A STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP AND

TEACHERS’ PERFORMANCE ON STUDENTS’ SATISFACTION

By
Eisha Maham
M.phill Scholar
UOG University, Gujrat

Submitted To:

Dr. Saba

Department of Management Sciences

University of the Gujrat, Hafiz Hayat Campus
 A STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP AND
TEACHERS’ PERFORMANCE ON STUDENTS’ SATISFACTION

Introduction
Vocational high schools (VHS) are instrumental in shaping the workforce and contributing to
national development. They produce skilled workers who are vital for meeting the demands of
the labor market. To fulfill this role effectively, VHS must constantly strive to enhance the
quality of education they offer, both in terms of theoretical knowledge and practical skills.
Research from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) confirms that technical and vocational
education and training (TVET) can significantly contribute to economic growth and
competitiveness by boosting productivity at various levels: individual, entrepreneurial, and
national.
From a broader perspective, the aim of vocational education and training (VET) is multifaceted.
On a societal level, VET aims to enhance overall productivity, which justifies greater investment
and attention to its development. On an individual level, VET serves to prepare students for entry
into the labor market and equips them with the necessary skills for employment. This notion is
supported by scholars like Clarke and Winch, who emphasize VET's role in readying students for
the workforce. Essentially, VET facilitates the acquisition of qualifications and skills relevant to
specific professions or trades, enabling individuals to pursue careers independently, regardless of
their age or educational background.
having strong leaders in schools is really important. They help make sure teachers can do their
best to help students learn. According to Sallies, good leaders make a nice place for teachers to
work, which keeps them happy and committed. This shows how crucial it is to have great leaders
for making education successful.
From the perspective of students, the quality of education they receive directly impacts their
learning outcomes and future opportunities. Their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their
educational experience significantly influences their academic success or failure. Therefore,
schools must prioritize meeting students' needs and expectations to ensure a positive learning
environment.
In Indonesia, there is a significant number of vocational senior secondary schools (VSSS)
catering to millions of students. These schools play a crucial role in preparing students for the
job market and equipping them with the necessary skills and knowledge. To fulfill this mission
effectively, VSSS must empower school leadership to enhance teacher quality and ultimately
improve student satisfaction.
In summary, this study aims to empirically examine the relationship between school leadership,
teacher performance, and student satisfaction in the context of vocational education. By
understanding these dynamics, policymakers and educators can make informed decisions to
enhance the quality of education and better prepare students for the challenges of the future job
market.

Research Objectives
Main objectives of this study include:
1. To examine the direct impact of school leadership on teachers' performance in vocational
high schools.
2. To evaluate the effect of teachers' performance on students' satisfaction and determine
how school leadership influences this relationship.

Proposed Model of the Study

School leadership Students satisfaction

(Independ variable) (Depend variable)

Teacher performance

(Mediating variable)

Research Hypothesis
H1: school leadership has a direct positive effect on student satisfaction.
H2: School leadership has indirect positive affect on teachers' performance.
H3: Teachers' performance has positive affect on students' satisfaction.
H4: Teachers performance mediates the relationship between school leadership and student
satisfaction.

Literature Review
1. School Leadership
In today's global era, the quality of leadership in schools is becoming increasingly important.
Leadership isn't just about giving orders; it's a collaborative process that involves working with
others to bring about positive change, as noted by Brungardt (2011). Effective educational
leadership focuses on soft skills and building positive relationships, which are essential for
achieving successful outcomes.
The distribution of leadership within a school is crucial for its success, according to Gold et al.
(2003). When teachers are empowered to take on leadership roles, it has a positive impact on
both teachers and students, fostering passion and achievement in learning (Harris, 2009).
Additionally, leadership practices significantly influence teachers' lifelong professional
development, as highlighted by Flores (2007). School leadership plays a vital role in developing
and empowering teachers to enhance their learning and teaching practices within the institution
(Bogler, 2001; Day et al., 2001).
Leadership can support teachers through various programs aimed at their professional
development, including training and mentoring, as discussed by Leithwood & Jantzi (2006). It's
essential to consider the context and values of the school community when defining successful
leadership (Dimmock & Walker, 2000).
According to DuFour & Marzano (2011), effective leadership involves leading by example and
supporting teachers to improve their skills, ultimately making them feel more capable and
skilled. Preedy et al. (2006) emphasize the importance of educational leaders in creating a shared
strategic vision focused on improving the teaching and learning processes.
Overall, successful school leadership involves collaboration, empowerment, and a focus on
improving teaching and learning outcomes for the benefit of both teachers and students.

