munsch

Adams

(2002) Ethnic differences in grade trajectories during the transition to junior high. Journal of School Psychology 40(3): 213–237.

124.

Weisblei

(2015) Hinuck le'yeladim eem tzrackim meyuhadim be'Yisrael – Netunim ve'sugiyot merckaziyot [Education for children with special needs in Israel: Facts and major issues]. Available at: https://fs.knesset.gov.il/globaldocs/MMM/951207dc-1277-e511-80d1-00155d0ad6b2/2_951207dc-1277-e511-80d1-00155d0ad6b2_11_8781.pdf.

125.

Weisblei

(2019) Ma'arecket Ha'hinuck Ha'meyuhad [The Special Education System]. The Knesset Research and Information Center. Jerusalem, Israel. Accessed: May 5, 2021.

126.

Wininger

Zered

(2019) Mivneh Ma'arecket Ha'hinuck, Hakikah Merckazit Ve'netunim Klaliyim [Structure of the Education System: Central Legislation and General Data]. Jerusalem, Israel: The Knesset Research and Information Center.

127.

Wynn

Fite

Pardini

(2011) Childhood predictors of an at-risk transition into early adulthood among African American and Caucasian males. Race and Social Problems 3(2): 63–74.

128.

Youngs

King

(2002) Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Education Administration Quarterly 38(5): 643–670.

129.

Zhang

(2008) The effects of teacher education level, teaching experience, and teaching behaviors on student science achievement . Doctoral Dissertation, Utah State University, USA.

130.

Zuzovsky

(2008) Teachers’ qualifications and their impact on student achievement: Findings from TIMSS 2003 data for Israel. Available at https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2019-04/IRC2008_Zuzovsky2.pdf (accessed 27 May 2021).

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB