Abstract

Education is a social paradigm. The objectives of the current study were to; figure out the basic needs for successful leadership, determine the leadership tools and service delivery methods that advance to greater performance leadership, to analyze the impact of teachers' attitudes towards teaching in high-performing schools. This is a quantitative research design and descriptive method. A survey includes questionnaires for data collection with the intention to generalize from a sample to a population. Male and female teachers and principals teaching at secondary public schools' tehsil Chichawatni District Sahiwal were the populations of the study. A sample of 60 Principals (30 male and 30 female) and 240 teachers (120 male and 120 female) were selected. The researcher used self-developed two questionnaires one for teachers and one for principals to collect the data and it was validated by the experts. The data were analyzed through (frequency distribution) and the Inferential method (t-test, ANOVA).

Key Words

Head Teachers (HT), Leadership qualities (LQ), Teachers Attitudes (TA), School Performance (SP)

Introduction

Any organization is totally dependent on the head or the boss. Every worker and subordinate is totally related to the head of a certain organization. Success is depending on any organization, school or business is dependent on the head of the organization. The head f organization plays a major role in any institute. The head and boss play some different leadership styles like participative and democratic. Leadership influence is needed in an organization to achieve statures of success. Leadership styles are key to get success in any organization and achieving the objectives of any business. (Educational Policy,2009)

Leadership plays a very important role in any organization. For success, the different leadership styles of head teachers and teachers' behaviour will affect on organization and performance of the organization. Now a day's organizations and institutions are facing several leadership styles in the workplace. Various countries around the world are highlighting the concept of hard-working leadership styles in several ways in the daily actions, presentation and plans of their organization, for instance, in Nigeria and England, there is swift and rising consciousness in several sectors and fields line up with a sharp increase of a number of teachers, with the inclusion of the educational institutes like schools, colleges and universities. (Nigeria and England, 20017)

According to the Education and Training Policy, set goals and objectives which were to: generate skilful manpower with the essential quantity and quality to achieve the requirement of national socio-economic development, to train citizens who understand and respect the composition, a citizen who respects independent norms and human rights in addition to the diligent culture of work and ethics. (Adepoju, 2016)

The teachers' job performance can be defined as the actions they perform in schools in order to achieve educational goals. In the educational sector, the provision of the best education for all citizens was launched as a major national wide reform program for the betterment of the quality of general education (MoE, 2010). 

The principal of the school has a significant role to play. Support of this matter affirmed that the high teachers' performance in this aspect is categorized in the development of personnel and facilitating leadership responsible delegation and empowering team, recognizing ultimate accountability, communicating and rapport, facilitating instruction, and managing changes. (Crum & Sherman, 2008)

Now the main concern is the leadership and teachers’ performance, the definition and concepts of leadership style and teachers' performances viewed in regard to their perspectives and philosophy.

Nowadays every leader in every organization carries out various roles/tasks for the effective running of the organization and betterment of the performance of the organization. sees it as the act of affecting people so that they could seek eagerly and strenuously toward the

achievement of aims. (Ezeuwa, 2005)

Adeyemi (2014) states leadership is the component of personality incorporated in a leader that endorses subordinates to comprehend them. On the contrary, a leadership style is a specific behaviour used by a leader to encourage subordinates for the sake of attaining the objectives of the organization. Leaders articulate leadership in many roles. These are: developing the goals and objectives, preparing structures, managing and encouraging personnel and giving leadership (Daresh, 2002).

Democratic leadership is known as a situation where there is equal work among leaders and followers. states that democratic organizations have the following features: a group of organizations determine the policies, and job and technical performance measures are discussed so that all can understand them.

According to Goldman, leaders adopting a democratic style of leadership make consensus with the aid of participation, but these leaders also believe in a greater level of success and progress. (Goldman, 2012),

The leader adopting this kind of leadership style gives teachers particular rules and regulations in the context of performing, planning and organizing activities. The supportive leadership style is more of a relationship-oriented style. It needs the leader to be friendly and active. The leader who uses this style discusses with subordinates thoughts and innovative ideas and takes their views seriously while making decisions. (Lussier & Achua 2001).

The leaders have complete but not full confidence and belief in the employees. However, the main decisions are taken by the leader, he/she takes the opinions of the employees, but he himself makes the ultimate decision. (Owens, 1981).