2. Teachers Performance
According to Hoy & Hoy (2003), effective teaching involves motivating students by providing
engaging learning experiences. Teachers need to stimulate students' curiosity and help them feel
competent as they learn.
Papa (2011) states that qualified teaching is determined by the capability to give inspiration for
learners. Stimulate the learner and you will be able to catch his or her attention. Keeping a
learner’s attention is more complicated. Educational leaders require strategies at their fingertips
to maintain others’ attention. Then, Jones et al., (2006) state that one method of increasing
performance of teachers is for schools to create a cultural professional development through the
provision of a professional team development.
Adeyemi (2010) states that the performance of teachers could be assessed by annual reports of
his/her activities in terms of teaching, lesson preparation, lesson presentation, mastery of subject
matter, competence, teachers' commitment to the job and extra-curriculum activities.
Finally, experts recognize the essence of feedback about ways to adapt the instructional
strategies observed in a classroom for the advantage of student learning. Experts possess
pedagogical content knowledge that makes them able to give alternative suggestions to teachers
of how to promote student learning, grounded in evidence from observation and their knowledge
of content and pedagogy (Stein & Nelson, 2003).
3. Student satisfaction

According to Kotler et al. (2009), student satisfaction can be understood similarly to how
customers feel satisfied with a product or service. It's about the pleasure students feel when they
compare their school experience to what they expected. If the school's performance matches or
exceeds their expectations, students are likely to feel satisfied.

To gauge student satisfaction, educational institutions use specific methods to understand how
well their services and programs meet student needs and expectations. This helps them ensure
that they're meeting student aspirations and providing a positive educational experience.

Hom (2002, as mentioned in Hishamudin, 2008) believes that understanding student satisfaction
is similar to understanding customer satisfaction. But sometimes, it's hard to define what makes
students happy with their school experience. So, researchers need to take ideas from how
businesses understand what makes customers happy and modify them to better understand what
makes students satisfied.

Meanwhile, Sevda & Ozlem (2014) tried to determine the satisfaction with student life by
including the variables of student life quality (social, scientific and servicing factors), life
satisfaction and identification.

Douglas et al. (2006) highlight four key reasons why it's important to consider students' opinions,
expectations, and satisfaction:
1) Feedback for Improvement: Gathering students' feedback helps schools understand what
students think about their experience and use this information to improve their services.
2) Encouraging Reflection: It encourages students to think about how they learn and what
they gain from their education.
3) Setting Quality Standards: It helps institutions set quality standards and create indicators
that can enhance the school's reputation.
4) Expressing Satisfaction: It provides students with an opportunity to express their
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their academic experience, giving them a voice in their
education.
The concept of quality and satisfaction in education is currently receiving a lot of attention in
both the public and private sectors. Malik et al. (2010) emphasize that providing high-quality
service in educational institutions is crucial for attracting and retaining students and other
stakeholders. Furthermore, Randall (2002, cited by Naser, 2014) argues that the quality of
education should always be developed and focused on meeting students' needs and expectations.
4. Mediating Role of Teachers' Performance
The mediating role of teachers' performance in the relationship between school leadership and
student satisfaction suggests that the benefits of effective leadership are realized through its
impact on teachers. When school leaders provide the necessary resources and support, teachers
are better equipped to perform their roles, leading to higher student satisfaction (Hallinger &
Heck, 1998).

Methodology
This study will use a quantitative research design, employing surveys to collect data from
teachers and students in various schools. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) will be used to
analyze the relationships between school leadership, teachers' performance, and students'
satisfaction. The participants will include teachers and students from a representative sample of
schools. The schools will be selected to provide a diverse cross-section of educational settings.
The variables of research consist of two Independent variables, school leadership (X1) and
teacher's performance (X2) and the dependent variable is a students’ satisfaction (Y).

Method of Data Collection

Data is collected using standardized questionnaires designed to measure perceptions of school
leadership, teachers' performance, and student satisfaction. The Teacher Leadership
Questionnaire (TLQ) and the Student Satisfaction Survey (SSS) are adapted for this study. The
questionnaire consists of (besides general information and other formalities) eight indicators of
module student satisfaction abbreviated as (SS1, SS2, SS3, SS4, SS5, SS6, SS7, SS8), teacher
performance four items are named as (TP1, TP2, TP3, TP4), and finally students’ leadership
three items are labeled as (SL1, SL2, SL3).

