Article MiE

Management in Education
1–8
A study on factors affecting school ª 2020 British Educational Leadership,
Management & Administration Society

principals’ competencies in Vietnam’s (BELMAS)

Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
mountainous provinces DOI: 10.1177/0892020620918254
journals.sagepub.com/home/mie

Long Kim Le
VNU University of Education, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam
Trung Tran
Faculty of Basic, Vietnam Academy for Ethnic Minorities, Hanoi, Vietnam
Hien Thu Thi Le
VNU University of Education, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam
Trinh Tuyet Thi Le
Faculty of Education, Dong Thap University, Cao Lanh City, Dong Thap, Vietnam

Abstract
Given principals’ central role in school performance, this study seeks to explore factors that influence school principal
competency. The study employed a quantitative research approach. A survey questionnaire was administered to 290
principals across six northwestern mountainous provinces in Vietnam. The questionnaire considered eight areas of
principal competency, including self-development and the development of others; school organization and operation;
staff development; instructional programme management; education quality assurance management; management of
financial resources; engagement with families, community and government; and the school’s strategic planning. Analyses
of variance and correlation (Pearson’s r) techniques were used, and the findings demonstrate that principals’ compe-
tencies were statistically affected by both internal factors (gender, experience, health, family and IT skills) and external
factors (school location, school demographics and school facilities). However, the study found no correlation between
principals’ academic qualifications and their competencies.

Keywords
competencies, mountainous provinces, principal, school leader

Introduction administration in disadvantaged, mountainous or remote

School leadership is arguably crucial to school perfor-
mance. Research on effective schools suggests the
school principal be a key figure in a school’s success
or failure (Fullan, 2002; García-Martínez and Tadeu,
2018; Leithwood et al., 2019), in addition to student
achievement and school culture (Green, 2009; Leith-
wood et al., 2004). Clark et al. (1984) reviewed 97
studies on urban school achievement and concluded
leadership is crucial in determining school success and
engendering achievement.
Research into school leadership and principalship has
garnered prominence in recent decades. These studies often
focus on identifying principals’ behaviours and practices
(Green, 2014; Rodall and Salazar, 2018) and evaluating the
relationship between principalship and school performance
or student achievement (Firestone and Riehl, 2005; Hallin-
ger and Heck, 1998; Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999; Marks
and Printy, 2003; Robinson et al., 2008). Still, little has
been uncovered on those factors influencing school
areas, especially in Asia.
Northwestern Vietnam is a mountainous area that
accommodates more than 20 Vietnamese minority ethnic
groups and accounts for nearly half of the country’s minor
ethnic communities. The region is also impoverished, with
a high number of households living below the poverty line.
Local inhabitants possess a low average level of education.
Leading a school in these conditions can prove exponen-
tially more challenging than leading schools in urban or
more advantaged places (Harris and Chapman, 2002;
Jacogson et al., 2005). As Vietnam undergoes rapid mod-
ernization, industrialization and global integration, educa-
tion must play a vital role by producing highly qualified
human resources and a knowledge base capable of
Corresponding author:
Trung Tran, Faculty of Basic, Vietnam Academy for Ethnic Minorities,
DreamTown-COMA6, Road 70, Tay Mo, Nam Tu Liem, Hanoi, Vietnam.
E-mail: trungt1978@gmail.com
2 Management in Education XX(X)
fostering the country’s social and economic development.
To this end, developing principals’ competencies should be
central strategy of school improvement and reform (Fullan,
2001; Hallinger, 2003).
This study sets out to identify the factors affecting
school principalship by examining the influence of
demographic factors such as gender, experience, educa-
tion qualifications, ethnicity and health. School factors,
including school demographics, location and infrastruc-
ture, are also evaluated against the perceived competen-
cies of school principals. The study was conducted in six
northwestern mountainous provinces of Vietnam – Hoa
Binh, Lao Cai, Yen Bai, Dien Bien, Ha Giang and Lai
Chau – from March to April 2017 as part of a larger
project, which focused on human resource development
for teachers and educational managers for sustainable
development in the northwest mountains of Vietnam.
A survey questionnaire was administered to a population
sample of 290 principals. Both descriptive and inferential
statistics were obtained to best illuminate the factors
impacting principals’ perceived level of competence in
different areas.
Literature review
Principal’s competencies
First of all, it is important to note that the terms ‘leader’,
‘principal’ and ‘administrator’ are used interchangeably
throughout the article. The roles of school principals in the
modern era have evolved to include not only management
but also instructional leadership (Bush, 2018; Daresh,
2003), school organization and collaboration with the
wider community (Heffron, 2018; Sebright-Smith, 2004;
Slater et al., 2018). As an instructional leader, a principal’s
key tasks are to develop, articulate and communicate a
school’s vision and mission, and then translate this mission
into a set of measurable goals (Bolman and Deal, 2002;
Ganon-Shilon and Chen, 2019; Hallinger and Heck, 1998).
Setting high expectations for student learning is also a
crucial tool of effective school leadership when raising
students’ academic achievement.
The central tasks of a school leader are the determina-
tion of a school’s organizational structure, the assignment
of roles and tasks to staff, the allocation of resources and
the oversight of ongoing organizational function. Empow-
ering and delegating responsibilities to staff are important
strategies principals use to reduce their managerial burden
and paperwork (Clark et al., 1984; Mitchell and Castle,
2005; Tahir et al., 2019) and set aside more time to take
on the instructional leadership. Morris (1999) points to the
importance of ‘tapping into the creativity and resources of
their staff members’ (p. 5) as a key managerial ability. In
addition, a principal’s job involves building and imple-
menting a budget plan to allocate resources according to
the school’s priorities. The Illinois Principals Association
emphasizes that ‘the principal creates and implements sys-
tems to ensure a safe, orderly, and productive environment
for student and adult learning toward the achievement of
school and district improvement priorities’ (IPA, 2017: 1).
Ensuring the quality of education to achieve high results is
also an important component of effective principalship
(Murphy, 2008). In summary, student learning and school
improvement should be a major focus of school principal-
ship (Ganon-Shilon and Chen, 2019; Murphy, 2002).
The ability to plan and evaluate instructional curricu-
lum is another competency of effective principals. Robin-
son et al. (2008) rank this task among the priorities of
principalship. Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991) also main-
tain that the school principal plays an important part in
implementing and sustaining a school’s effective instruc-
tional programmes. According to Printy (2008), the prin-
cipal affects students’ learning by influencing
instructional programmes. In short, effective principalship
should also include the coordination of the curriculum and
the management of instructional programmes (Hallinger
and Wang, 2015).
Self-development and the development of others are
also widely articulated as a key area of principal compe-
tency. A competent school leader must identify his or her
own strengths and weaknesses, learn through experience
and best practices and maintain physical and emotional
well-being through work–leisure balance (AITSL, 2014).
The principal is also responsible for staff development
through coaching, teacher feedback and the fostering of
culture and learning opportunities conducive to teachers’
professional growth. Research has shown higher student
achievement is associated with teachers’ professional
development (Aburizaizah et al., 2018; Hallinger and Mur-
phy, 1985).
Competent leaders are also capable of building success-
ful community relationships with both parents and other
community members to create optimal learning opportuni-
ties for students (Griffith, 2001). Evidence shows that part-
nership with families and community can elicit immense
benefits for a school, especially when garnering resources
to support learning and teaching (Bryk and Driscoll, 1988;
Nguyen, 2019).
To define and streamline school principalship, national
and local governments in most countries have established
either standards or core competencies for school principals.
The Professional Standards for Educational Leaders 2015
(the 2015 Standards), adopted by over 40 states in the
United States, cover six areas, including vision of learning,
school culture and instructional programmes, management,
collaboration with families and communities, ethics, and
the larger political, social, economic, legal and cultural
context (NPBEA, 2015). Each standard includes particular
knowledge, dispositions and performance indicators that
school administrators must demonstrate. Similarly, the
Australian set of professional standards for principals
defines the knowledge and abilities principals are expected
to possess in order to ensure students’ high achievement,
promote equity and excellence, provide an environment
conducive to quality teaching and learning, engage with
local communities and governments and contribute to the
development of the educational system at all levels. The
five standards for principals in Australian schools include
Le et al.
leading teaching and learning; developing self and others;
leading improvement, innovation and change; leading
school management; and engaging and working with the
community (AITSL, 2014). Australian standards also
emphasize principals’ roles in instructional programmes;
management of the school’s organization, operation and
resources; and collaboration with the wider community.
However, unlike the 2015 Standards in the United States,
Australian standards for principals take into account the
evolving nature of principalship by demanding the ability
to self-develop. Both sets of standards view leadership
from a distributed perspective, defining leadership as the
capacity of leaders to involve teachers and other staff in
decision-making processes.
Specifically, in the Southeast Asia, Singapore’s School
Excellence Model identifies nine criteria for a successful
school. In this model, principals are expected to lead the
school by (1) focusing on students’ learning, performance
and excellence; (2) setting strategic directions and plans to
achieve goals; (3) managing and developing staff to their
full potential; (4) allocating human and fiscal resources
efficiently and effectively for students’ learning; (5)
emphasizing student-focused processes that develop well-
rounded learners; (6) achieving efficiency and effectiveness
through administrative and operational results; (7) ensuring
school staff’s high morale; (8) facilitating partnership and
society results; and (9) meeting key performance results
(i.e. students’ holistic achievement and the Desired Out-
comes of Education) (Ng, 2008).
Demographic factors in principalship
Studies on principalship have yielded results suggesting a
positive relationship between principals’ years of service
and their professional competence. For example, through
data from students’ standardized exam scores and other
outcomes, Clark et al. (2009) found a positive relationship
between principal experience and school performance,
particularly for math test scores and student absences.
Additionally, Piaw et al. (2014) conducted a quantitative
study that employed a survey questionnaire of 152 sec-
ondary school principals. Their study sought to examine
the relationship between the demographic variables of the
principals and their perceived leadership skills in five
major areas: educational, cultural, strategic, organizational
management and educational management. The study
found that years of service as a school principal and aca-
demic qualification were two significant factors of lead-
ership skills. Similarly, Andrews (2006) investigated the
relationship between selected Louisiana PK-5 school
administrators’ demographics and school performance
scores. The study showed that the experience of a princi-
pal is a significant contributor to the high performance of
a school. Obviously, job experience is a significant and
reliable predicator of managerial efficiency (Adu et al.,
2014).
With regard to the role of education qualifications in
principalship, studies contradict one another in their findings
and conclusions. While Piaw et al. (2014) concluded
3
education level plays an important part in school leadership,
other studies found no significant connection between these
two variables. Ballou and Podgursky (1993) found that prin-
cipal education had no effect on school performance. Like-
wise, in their study of 144 principals from 12 districts in
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, Majoka et al. (2013)
demonstrated no significant association between the princi-
pal’s qualifications and leadership styles.
Additionally, Leithwood et al. (2006) demonstrated
classroom conditions, school conditions and home condi-
tions are variables that impact school leadership and
demand leaders’ attention. These conditions include work-
load volume, school structure, size, location, home educa-
tional culture and socio-economic status of families.
Nevertheless, studies on the relationship between demo-
graphic factors and principal competencies are under-
represented in the existing volume of literature on
principalship.
Research methods
The current study considered six northwestern mountai-
nous provinces of Vietnam, including Hoa Binh, Lao Cai,
Yen Bai, Dien Bien, Ha Giang and Lai Chau, from March
to April 2017 as part of a larger project. A survey ques-
tionnaire was administered to a population sample of over
300 school principals, in which 290 participants responded.
The participants’ ages ranged from 30 years to 60 years.
The research instrument consists of a survey question-
naire administered to principals via self-evaluation. The
survey questionnaire is developed based on the Standards
for Principals of Primary and Secondary Schools promul-
gated by the Minister of Education and Training, Vietnam.
The five standards with 18 criteria focus on professional
qualities; school administration; educational environment
establishment; developing relationships between school,
family and the society; and the use of foreign languages
and IT (MoET, 2018). The questionnaire comprises three
parts. Part 1, personal information, elicits respondents’
information regarding gender, education qualification,
years of service, religion, ethnicity, school location, dis-
tance from home to school, marital status, physical well-
being, access to IT, frequency of IT use and the number of
students in the school. Part 2 consists of 10 questions on
the school’s conditions, including the proportion of minor-
ity ethnic students and teachers, student dropout rates,
facilities, teacher experience and qualification and school
location. Part 3 is designed to enable respondents to self-
evaluate within eight areas of principal competency. These
areas include:
NL1_self and other development;
NL2_school organization and operation;
NL3_staff development;
NL4_instructional programme;
NL5_education quality assurance management;
NL6_management of financial resources;
4 Management in Education XX(X)

NL7_engagement with families, community and govern- Table 1. Demographic factors affecting principal competence.
ment; and
Demographic
NL8_development and implementation of school’s stra-
factors Subcategories Frequency Percentage
tegic plan for development.
Gender Male 185 63.8
Each area includes 6–12 items, which together total to Female 105 36.2
67 items; 60 of the items were framed as positive state- Total 290 100.0
ments about the leader under study and 7 statements were Education Bachelor 211 69
framed as negative. For example, ‘I participated in profes- qualification Master 76 26.2
Doctor 3 1
sional development programmes in school management’
Others 11 3.8
(NL1, positive statement) or ‘I don’t like to adjust school Total 290 100.0
plans’ (NL4, negative statement). The use of both positive Age <30 years old 1 0.35
and negative statements sought to avert the tendency of 30–40 years old 160 56.34
respondents to agree to all items regardless of content. 40–50 years old 80 28.17
Responses were recorded via a 5-point Likert-type scale >50 years old 43 15.14
(1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Total 284 100.0
Experience <5 years 1 0.4
The instrument was tested for validity and reliability in a
5–10 years 18 7.2
trial study. Analysis shows that Cronbach’s α for all items 10–15 years 77 30.9
was 0.792, and there was a correlation between the 15–20 years 75 30.1
responses for each item. As such, the questionnaire is con- >20 years 78 31.3
sidered well-structured, with all items representative of cer- Total 249 100.0
tain aspects of administrators’ competencies. Ethnicity Kinh 223 78.52
To obtain descriptive and inferential statistics, data were Minority ethnic groups 61 21.48
Total 284 100.0
analysed using SPSS 22.0 software. Descriptive statistics
measured the central tendency (means) and data dispersion
(standard deviation). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and
Pearson’s r were utilized to identify differences and rela- minority ethnic groups (20%). However, ethnicity did not
tionships between demographic factors and principals’ per- significantly affect principalship.
ceived levels of competence in different areas. Nine factors (both internal and external) were identified
as affecting principals’ competencies in particular areas.
Internal factors included gender, experience, position, fam-
Findings ily and health while external factors were a school’s geo-
Descriptive statistics of demographic factors graphic location, availability of IT facilities and IT skills
and number of students and teachers in a school.
Internal factors considered include gender, age, education,
experience in management positions and ethnicity (Table
1). Of the 290 participants, 185 were male and 105 female, Internal factors. The findings show a link between gender
accounting for 63.8% and 36.2%, respectively. Over half of and a particular competency area: managing financial
the school administrators surveyed fell within the 30–40 resources (sig. < 0.5). A t-test was used to identify the
age group (56.34%); 28.17% of the participants were difference between males and females across eight compe-
40–50 years of age, almost double the over 50 age group tency groups. This test found that female leaders were
(15.14%). Regarding educational qualifications, a large better at managing and allocating financial resources than
proportion of participants (69%) reported that they possess their male counterparts.
a bachelor’s degree. About a fourth had earned a master’s Years of service in management positions also affected
degree, while only 1% had a doctoral degree. the professional competencies of the administrators in NL1
The vast majority of the school leaders had more than – developing self and others (sig. < 0.5). The study found
10 years of experience in management positions, with 30% that the more experience a participant had, the better he or
each in the 10–15 years, 15–20 years and over 20 years she was at developing self and others, that is, identifying
groups. Only 7.2% of participants reported 5–10 years of learning opportunities for professional development that
this type of experience, while 0.4% reported less than 5 aligned with the school’s priorities, modelling the impor-
years of experience in management. tance of health and well-being and modifying leadership
behaviour based on learned experience and staff feedback.