In an achievement-oriented style, the leader advocates difficult but approachable aims for the subordinates. Autocratic leadership is called the system which gives complete empowerment to the leader with small participation from the followers. (Lussier & Achua, 2001). 

Laissez-Faire leadership advocates that leaders permit group members to make decisions. Leaders hardly intervene. Laissez-faire style is explained as the most efficient style, particularly where followers are intelligent, hard-working and greatly motivated. (Hackman & Johnson, 2009)

Involvement in decision-making is known as a practice by which both subordinates and superiors sit together to discuss the methods or techniques to run the organization. (Mullins, 2005) 

Many people have faith that the participation of staff in decision-making gives rise to higher performance and is essential also for survival in a competitive world, states that "regular formal communication between the (principals) leaders, subordinates teachers and other members of the organization. (Westhuizen, 2008)

Communication is a way of passing on information about the efficiency of specific work behaviours and it performs various functions. It gives the merits of communication in leadership method as were taken from a survey carried out by the performance management. (Hannagan, 2012)

Roles of Secondary School Head Teachers, Any change in the education system has a great impact on all stages of education, but there are many differences in the organization at each stage because they respond differently to stresses and need particular solutions to the issues they have. In Secondary education, teachers are more particularized and the organization is also more ambiguous. (Armstrong, 2013)




Statement of Problem

Present research designed for "The Study of Headteachers' leadership qualities and teacher's attitude towards teaching in high performing schools" i.e (Leadership styles, Lesson planning, teaching methodology, Teachers' attitude, Teachers' communication, and Assessment). 

Objectives of the Study

This research points out the influence of school leadership on student consequences. The main aims of the research are as given below:

1. To figure out the basic needs for successful leadership.

2. To determine the leadership tools and service delivery methods that advance to greater performance leadership.

3. To analyze the impact of teachers' attitudes towards teaching in high-performing schools.




Research Questions

1. Does a principal personality affect the performance of the school? 

2. Do methods and leadership tools can be pavement for better performance?

3. To what extent principal's leadership experience affects the student's achievements?

4. To what extent principal's qualification affects the student's achievements?

5. To what extent communication skills of a teacher are proportional towards effective teaching?

6. To what extent teacher's attitude affects students' achievements?

Significance of the Study

The performance of teachers could be analyzed through the annual report of his/ her activities in regard to performance in teaching, lesson planning and presentation, Teaching techniques, the expertness of subject matter, Teachers' attitude, competence, teachers' commitment to the job and extra-curricular activities. Other spheres of assessment include efficient leadership, supervision of students' tasks; encouragement, class control and discipline of the students are the qualities that teachers should be maintained efficiently in general secondary schools. The success rate and high performance of the school are mutually dependent on the code of ethics and the relationship between principals and teachers. 

This study will be vital for head teachers, teachers, school management, policymakers, trainers and all the stakeholders who make policies for the education sector and findings can be integrated for better teaching styles.




Delimitations of the Study

The current study was delimited to the following grounds. This study does comprise the relationship between a principal's leadership qualities and a teacher's attitude towards teaching in high-performing schools i.e Leadership styles, Lesson planning, Teaching methodology, Teachers' attitude, Teachers' communication, and Assessment. Teachers and Headteachers of Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal. Two major methods were used to conduct the analysis. Descriptive method (frequency distribution). Inferential method (t-test, ANOVA, regression) 




Limitations of the Study

The researcher had to face some limitations. Some teachers are irresponsible in their behaviour as they were not willing to provide information to the investigator and also hesitant to enter and conduct the test in the class. Teachers were not interested to fulfill the questionnaire completely as well. 




The Procedure of the Study

The following stages are taken in the present study to achieve the above-listed objectives:

1. Introduction of teachers' attitude and principal leadership

2. Review of teachers' attitude and principal leadership in the context of high-performing schools

3. Selection of study region and data collection

4. Pilot testing.

5. Presentation of collected data.

6. Inferential analysis (t-test, F-test, Regression Analysis).




Operational Definition of Terms

? Teachers: the school teachers of tehsil Chichawatni District Sahiwal.

? Principals: the school principals of tehsil Chichawatni District Sahiwal.

? Public schools: mean government-funded schools.

? Attitude: any observable and measurable act of an individual. 

? Principal Leadership: the leader of a school.