Univariate profile
A univariate profile refers to the examination and analysis of a single variable within a dataset.
This analysis focuses on the characteristics and distribution of that one variable without
considering relationships with other variables. Univariate analysis is the first step in data
analysis. For the univariate analysis of the study on the effect of school leadership and teachers'
performance on students' satisfaction, we will focus on each variable separately.
Creating a histogram for my research on the effect of school leadership and teachers'
performance on students' satisfaction can help visualize the distribution of each variable.
Histograms show the frequency distribution of data points in specified ranges.
Histogram of student satisfaction
Interpretation: This histogram represents the distribution of student satisfaction scores for 200
students. The mean satisfaction score is 3.72, with a standard deviation of 0.80984, indicating
moderate variability around the mean. Most scores are between 3 and 4.5, with the highest
frequency around 4. The distribution is right-skewed (positively skewed), meaning that there are
a greater number of students with higher satisfaction scores and fewer students with lower
satisfaction scores. Overall, students generally report moderate to high satisfaction.

Histogram of teacher performance

Interpretation: The histogram is left-skewed, indicating that most of the teacher performance
ratings are on mostly higher, with an average rating around 4.

Histogram of school leadership

Interpretation: The histogram shows the distribution of "School leadership" ratings for 200
observations. The mean is 3.90, indicating generally high ratings. The distribution is slightly left-
skewed, indicating that more school leadership ratings are on the higher. The standard deviation
of 0.747 suggests moderate variability in the ratings.

Bivariate
Bivariate analysis involves the analysis of two variables to determine the empirical relationship
between them. In the context of my study on the effect of school leadership and teachers'
performance on students' satisfaction, we can conduct bivariate analysis to examine the
relationships between these variables.
 School Leadership (Independent Variable)
 Teacher Performance (Mediating Variable)
 Student Satisfaction (Dependent Variable)
We can perform bivariate analysis using scatter plots and correlation coefficients to understand
the relationships between these variables. Here are three important relationships to analyze:
1) School Leadership vs. Teacher Performance
2) Teacher Performance vs. Student Satisfaction
3) School Leadership vs. Student Satisfaction
Scatter plots
Interpretation: The scatter plot shows a weak positive relationship between school leadership
and student satisfaction, indicated by an R² value of 0.167. The trend line suggests that as school
leadership scores increase, student satisfaction tends to increase slightly. However, the wide
scatter of data points suggests significant variability, indicating that other factors also influence
student satisfaction.

Correlations
Student_satisfication School_leadership
1 .408**
Pearson Correlation
Student satisfication
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 200 200
.408** 1
Pearson Correlation
School_leadership
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 200 200
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation: The correlation analysis was conducted on a sample size of 200. The p-value is less
than 0.01 (p < 0.01), indicating that the correlation is statistically significant. The Pearson correlation
coefficient between student satisfaction and school leadership is 0.408 suggests a moderate positive
relationship between student satisfaction and school leadership. This means that as school leadership
quality increases, student satisfaction tends to increase.
Simple Boxplot

Educational Background
Case Processing Summary

Educational Cases
Background Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

High School 33 100.0% 0 0.0% 33 100.0%

Bachelors 79 100.0% 0 0.0% 79 100.0%

Masters/Mphil Level 56 100.0% 0 0.0% 56 100.0%

Student_sa
PhD 8 100.0% 0 0.0% 8 100.0%
tisfication
Professional 17 100.0% 0 0.0% 17 100.0%
Qualification

Other 7 100.0% 0 0.0% 7 100.0%

Interpretation: The boxplot shows that student satisfaction varies by educational background.
Students with higher education, like Professional Qualifications and PhDs, are generally more
satisfied, with average scores around 4. High School and Bachelor's degree students are less
satisfied, averaging around 3.5, and their scores show more variation. There are also more
outliers in the High School and Bachelor's groups, indicating some students in these groups are
much less satisfied than others.
Gender

Case Processing Summary

Gender Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

Male 102 100.0% 0 0.0% 102 100.0%

Student_satisfication
Female 98 100.0% 0 0.0% 98 100.0%
Interpretation: The line inside each box represents the median student satisfaction score for
each gender. The box spans from the first quartile (Q1, 25th percentile) to the third quartile (Q3,
75th percentile), covering the middle 50% of the data. Lines extending from the box show the
range within which most of the data points lie, typically within 1.5 times the IQR from Q1 and
Q3. Individual points outside the whiskers are considered.
The boxplot shows that both male and female students have about the same average satisfaction
score of 4. Male students have a wider range of scores, from 2 to almost 5, with a few scorings
below 2. Female students have scores from about 2.5 to 5, with fewer low outliers. Overall,
satisfaction is similar for both genders, but males have more varied responses.