Factors affecting the principals’ perceived Health was another statistically significant factor in
school leaders’ perceived competence in NL1, self and
competence other development, and NL5, education quality assurance
ANOVA analysis reveals that participants’ level of educa- management (sig. < 0.5). The survey results show that
tion had no significant effects on their professional compe- respondents’ reports of their sickness frequency correlated
tencies (Table 2). Northwestern Vietnam accommodates with their perceived competence. Family factors also
more than 20 of the country’s 54 minority ethnic groups. affected administrators in their ability to develop them-
Of the 290 school administrators surveyed, 61 belonged to selves and others (NL1), as well as their ability to assure
Le et al.
Table 2. Factors affecting the principals’ perceived competence.
Factors NL1 NL2 NL3
Gender
Experience 0.124*
Position –0.166**
Family –0.136*
Health –0.158*
Geographic location 0.288** 0.140*
IT –0.322** –0.194** –0.318**
Number of students –0.157*
Number of teachers –0.157*
*Sig. < 0.5; **sig. < 0.001.
their schools’ education quality (NL5), and develop and
implement strategic plans for development (NL8) (sig. <
0.5). There was a negative relationship between the number
of children a principal had and that principal’s perceived
competence in NL1 and 5 (sig. < 0.000), but a positive
correlation between this factor and NL8 (sig. < 0.25). That
is, the more children principals had in their families, the
better they were at strategically planning for development.
External factors. Geographic location, school size and Inter-
net connection were among the external factors that signif-
icantly affected principalship. The northwestern provinces
are mountainous areas and schools are often difficult to
access, resulting in difficulties for school management.
Analysis found that the geographic location of a school
correlated with four component competencies: NL1, devel-
oping self and others (sig. < 0.000); NL2, school organi-
zation and operation (sig. < 0.002); NL3, staff development
(sig. < 0.009); education quality assurance (sig. < 0.000)
and NL8, a school’s strategic plan. Difficulties in geo-
graphic access also negatively influenced a school princi-
pal’s competencies.
School size had a negative correlation with school
administrators’ perception of their competencies in NL2,
school organization and operation (sig. < 0.0.15); NL5,
education quality assurance (sig. < 0.026); and NL8, devel-
oping and implementing the school’s strategic plans (sig. <
0.026). The more students and teachers a school had, the
greater difficulty the principal had in managing and leading
the school, especially in the areas of organizing and oper-
ating the system, assuring education quality and strategic
planning. This is particularly true in contexts where a large
proportion of students were from minority ethnic groups.
Internet connection was found to be a strong factor in
administrators’ professional competence. In this global era
of digital technology, access to and skills in using the Inter-
net have proved an advantage, as it provides a pool of near-
infinite, valuable online resources. The survey found that
Internet connection correlated with six of the eight compe-
tency areas, including NL1, developing self and others;
NL2, school organization and operation; NL3, staff devel-
opment (sig. < 0.009); NL4, instructional programme
development; NL5, education quality management (sig. <
5
Standard areas
NL4 NL5 NL6 NL7 NL8
–0.134*
–0.466** –0.147*
0.168*
–0.153*
0.163** –0.340** –0.288**
–0.144* –0.145*
–0.157*
0.000); and NL7, engagement with families and commu-
nity (sig. < 0.000). Conversely, lower frequency computer
and Internet use negatively affected the competence of
school administrators.
Discussion and conclusion
The study highlights the roles of demographic and school
factors in principals’ competencies. The findings suggest
that those appointing a school principal should consider the
candidate’s administrative or managerial experience. It is a
good standard as principals should be administrators and
managers (NAESP, 2008). In this aspect, the current study
corroborates Clark et al. (2009), who found a relationship
between principal experience and school performance.
Sharing experiences and best practices in leading a school
could serve as one useful strategy for supporting young and
inexperienced principals. In addition, because the physical
and emotional well-being of a principal also affects that
principal’s professional competencies, it is important to
consider these factors in the principal selection process.
The Vietnamese government requires certain academic
qualifications for principals at different levels. However,
this study lends no evidence to the role of academic qua-
lifications in principalship. This finding echoes Ballou and
Podgursky’s (1993) and Piaw et al.’s (2014) research. In
Vietnam, principal preparation programmes have not been
put in place to provide aspiring and prospective principals
with the knowledge and skills required for effective prin-
cipalship. Although principals often take courses in man-
agement or professional development, it appears that
undertaking principal preparation courses would foster
greater effectiveness (David and Jazzar, 2005).