? Low-Performance School: can be defined as school achievement below the expected result.

? High-Performance school: can be defined as school achievement above expected result.  




Research Design

The design of the study was carried out with quantitative research methods. The quantitative research study was to be conducted using descriptive methods. Quantitative research methods of data collection were made through two questionnaires (one for Headteachers and one for teachers) having 80 items on five points Likert scale. 




The Population of the study

The survey population consists of all the male and female teachers and principals teaching at secondary public schools in tehsil Chichawatni District Sahiwal.




Sample and Sampling

In this investigation, convenient sampling as a sampling technique has been used. Our objective was to obtain demographic data of students and teachers to determine the view of respondents about the relationship between Principals' leadership qualities and teachers' attitudes towards teaching in a high-performing school. Hence a sample of 60 Principals (30 male and 30 female) and 240 teachers (120 male and 120 female) due to availability and time was selected.




Research Instrument

There are two questionnaires used in this research. One questionnaire is developed for the responses of Teachers. And another questionnaire is made for the Principals.




Validation of Research Instrument

For the sake of validation of the Instrument, the investigator checked the tool with five professors and made changes where required according to the given advice. 

The changed test was again presented to prescribe professors to satisfy them for making the changes that they advised the investigator to change and get the test items right. 




Pretesting

For this determination of reliability, I took a sample of 60 teachers and 20 principals. After the method of pre-testing, I came to know about the problems of the questionnaire since there were several questions that did not work. So I have accepted and have improved some of these questions in such a way that worked next time. Finally, 43 questions for teachers and 39 questions for head teachers were included in this study.




Finding Reliability

After pretesting, the researcher used to assess the reliability of the test items. The researcher used items to analyze the data obtained from pilot testing and find out the reliability of each item. The items having reliability higher than 0.7. 

Analysis and Interpretation of Data

Data Collection

After pretesting the succeeding step was data collection. The data was collected in 4 weeks. The face-to-face technique was used for data collection possession in mind the trouble of locating the people after giving them the questionnaire. So it was the finest way to give a questionnaire to the respondents and be there for a while until the respondents fill and give it back.




Data Analysis

Data from the questionnaire were transferred

into IBM SPSS 21, a statistical package for the social sciences computer program. 




Inferential Analysis

The inferential analysis deals with the explanation of the numerical data. The Chi-square test is used to check the association among difficulties in the development of mathematics and different variables, and Mann Whitney U is used to test the independence. 

1. Inferential analysis of Head Teacher’s

2. Inferential analysis of Teacher’s

Independent Sample T-Test For Head Teacher’s

T Test No. 1

Ho: There was no significant difference between Male and Female Head Teachers towards School Achievements of a high-performing school.

Ho: There was no significant difference between Male and Female Head Teachers towards School Performance of high performing school.




 

Table 1. Head Teacher’s Gender VS School Achievements, School Performance

	Gender	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	t-Value	p-Value
School Achievement	Female	30	2.50	.630	.115	0.003	0.95
	Male	30	2.50	.630	.115
School Performance	Female	30	2.60	.498	.091	0.089	0.78
	Male	30	2.60	.498	.091

 




Table No. 1 reflects that the t-test reveals that insignificant difference in School Achievements and Head Teacher's gender (t = 0.003, p = 0.95) so that Ho: There was no significant difference between Male and Female Head Teachers towards School Achievements of high performing school was failed to be rejected. Also, Table No. 4.5 reflects that the t-test reveals an insignificance difference in difference in School Performance and Head Teacher's gender (t = 0.089, p = 0.78) so that Ho: There was no significant difference between Male and Female Head Teachers towards School Performance of high performing school was failed to be rejected.

 

T Test No. 2

Ho: There was no significant difference in Head Teachers' job status towards School Achievements of high-performing schools.

Ho: There was no significant difference in Head Teachers' job status towards the School

Performance of high-performing school.




 

Table 2. Head Teacher’s Job Status VS School Achievements, School Performance

	Job	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	t-Value	p-Value
School Achievement	SST	36	2.42	.604	.101	-1.273	0.793
	SSST	24	2.63	.647	.132
School Performance	SST	36	2.67	.478	.080	1.287	0.094
	SSST	24	2.50	.511	.104

 




Table No. 2 reflects that the t-test reveals that insignificant difference in School Achievements and Head Teachers' job status (t = -1.273, p = 0.793) so that Ho: There was no significant difference of Head Teachers job status towards School Achievements of high-performing school was failed to be rejected. Also, Table No. 4.8 reflects that the t-test reveals an insignificance difference in difference in School Performance and Head Teachers' job status (t = 1.287, p = 0.094) so that Ho: There was no significant difference in Head Teachers' job status towards School Performance of high performing school was failed to be rejected.