Cluster boxplot
Interpretation: The box plot shows that female students are generally more satisfied with their
education than male students in all age groups. Female students' satisfaction scores are more
consistent, while male students' scores vary more and have more extreme outliers. This suggests
gender differences in student satisfaction potentially influenced by school leadership and teacher
performance.
Assumption of multivariate analysis
1) Normality

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Student satisfaction .174 200 .000 .888 200 .000
School leadership .211 200 .000 .880 200 .000
Teacher performance .187 200 .000 .884 200 .000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Interpretation: "The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests indicate statistically

significant results (p < .001) for all three variables (Student satisfaction, School leadership,
Teacher performance), suggesting that the data do not follow to a normal distribution."

Statistics

Student_satisfication Teacher_perfomance School_leadership

Valid 200 200 200

N
Missing 0 0 0
Skewness -1.062 -1.226 -1.220
Std. Error of Skewness .172 .172 .172
Kurtosis .306 1.104 1.240
Std. Error of Kurtosis .342 .342 .342

Skewness interpretation:

i. Student satisfaction: Skewness = -1.062

 Interpretation: The data for student satisfaction are negatively skewed,
indicating that most responses cluster towards higher satisfaction levels, with a
tail extending towards lower satisfaction levels.
 ii. Teacher performance: Skewness = -1.226
 Interpretation: The data for teacher performance are also negatively skewed,
suggesting that ratings tend to cluster towards higher performance evaluations,
with some lower ratings present.
iii. School leadership: Skewness = -1.220
 Interpretation: Similarly, the data for school leadership show negative skewness,
indicating that ratings are concentrated towards higher perceptions of leadership
quality, with a tail towards lower ratings.

Kurtosis Interpretation:
i. Student satisfaction: Kurtosis = 0.306
 Interpretation: The kurtosis value is less than 3, indicating that the distribution has
lighter tails than a normal distribution. This suggests fewer outliers compared to a
normal distribution.
ii. School leadership: Kurtosis = 1.240
 Interpretation: The kurtosis value is greater than 0 and greater than 3, suggesting
that the distribution has heavier tails than a normal distribution. This implies more
outliers or extreme values compared to a normal distribution.
iii. Teacher performance: Kurtosis = 1.104
 Interpretation: Similar to school leadership, the kurtosis value is greater than 0
and greater than 3, indicating heavier tails than a normal distribution. This
suggests more outliers or extreme values compared to a normal distribution.
 2) Homoscedasticity or Heteroscedasticity

Interpretation: The scatterplot shows that the points are spread out randomly around the
middle line, with no clear pattern. This means that the differences between the actual and
predicted values are consistent across all levels. It suggests that the model you used to study the
effect of school leadership and teacher performance on student satisfaction assumptions are met
and its results are reliable.

3) Linearity
Many multivariate techniques assume that relationships between variables are linear. It is
important to check for it and address nonlinear relationship so that avoid misinterpretation.
 ANOVA Table

Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square

(Combined) 28.201 11 2.564 4.711 .000

Between Linearity 21.753 1 21.753 39.971 .000

Student_satisficatio Groups
Deviation from6.448 10 .645 1.185 .303
n *
Linearity
School_leadership
Within Groups 102.313 188 .544

Total 130.514 199

Interpretation:
The p-value for linearity is 0.000 which is less than 0.05, indicates that there is significant linear
relationship between the variables Student satisfaction and School leadership. The p-value(sig.)
for deviation from linearity is 0.303 which is greater than 0.05, indicates there is insig nificant
non-linear component relationship between the variables.
Interpretation: The scatterplot shows a positive relationship between School leadership and
Student satisfaction. The line of best fit (regression line) indicates a slight upward trend,
suggesting a positive linear relationship. There is no clear pattern of curvilinear relationship
(e.g., U-shaped or inverted U-shaped), which supports the linearity assumption.

4. Absence of correlation error

 Durbin watson test

Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the Durbin-Watson
Square Estimate
a
1 .441 .194 .182 .73257 2.027
a. Predictors: (Constant), SL_3, SL_1, SL_2
b. Dependent Variable: Student_satisfication

Interpretation: The Durbin-Watson statistic is 2.027, which is close to 2. This indicates that
there is no significant autocorrelation in the residuals of the regression model. Thus, the residuals
are not correlated, and the assumption of independence of errors is met.