Principals in rural or disadvantaged areas should be
provided with extra support, as the study indicated that
leading and managing schools in mountainous provinces
can prove immensely challenging. Difficulties in reaching
a school due to topographical conditions demotivate stu-
dents and teachers and prevent robust partnerships and
connections with the wider community. As reported in the
press recently, a principal of school located in the north-
western mountainous area of Vietnam had to write a letter
asking for rice for his school pupils (Cao, 2019). In
6 Management in Education XX(X)
addition, these areas’ low family socio-economic status
presents an obvious challenge in ensuring students’ atten-
dance and fostering parental involvement, support and
monitoring of their children’s learning. However, it is
important to note that principals in these multi-ethnic
regions should recognize and tap into the richness of local
cultural and social resources when promoting learning
opportunities.
The study also points to the importance of Internet tech-
nology in helping schools in disadvantaged areas keep pace
with urban or other more privileged schools. The findings
showed a strong link between Internet connection and use
and principals’ perceived leadership competencies. As a
result, governments should make greater efforts to provide
schools in remote or mountainous locations with Internet
access and computer facilities. Principals in these schools
should also be trained to use computers and the Internet in
support of their jobs. In this area, the study lends further
support to Leithwood et al.’s (2006) conclusion that class-
room conditions, school conditions and home conditions
impact school leadership and demand attention from both
school leaders and higher educational authorities. Specifi-
cally, in developing countries like Vietnam, the school
leaders’ role has become even more demanding given tech-
nological changes (Trinh et al., 2019).
In conclusion, because both internal variables (i.e. gen-
der, experience, families, health and computer and Internet
skills) and external variables (i.e. school geographic loca-
tion, school size, student demographics and school condi-
tion) significantly affect a principal’s perceived
competencies, it is highly recommended that professional
development activities be tailored to meet the specific
needs of principals in disadvantaged areas. In addition,
principal appointment should consider managerial experi-
ence over academic qualifications. Further qualitative
research must be carried out to obtain greater insight into
the particular difficulties experienced by principals in Viet-
nam’s mountainous provinces and further prioritize the
competency areas that require development.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This
research was funded by National-level science and technology
program for sustainable development in the Northwest region of
Vietnam under grant number KHCN-TB.21X/13-18.
ORCID iD
Trung Tran https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0459-7284
Trinh Tuyet Thi Le https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3970-9773
References
Aburizaizah S, Kim Y and Fuller B (2018) Principal leadership
and student achievement: decentralising school management
in Saudi Arabia. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education 49(5): 795–816.
Adu E, Akinloye GM and Olaoye O (2014) Demographic vari-
ables as determinant of principal managerial efficiency. Inter-
national Journal of Educational Sciences 7(3): 605–614.
Andrews SKB (2006) An investigation of the relationship among
Louisiana PK-5 school administrators’ technology competen-
cies, selected demographics, and school performance scores.
Doctoral dissertation, Grambling State University.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL)
(2014) Australian Professional Standard for Principals and
the Leadership Profiles. Education Services Australia. Avail-
able at: https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-
document-library/australian-professional-standard-for-princi
pals-and-the-leadership-profiles652c8891b1e86477b58fff
00006709da.pdf?sfvrsn=11c4ec3c_0 (accessed 15 June 2019).
Ballou D and Podgursky MJ (1993) What makes a good princi-
pal? How teachers assess the performance of principals. Eco-
nomics of Education Review 14(3): 243–252.
Bolman LG and Deal TE (2002) Leading with soul and spirit.
School Administrator 59(2): 21–26.
Bryk AS and Driscoll ME (1988) The High School as Commu-
nity: Contextual Influences and Consequences for Student and
Teachers. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin–Madi-
son, National Center on Effective Secondary Schools.
Bush T (2018) Preparation and induction for school principals:
global perspectives. Management in Education 32(2): 66–71.