 

T Test No. 3

Ho: There was no significant difference in the Head Teacher's Personality towards School Performance of high performing school.

Ho: There was no significant difference in the Head Teacher's Communication towards School Performance of high performing school.




 

Table 3. Head Teacher’s Personality, Communication VS School Performance

Variables	N	Mean	S.D	Std. Error Mean	t-Value	p-Value
School Performance Head Teacher Personality	60	2.60	0.494	0.064	-6.371	0.000
	60	3.80	1.338	0.173
School Performance Head Teacher Communication	60	2.60	0.494	0.064	-6.150	0.000
	60	3.63	1.149	0.148

 




Table No. 3 reflects that the t-test reveals that significant difference in School Achievements and Head Teacher's Personality (t = -6.371, p = 0.000) so the Ho: There was no significant difference in Head Teachers Personality towards School Performance of high-performing school was rejected. Also, Table No. 4.5 reflects that the t-test reveals a significance difference in difference in School Performance and Head Teachers' Communication (t = -6.150, p = 0.00), so that

Ho: There was no significant difference in Head Teachers' Communication with teachers towards School Performance of high-performing schools rejected.

 

T Test No. 4

Ho: There was no significant difference in Head Teacher encouragement towards School Performance of high performing school.

Ho: There was no significant difference in the Head Teacher check and balance towards School Performance of high performing school.




 

Table 4. Head Teacher’s Encouragement, Check and Balance VS School Performance

Variables	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	t-Value	p-Value
School Performance Head Teacher Encouragement	60	2.60	0.494	0.064	-12.163	0.000
	60	4.17	0.867	0.112
School Performance Proper check and balance from the Head	60	2.60	0.494	0.064	-20.038	0.000
	60	4.28	0.524	0.068

 




Table No. 4 reflects that the t-test reveals that significant difference in School Achievements and Head Teachers' encouragement (t = -12.163, p = 0.000) so Ho: There was no significant difference in Head Teacher encouragement towards School Performance of high-performing schools were rejected. Also, Table No. 4.5 reflects that the t-test reveals a significant difference in difference in School Performance and Head Teacher check and balance (t = -20.038, p = 0.000) so that Ho: There was no significant difference in Head Teachers check and balance towards School Performance of high performing school was rejected.

 

ANOVA Test for Head Teachers

ANOVA Test 1

Ho: There was no significant difference in the head teacher's age with respect to school achievements.

Ho: There was no significant difference in the head teacher's age with respect to School Performance.




 

Table 5. Head Teachers age VS School Achievements and School Performance wise Difference

Head Teachers Age		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
School Achievement	Between Groups	3.800	2	1.900	5.641	.006
	Within Groups	19.200	57	.337
	Total	23.000	59
School Performance	Between Groups	2.700	2	1.350	6.577	.003
	Within Groups	11.700	57	.205
	Total	14.400	59

 




Table No. 5 reflects that the analysis of variance reveals a significant difference in Head Teachers' Age with respect to School Achievements (F = 5.64, p = 0.006) so Ho: There was no significant difference in head teachers' age with respect to school achievements was rejected.  Also, Table No. 4.8 reflects that the analysis of variance reveals a significant difference in Head Teachers' Age with respect to School Performance (F = 6.57, p = 0.003) so that Ho: There was no significant difference in head teacher’s age with respect to school achievements was rejected.

 

ANOVA Test 2

Ho: There was no significant difference in Headship Experience with respect to school achievements.

Ho: There was no significant difference in Headship Experience with respect to School Performance.




