Contemporary Research Analysis Journal

Background: School leaders are responsible for administrative coordination within national education regulations, but the perceived consistency of managerial practices in private secondary schools in Likasi I has received limited empirical description. 

Objective: To describe responses concerning decision-making, administrative coordination and operating conditions in state-approved private secondary schools. 

Methods: A descriptive analysis examined ten five-category questionnaire items, each containing 118 recorded responses. Frequencies and percentages were calculated, and exploratory chi-square goodness-of-fit tests against equal category probabilities were evaluated with Holm adjustment for ten comparisons. 

Results: Consultation before decisions was rated 'never' or 'rarely' by 42.4% of responses and 'often' or 'always' by 24.6%. Low ratings predominated for clarity of administrative procedures (58.5%), financial transparency (56.8%) and administrative resource availability (58.5%). Five of ten distributions differed from the uniform benchmark after multiplicity adjustment. Judgements about task fairness, initiative, supervision, collaboration and overall management were more dispersed. 

Conclusion: The findings describe variation in perceived administrative practices but do not demonstrate effects on school performance or legal compliance. Interpretation remains restricted by incomplete respondent-level, sampling and fieldwork information. Better-defined measures of managerial practices and independent school outcomes are needed for explanatory research.

school management, educational leadership, administrative governance, private secondary schools, Likasi, Democratic Republic of the Congo

1. Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know? School Leadership & Management, 34(5), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680
2. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
3. Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616863
4. Democratic Republic of the Congo. (2014). Loi-cadre n° 14/004 du 11 février 2014 de l'enseignement national. https://media.unesco.org/sites/default/files/webform/r2e002/989f00058496b07efeda7d9bb07aef8b5ebe7279.pdf
5. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
6. Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation. https://doi.org/10.59656/EL-SB1065.001
7. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699
8. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632431003663214
9. Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership: Friend or foe? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213497635
10. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 659–689. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209340042
11. Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2018). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (3rd ed.). Routledge.
12. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
13. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). TALIS 2018 results (Volume II): Teachers and school leaders as valued professionals. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en
14. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509
15. Sebastian, J., Allensworth, E., & Huang, H. (2016). The role of teacher leadership in how principals influence classroom instruction and student learning. American Journal of Education, 123(1), 69–108. https://doi.org/10.1086/688169
16. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
17. UNESCO. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024/5: Leadership in education: Lead for learning. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/publication/leadership
18. World Bank. (2018). World development report 2018: Learning to realize education's promise. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2018