Cao N (2019) Cảm động thầy hiệu trưởng xin gạo cho học sinh
vùng cao [Touched by the principal asking for rice for the
mountainous students]. Available at: https://giaoduc.net.vn/
giao-duc-24h/cam-dong-thay-hieu-truong-xin-gao-cho-hoc-
sinh-vung-cao-post205604.gd (accessed 15 June 2019).
Clark D, Lotto LS and Astuto TA (1984) Effective schools and
school improvement: a comparative analysis of two lines of
inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly 20: 41–68.
Clark D, Martorell P and Rockoff J (2009) School Principals and
School Performances. Washington DC: CALDER, The Urban
Institute. Available at: https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/
jrockoff/cmr_principals_calder_WP38.pdf (accessed 15 June
2019).
Daresh J (2003) What It Means to Be a Principal: Your Guide to
Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
David J and Jazzar M (2005) The seven habits of effective prin-
cipal preparation program. Principal 84(5): 18–21.
Firestone W and Riehl C (2005) A New Agenda for Research in
Educational Leadership. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan M (2001) Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan M (2002) The change leader. Educational Leadership
59(8): 16–21.
Fullan M and Stiegelbauer S (1991) The new meaning of educa-
tional change. School Effectiveness and School Improvement
2(4): 336–343.
Ganon-Shilon S and Chen S (2019) No school principal is an island:
from individual to school sense-making processes in reform
implementation. Management in Education 33(2): 77–85.
García-Martínez I and Tadeu P (2018) The influence of pedago-
gical leadership on the construction of professional identity.
Journal of Social Studies Education Research 9(3): 145–162.
Le et al.
Green RL (2009) The Four Dimensions of Principal Leadership:
A Framework for Leading 21st Century Schools. London:
Pearson.
Green RL (2014) Leadership Behavior Inventory. Memphis: The
University of Memphis.
Griffith J (2001) Principal leadership of parent involvement. Jour-
nal of Educational Administration 39(2): 162–186.
Hallinger P (2003) Leading educational change: reflections on the
practice of instructional and educational leadership. Cam-
bridge Journal of Education 33(3): 329–351.
Hallinger P and Heck R (1998) Exploring the principal’s contri-
bution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effective-
ness and School Improvement 9(2): 157–191.
Hallinger P and Murphy J (1985) Assessing the instructional
management behavior of principals. The Elementary School
Journal 86(2): 217–247.
Hallinger P and Wang WC (2015) Assessing Instructional Lead-
ership With the Principal Instructional Management Rating
Scale. Dordrecht: Springer.
Harris A and Chapman C (2002) Effective Leadership in Schools
Facing Challenging Circumstances. Nottingham: National
College for School Leadership.
Heffron JM (2018) Soka education as a theory of leadership:
implications for the preparation, practice, and for the re-
structuration of the modern principalship. Management in
Education 32(3): 102–108.
Illinois Principals Association (IPA) (2017) Illinois Performance
Standards for School Leader. Available at: https://ilprinci
pals.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ILLINOIS-PERFOR
MANCE-STANDARDS-FOR-SCHOOL-LEADERS.pdf
(accessed 15 June 2019).
Jacogson SL, Johnson L, Ylimaki R, et al. (2005) Successful
leadership in challenging US schools: enabling principles,
enabling schools. Journal of Educational Administration
43(6): 607–618.
Leithwood K, Day C, Sammons P, et al. (2006) Successful School
Leadership: What It Is and How It Influences Pupil Learning.
Available at: http://www.nysed.gov/common/nysed/files/princi
pal-project-file-55-successful-school-leadership-what-it-is-
and-how-it-influences-pupil-learning.pdf (accessed 15 June
2019).
Leithwood K, Harris A and Hopkins D (2019) Seven strong
claims about successful school leadership revisited. School
Leadership & Management 40(1): 5–22.
Leithwood K and Jantzi D (1999) Transformational school lead-
ership effects: a replication. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement 10(4): 451–479.
Leithwood K, Seashore-Louis K, Anderson S, et al. (2004) How
Leadership Influences Student Learning: A Review of
Research for the Learning From Leadership Project. New
York: The Wallace Foundation.
Majoka MI, Sawati MJ and Anwar S (2013) Do qualification,
experience and age matter for principals leadership styles?
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences 3(7): 403–413.
