Page 51 - Educational Leadership in a Changing World

Unearthing Context

ership and school autonomy can be enhanced or diminished depending
on the socioeconomic status of students and schools (Carlisle & Murray,
2015).
However, the research findings are mixed when it comes to escs
as a moderator. The rejection of the hypotheses that socioeconomic
status is a moderator of the relationships between instructional lead-
ership/school autonomy and science achievement suggests that the
strength or direction of these relationships does not change signifi-
cantly with different socioeconomic statuses. However, this does not
mean that social-economic status (ses) has no effect – on the contrary,
its effect is indirect, i.e. it acts as a mediator rather than as a condi-
tion that modifies the strength (Munir et al., 2023). At the same time,
this implies that the effects of instructional leadership and school au-
tonomy on science achievement remain fairly constant across socioe-
conomic backgrounds. This finding reinforces a recurring idea in the
literature that leadership has a greater effect across schools but does
not necessarily reduce ses differences within schools (Tan et al., 2020;
Perry & Mcconney., 2010). Furthermore, it is important to recognize
that the relationship between socioeconomic status and academic suc-
cess is multidimensional and depends on a variety of factors, with ex-
ceptions and differences within and between countries (Munir et al.,
2023). The absence of moderating effects does not negate the impor-
tance of socioeconomic status but rather suggests that its influence
operates primarily through mediating pathways. This nuanced under-
standing highlights the need to consider socioeconomic status as an
integral part of the educational ecosystem, shaping the indirect effects
of leadership and autonomy rather than directly modifying their ef-
fects.
Another important finding of our study – the negative relationship
between instructional leadership and science achievement – also de-
serves separate attention in this discussion. This finding contradicts the
classical notion that instructional leadership is related with increased
students’ achievement (Karadag, 2020). This seemingly illogical find-
ing may be related to the specific measures used to assess instructional
leadership in this study, or it may reflect a complex interplay of factors
that are not fully reflected in this model. As suggested by Eryilmaz and
Sandoval-Hernandez (2021), it is the limitations of the indicators used
in international studies that may lead to such seemingly illogical re-
sults. Simplyput, thismaymeanthatthemeaning andapplicationof in-

51