 

 

Table 6. Headship Experience VS School Achievements and School Performance wise Difference

Headship Experience		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
School Achievement	Between Groups	3.800	2	1.900	5.641	.006
	Within Groups	19.200	57	.337
	Total	23.000	59
School Performance	Between Groups	2.700	2	1.350	6.577	.003
	Within Groups	11.700	57	.205
	Total	14.400	59

 




Table No. 6 reflects that the analysis of variance reveals a significant difference in Headship Experience with respect to School Achievements (F = 4.814, p = 0.001) so Ho: There was no significant difference in Headship Experience with respect to school achievements was rejected. Table No. 4.9 reflects that the analysis of variance reveals a significant difference in Headship Experience with respect to School Performance (F = 6.577, p = 0.003) so Ho: There was no significant difference in Headship Experience with respect to School Performance was rejected.

 

ANOVA Test 3

Ho: There was no significant difference in Head Teacher Education with respect to school achievements.

Ho: There was no significant difference in Head Teacher Education with respect to School Performance.




 

Table 7. Head Teacher Education VS School Achievements and School Performance wise Difference

Head Teacher Education		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
School Achievement	Between Groups	.714	1	.714	1.859	.178
	Within Groups	22.286	58	.384
	Total	23.000	59
School Performance	Between Groups	4.114	1	4.114	23.20	.000
	Within Groups	10.286	58	.177
	Total	14.400	59

 




Table No. 7 reflects that the analysis of variance reveals a significant difference in Head Teacher education with respect to School Achievements (F = 8.591, p = 0.000) so that Ho: There was no significant difference in Head Teacher Education with respect to school achievements was failed to be rejected. Table No. 4.10 reflects that the analysis of variance reveals a significant difference in Head Teacher education with respect to School Performance (F = 23.20, p = 0.000), so that;

Ho: There was no significant difference in Head Teacher Education with respect to School Performance was rejected.

 

Independent Sample T-Test for Teachers

T Test No. 1

Ho: There was an insignificant difference in teachers' attitudes towards teaching at high-performance schools with respect to their teachers' gender.




 

Table 8. Teachers Gender VS Teachers Attitude Wise Difference

	Gender	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	T	P
TAT	Female	120	29.13	3.09	0.283	0.672	0.0073
	Male	120	28.53	3.04	0.278




Table No. 8 reflects that the t-test reveals a significant difference in teacher's attitude and teacher's gender (t =0.672, p = 0.0073) so that Ho: There was an insignificant difference in teacher's attitude towards teaching at high-performance school with respect to their teacher's gender was rejected.

T Test No. 2

Ho: There was an insignificant difference in teachers' attitudes towards teaching at high-performance schools with respect to their Job Status.




 

Table 9. Teachers' Attitude VS Job Status Wise Difference

	Job Status	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	t	P
TAT	SST	144	28.92	3.08	0.257	-0.42	0.900
	SSST	96	29.09	3.06	0.312

 




Table No. 9 reflects that the t-test reveals that significant difference in teacher's attitudes and job status (t = -0.42, p = 0.900), so that;

Ho: There was an insignificant difference in teachers' attitudes towards teaching at high-performance schools with respect to their Job Status failed to be rejected.

ANOVA Test for Teachers

ANOVA Test 1

Ho: There was an insignificant difference in Teachers' Attitudes towards teaching at high-performance schools with respect to their age.




 

Table 10. Teachers' attitude VS Teachers age wise Difference

Teachers Attitude
	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	7.58	2	3.73	.400	.671
Within Groups	2246.39	237	9.478
Total	2253.98	239

 




Table No. 10  reflects that the analysis of variance reveals an insignificant difference in Teacher's attitudes and teacher's age (F = 0.400, p = 0.671) so that Ho: There was no significant difference in Teachers' Attitude towards teaching at high-performance school with respect to their age was failed to be rejected.

ANOVA Test 2

Ho: There was an insignificant difference in Teachers' Attitudes towards teaching at high-performance schools with respect to teaching experience.




 

Table 11. Teachers' attitude VS Teaching Experience wise Difference

Teachers Attitude
	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	34.15	3	11.386	1.210	.0307
Within Groups	2219.82	236	9.406
Total	2253.98	239

 




Table No. 11 reflects that the analysis of variance reveals an insignificant difference in Teacher's attitudes and teaching experience (F = 1.210, p = 0.0307), so that 

Ho: There was no significant difference in Teachers' Attitudes towards teaching at high-performance schools with respect to teaching experience failed to be rejected.

 

ANOVA Test 3

Ho: There was an insignificant difference of

       Teachers' Attitude towards teaching with respect to school performance.




