Education accountability and principal leadership effects in Hong Kong primary schools

Figures & data

Fig. 1.  Conceptual model of leadership for learning.

Fig. 2.  Conceptual model of principal leadership, school capacity and student academic outcomes in an accountability context.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations for leadership dimensions and support for students.

Variables N=411	Mean Max = 6	SD	Strategic Direction and Policy Environment	Leader and Teacher Growth and Development	Staff Management	External Communication	Resource Management	Quality Assurance and Accountability	Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum	Support for Students
Strategic Direction and Policy Environment	3.90	0.90	1
Leader and Teacher Growth and Development	3.89	0.99	0.81**	1
Staff Management	3.74	0.95	0.67**	0.80**	1
External Communication	3.76	1.04	0.67**	0.72**	0.80**	1
Resource Management	3.86	1.01	0.69**	0.76**	0.82**	0.88**	1
Quality Assurance and Accountability	3.74	0.96	0.72**	0.77**	0.80**	0.81**	0.84**	1
Teaching, Learning and Curriculum	3.86	1.01	0.71**	0.77**	0.78**	0.80**	0.85**	0.89**	1
Support for Students	4.57	0.67	0.04	0.19**	0.30**	0.24**	0.29**	0.23**	0.23**	1

** Significance at 0.01.

Table II. Relative impact of leadership practices on support for students by Key Staff and general teachers.

Step	Independent variables: leadership practices Dependent variable: support for students	B	Std. Error	Beta (β)	Sig.	Variance explained (%)
Key Staff (N=411)
Step 1	Strategic Direction and Policy Environment	−0.180	0.050	−0.243	0.000	3.03
Quality assurance and Accountability	0.279	0.047	0.401	0.000	7.85
Step 2	Strategic Direction and Policy Environment	−0.296	0.061	−0.399	0.000	5.48
Leader and Teacher Growth and Development	0.164	0.061	0.243	0.008	1.71
Step 3	Strategic Direction and Policy Environment	−0.292	0.059	−0.394	0.000	5.63
	Staff Management	0.199	0.065	0.284	0.002	2.26
	Resource Management	0.179	0.066	0.270	0.007	1.77

R ²=0.161 (Adj. R ²=0.148); (N=411, p=0.07). F(6, 404)=12.914, p=0.001. Significance of italic values is 0.01.

Table III Multiple regression analysis results on various school capacity on Student Academic Outcomes (N=376; Key Staff of P4 schools).

Independent variables: leadership practices	Unstandardised coefficients		Standardised coefficients		Variance
Dependent variable: student math performance	B	Std. Error	Beta(β)	Sig.	explained (%)
Enter Method
SC1: Trust	0.773	0.412	0.139	0.061	0.95
SC2: Communication	−0.071	0.316	−0.019	0.822	0.01
SC3: Professional Learning Community	0.197	0.512	0.036	0.701	0.04
SC4: Alignment, Coherence and Structure	0.007	0.471	0.001	0.988	0.00
SC5: Resource Capacity	−0.514	0.194	−0.141	0.009	1.87
SC6: Workload	−0.540	0.224	−0.147	0.016	1.56
SC7: Support for students	−0.306	0.461	−0.054	0.507	0.12
*R ^2=0.040 (Adj. R ^2=0.022); F(7,368)=2.193, p<0.05
Stepwise Method
SC5: Resource Capacity	−0.532	0.191	−0.146	0.006	2.05
SC6: Workload	−0.566	0.199	−0.154	0.005	2.13
SC1: Trust	0.688	0.296	0.124	0.021	1.43

* R ²=0.038 (Adj. R ²=0.031). F(3,372)=4.949, p<0.05. Significance of italic values is 0.01.

Table IV Hierarchical regression results of principal leadership impact on math results (N=376, Key Staff).

	Independent variables: leadership practices Dependent variable: Student Academic Outcomes	Unstandardised coefficients		Standardised coefficients		Variance
Step	*R ^2=0.038 (N=376). F(4, 371)=3.624, p=0.06	B	Std. Error	Beta(β)	Sig.	explained (%)
1	Strategic Direction and Policy Environment	−0.673	0.306	−0.157	0.028	1.28
2	Strategic Direction and Policy Environment	−1.005	0.374	−0.234	0.007	1.91
	Leader and Teacher Growth and Development	0.750	0.371	0.195	0.044	1.09

* The findings were based on 30 schools with Math assessment for Primary Level 4 students. Two schools on other year level were excluded. Significance of italic values is 0.01.