Marks H and Printy S (2003) Principal leadership and school
performance: an integration of transformational and instruc-
tional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 39
(3): 370–397.
7
Ministry of Education and Training (MoET) (2018) Circular No.
14/2018/TT-BGDDT Dated 20/7/2018 on Standards for Prin-
cipals of Primary and Secondary Schools. Hanoi: MoET.
Mitchell C and Castle JB (2005) The instructional role of elemen-
tary school principals. Canadian Journal of Education 28(3):
409–433.
Morris R (1999) School leadership for the 21st century: seeds for
change. Educational Horizons 77(2): 95–100.
Murphy J (2002) How the ISLLC standards are reshaping the
principalship. Principal 82(1): 22–26.
Murphy J (2008) The place of leadership in turnaround schools:
insights from organizational recovery in the public and private
sectors. Journal of Educational Administration 46(1): 74–98.
National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP)
(2008) Leading Learning Communities: Standards for What
Principals Should Know and Be Able to Do (Executive Sum-
mary). Alexandria, VA: NAESP.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA)
(2015) Professional Standards for Educational Leaders.
Reston, VA: NPBEA. Available at: https://ccsso.org/resource-
library/professional-standards-educational-leaders (accessed
15 June 2019)
Ng PT (2008) A comparative study of Singapore’s school excellence
model with Hong Kong’s school-based management. Interna-
tional Journal of Educational Management 22(6): 488–505.
Nguyen HC (2019) An investigation of professional development
among educational policy-makers, institutional leaders and
teachers. Management in Education 33(1): 32–36.
Piaw CY, Hee TF, Ismail NR, et al. (2014) Factors of leadership
skills of secondary school principals. Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences 116: 5125–5129.
Printy SM. (2008). How do principals influence teaching prac-
tices that make a difference for student achievement. Available
at: http://research.vancouver.wsu.edu/sites/research.vancouver.
wsu.edu/files/Printy.pdf (accessed 15 June 2019).
Robinson VM, Lloyd CA and Rowe KJ (2008) The impact of
leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of the differential
effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quar-
terly 44: 635–674.
Rodall CAS and Salazar SBO (2018) Principals’ leadership in
Mexican upper high schools: the paradoxes between rules and
practices. Educational Management Administration & Leader-
ship 46(2): 301–317.
Sebright-Smith S (2004) Illinois principals and the performance
indicators associated with the content area standards for prin-
cipals. Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University
(UMI No. 3161324).
Slater CL, Garduno JMG and Mentz K (2018) Frameworks for
principal preparation and leadership development: contribu-
tions of the International Study of Principal Preparation
(ISPP). Management in Education 32(3): 126–134.
Tahir LM, Ali MF and Ahmad J (2019) Principals changing
schools and their career options after principalship: exploring
reasons and options within Malaysian principalship. Manage-
ment in Education 33(3): 110–117.
Trinh TPT, Pham TV, Cao HT, et al. (2019) The profile of pro-
fessional standards for secondary school principals in Viet-
nam. International Journal of Education and Practice 7(4):
310–323.
8 Management in Education XX(X)

Author biographies Hien Thu Thi Le is an Associate Professor of Physics

Education at the University of Education, Vietnam National
Long Kim Le is an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He
University, Hanoi, Vietnam. Her main research interests
is now working at the University of Education, Vietnam
include evaluation and assessment in education, teacher
National University, Hanoi, Vietnam. His main research
training and innovation of teaching and learning methods
interests include management in education, evaluation and
in high school, ethnic education.
assessment in education, teacher training and innovation of
teaching and learning methods in high school.

Trinh Tuyet Thi Le holds a PhD in Mathematics Educa-

Trung Tran is an Associate Professor of Mathematics tion and is working as a Lecturer at Dong Thap Univer-
Education at Vietnam Academy for Ethnic Minorities, sity, Vietnam. Her main research interests include
Hanoi, Vietnam. His areas of interest include ethnic edu- mathematics education, evaluation and assessment in edu-
cation, education management, public policy and teaching cation and innovation of teaching and learning methods in
methods. In addition, he is also involved in interdisciplin- high school.
ary research between education and mathematics, computer
science, economics and technology. The issue of develop-
ing scientific research skills has recently become his new
research direction.