 

Table 12. Teachers' attitude VS School Performance wise Difference

Teachers Attitude
	Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	12.469	1	12.469	1.324	0.251
Within Groups	2241.514	238	9.418
Total	2253.983	239

 




Table No. 12 reflects that the analysis of variance reveals an insignificant difference in Teacher's attitudes and school performance (F = 1.324, p = 0.251) so Ho: There was an insignificant difference in Teachers' Attitude towards teaching with respect to school performance was failed to be rejected.

Summary

This study directed to investigate the effect of “Principals' leadership qualities and teacher's attitude towards teaching in high-performing schools in Chichawatni”. Due to restricted resources and time limitations, the research was delimited to teachers and Headteachers of Govt. secondary schools only and restricted to tehsil Chichawatni district Sahiwal only. The study was descriptive and inferential in nature. The sample consists of 60 Principals and 240 teachers were selected through a convenient sampling technique. For data collection, the face-to-face method was used. The researcher developed the research instrument by keeping the questionnaire in view. In the present study, tehsil Chichawatni of district Sahiwal was taken. The researcher developed the questionnaire with the help of the supervisor. In order to confirm the research instrument, pre-testing was conducted and the result showed relatively high reliability; its Cronbach's Alpha coefficient was 0.85 for the teacher's questionnaire and 0.72 for the Principals' questionnaire which is highly appreciable. The collected data was classified, analyzed and interpreted by descriptive as well as inferential statistics.

Findings and conclusions were drawn from the interpretation of data and recommendations were made accordingly.

Findings

The researcher testified through t-test analysis and found:

A sample of respondents assured that there was a significant difference in the principal's communication with teachers towards school performance of high performing school. The investigator confirmed a significant difference in the principal's personality towards school performance of high performing school. There was a significant difference found in the principal's encouragement towards school performance of high performing school. The sample of respondents confirmed the significant difference in the principal's school location towards school performance of high-performing schools. There was a significant difference in the principal's check and balance towards school performance of high performing school.

The t-test reveals a significant difference in teachers' attitudes towards teaching at high-performing schools with respect to their teacher's gender. The t-test reveals an insignificant difference in teachers' attitudes towards teaching at high-performance schools with respect to their residential area. The t-test reveals an insignificant difference in teachers' attitudes towards teaching at high-performance schools with respect to their teaching subjects. The t-test reveals an insignificant difference in teachers' attitudes towards teaching at high-performance schools with respect to their school location. The t-test reveals a significant difference between teachers' attitudes and school performance.

The researcher testified through F-test analysis and found:

Analysis of variance reveals a significant difference in principal age with respect to school performance. Analysis of variance reveals a significant difference in principal teaching experience with respect to school performance. Analysis of variance reveals a significant difference in headship experience with respect to school achievements. Analysis of variance reveals a significant difference in principal education with respect to school performance.

Analysis of variance reveals a significant difference in teachers' attitudes towards teaching at high-performance schools with respect to teacher qualification. Analysis of variance reveals a significant difference in teachers' attitudes towards teaching at high-performance schools with respect to teaching experience. Analysis of variance reveals an insignificant difference in Teachers' attitudes towards teaching at high-performance schools with respect to their age.

Conclusion

The conclusions of the research were as under:

By t-test analysis, the researcher concluded that: school performance is significantly affected by the Principal's communication with teachers, the principal's personality, the principal's encouragement, and proper check and balance by principals in a high-performing school. It is also concluded that school performance is affected by teachers' gender and teacher's attitudes in high-performing schools.

By Anova test the researcher concluded that: Analysis of variance reveals a significant difference in headship experience, teaching experience, principal qualification and teacher's attitude with respect to school performance in high-performing schools. 

Recommendations

The instrument constructed in this study can be used as an initial point for future investigations studies on the “Principals’ leadership qualities and teacher’s attitude towards teaching in high performing schools in tehsil Chichawatni district Sahiwal”. The recommendations of the study were as under:

1. To gain a better understanding of these principal leadership qualities and teachers' attitudes towards school performance the investigator require to develop more items.

2. This study may be further analyzed in different ways, not only at the secondary level but also at the higher secondary level and also at the province or country level.

3. The principals of secondary schools must enhance their qualities for increasing the performance of schools.

4. The concept of principal leadership must be implemented in schools for improving the efficiency of principals and the performance of the school in a comprehensive way. 

