Institutional Leadership in Improving Teacher Performance in Remote Senior High Schools
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59211/mjpjetl.v4i1.176Keywords:
Institutional leadership; Teacher performance; Remote schools; School governance; Senior high school.Abstract
This study examined institutional leadership in improving teacher performance in remote senior high schools. The problem addressed was the persistent gap between leadership policy and teachers' daily professional practice in schools with limited access, infrastructure, and supervisory support. A qualitative multi-site case study was conducted at SMAN 1 Singkup and SMAN 1 Marau through interviews, observation, and document analysis involving principals, vice principals, teachers, and school staff. The findings showed that institutional leadership improved teacher performance when the principal translated school vision into measurable routines, strengthened collegial supervision, protected instructional time, and mobilized local resources. The two schools demonstrated different emphases: SMAN 1 Singkup was stronger in discipline, attendance control, and structured lesson administration, whereas SMAN 1 Marau showed stronger collaborative problem solving and community-based support. The study concluded that teacher performance in remote schools was not determined only by individual competence, but by the quality of institutional arrangements that connected vision, supervision, professional learning, and contextual resource management.
Downloads
References
[1] V. M. J. Robinson, C. A. Lloyd, and K. J. Rowe, “The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types,” Educ. Adm. Q., vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 635–674, 2008.
[2] P. Hallinger, “Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research,” J. Educ. Adm., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 125–142, 2011.
[3] P. Hallinger, “Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away,” Leadersh. Policy Sch., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 221–239, 2005.
[4] K. Leithwood, A. Harris, and D. Hopkins, “Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited,” Sch. Leadersh. Manag., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 5–22, 2020.
[5] J. P. Spillane, Distributed Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006.
[6] A. Hargreaves and M. Fullan, Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School. New York: Teachers College Press, 2012.
[7] UNESCO, “Global Education Monitoring Report 2024/5: Leadership in Education - Lead for Learning,” UNESCO, Paris, 2024.
[8] J. W. Creswell and C. N. Poth, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2018.
[9] M. B. Miles, A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldana, Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook, 3rd ed. Sage Publications, 2014.
[10] T. Bush, Theories of Educational Leadership and Management, 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications, 2011.
[11] C. Day, Q. Gu, and P. Sammons, “The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference,” Educ. Adm. Q., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 221–258, 2016
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
URN
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Tohap Tohap
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors grant the journal the right of first publication. which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited. Authors are responsible for ensuring that any third-party materials included in their work have proper permissions.