5. This study may prove beneficial for the curriculum administration of the Ministry of Education in the planning and development of the curriculum.

References

• Adegbesan, O. S. (2013). Effect of Principals’ leadership style on teachers’ attitude to work in Ogun state secondary schools Nigeria. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), p14-28.
• Adepoju, T. L. (2016). The factors militating against effective planning and implementation of educational policies in Nigeria. WAEC National Secretariat Yaba. Lagos.
• Adeyemi, T. O. (2014). Educational administration, an introduction: Ado-ekiti green. Line.
• Armstrong, M. (2013). Term rewards: London chartered institute of personnel and development. Atlantic Associated
• Aron, A., Aron, E. N. & Coups, E. J. (2008). Statistics for the behavioral and social sciences (4th ed.). Pearson Education Inc.
• Cheng, Y. C & Townsend, T. (2000). Educational change and development in the Asian pacific region: Trends and issues, Rotterdam Swets and Zeitlinger.
• Crum, K. S., & Sherman, W. H. (2008). Facilitating high achievement: High school principal’s reflections on their successful leadership practices. Journal of Educational Administration. 46(5), 562- 580.
• Daresh, J. C. (2012). What it means to be a principal: Your guide to leadership. Corwin Press Inc.
• Elzahiri, S. (2013). Impact of principals’ leadership style on teacher motivation. Dissertation.
• Ezeuwa, L. (2015). Issues in educational management. Enugu-Hipuks Additional Press.
• Goldman, D. ( 2012). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business.
• Goldman, E. (2012). The significance of leadership style: EducationallLeadership. Harvard Business
• Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2009). Leadership: A communication perspective (5th ed.). Long Grove IL Waveland Press.
• Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95-110.
• Hannagan, T. (2012). Management: Concepts and practice. Pitman Publishing Pearson Education.
• Hoy, W. K, & Miskel, C. G. (2001). Educational administration: Theory research and practice. New Jesey: McGraw-Hill Inc.
• Huang, Y. C. (2014). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment among faculty at Taiwan's higher education institutions. Faculty of the Graduate College at the University of Nebras ka. Omaha.
• Lashway, L. (2013). Trends and issues: Role of the school leader. ERIC Clearinghouse.
• Lepper, M. R. & Henderlong, J. (2012). The role of interest in learning and self- regulation: “Intrinsic” versus “extrinsic” motivation reconsidered. Academic Press.
• Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., Anderson, S. E., Michlin, M., & Mascall, B. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Toronto
• Luo, M. & Najjar, L. (2017). The Chinese principal leadership capacities as perceived by master teachers. Academic Leadership. The Online Journal, 4(3). :
• Lussier, R. N. & Achua, C. F. (2001). Leadership: Theory, application and skill development. South-West College Publishing.
• Mestry, R. & Grobler, B.R. (2014). The training and development of principals to manage schools effectively using the competence approach, International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(3), 2-19.
• MoE. (2010). General Education Quality: Assurance package. Addis Ababa
• MoE, (2016). Decentralized management of education in Ethiopia: A reference manual. Addis Ababa.
• Muenjohn, N. & Armstrong, A. (2017). Transformational leadership: The influence of culture on the leadership behaviors of expatriate managers. School of Management.
• Mullins, L. J . (2005). Management and Organizational Behaviour (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
• Mwiria, K. (2015). Educational research and policy-formulation: The Kenya Experience'. Issues in Educational Research in Africa, 27-42.
• Nanson, P.K. (2010). Leadership Styles and Teachers‟ Performance in Secondary School in Nakaseke District: Unpublished MA Thesis: Kampala: Makerer University.
• Owens, R. G. (2011). Organizational Behavior in Education. 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall
• Slarhabi, A. (2011). Leadership and behaviour practices of a head teacher in an excellent school. Med project centre for graduate studies. Open University.
• Spillane, J. P. (2015, June). Distributed leadership. In The educational forum 69 (2), 143-150.
• Vander, W. P. C. (2018). Schools as organizations (3rd ed.). Cape Town Van.
• Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2013). Balanced leadership: What research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid- continent Research for Education and Learning. 30(6), 20-30.
• Wawira, M. (2012). Head teachers’ characteristics influencing instructional supervision in public primary schools in Kasarani Division. Nairobi.