School Leadership, Parental Involvement, and Student Achievement: A Comparative Analysis of Principal and Teacher Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Since this is a very complex study with many different variables and research questions to a very large dataset, it is difficult to get a clear overview of the results and what way the study can contribute to school practice. I think the article could be improved if the results and implications for practice could be clarified.

Author Response

[Comment 1]: Since this is a very complex study with many different variables and research questions to a very large dataset, it is difficult to get a clear overview of the results and what way the study can contribute to school practice. I think the article could be improved if the results and implications for practice could be clarified.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your comment. We added some parts in the Discussions section (marked in red) to further clarify the scopes and contributions of this study (p. 18 and p. 20). 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Education Sciences

Special issue: Educational Leadership: International Perspectives and Global Innovations

Review report

Manuscript ID: education-3622939

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: School Leadership, Parental Involvement, and Student Achievement: A Comparative Analysis of Principal and Teacher Perspectives

 

The paper examines the differences in how principals and teachers perceive school leadership and its impact on parental engagement and student achievement.

Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), and data from Hong Kong and Macao from Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 (202 principals, 8,807 teachers, 10,291 parents, and 10,291 students) the study investigates the relationships among student socioeconomic status (SES), teacher-perceived school leadership, parental academic contributions (PAC), and student achievement (SA).

 

The paper concludes that understanding the differing perspectives of principals and teachers on school leadership is essential for effective educational policy implementation.

 

The paper is interesting and well written. It approaches an important topic nowadays and sheds light to an area less investigated, concentrating on Hong Kong and Macau.

 

Below are a few suggestions to improve the paper.

 

- The abbreviation ESCS should be defined at first use, in Abstract (page 1, row 23), i.e.., Economic, Social, and Cultural Status.

 

- Page 12, row 466: “this study was primarily interested in comparing differences in leadership practices in China” – should be mentioned HKG and MAC, because of their particularities.

 

- The author(s) should carefully revise some figures, as suggested below:

In the Abstract is mentioned: “Data from 202 principals, 8,807 teachers, 10,291 parents, and 10,291 students”; later (page 12), “the final sample included 202 schools, 4,251 teachers (2,335 in Hong Kong, 1,916 in Macao), 10,291 students, and 10,291 parents”.

 

On the same page, 12, row 474: “When it comes to the teachers, 4,233 (48.6%) were male, 4,474 were female (51.4%)” – it means 8707 teachers, and not 8807 as stated in Abstract!

Also, on row 469 is mentioned a total of 4251 teachers. Correct is 8807, 8707, or 4233 teachers?

Row 474: “6,284 (78.4%) teachers were born in the country/region of test, while 1,884 (21.6%) were born in other countries/regions” – here the total means 8168 teachers!

 

Row 476: “In terms of teachers’ age, 1,575 teachers were between 20-29 years old (18.1%) at the time of data collection, 2,691 (31.0%) were between 30-39 years old. 2,461 (28.4%) teachers were between 40-49 years old, 1,797 teachers (20.7%) were between 50-59 years old, and only 155 (1.8%) teachers were 60 and above.! – here again, the total is different (8769)!

 

- Page 20, rows 686: “First of all, while PISA 2022 data collection and data handling were robust, the selection of only two countries/regions may not capture some nuances of school leadership perceptions due to its standardized survey design”

I would suggest eliminating “countries/regions” when referring to Hong Kong and Macao and mention only regions, as everywhere else in the paper (Special Administrative Regions).

 

- No references cited in the paper are from 2025.

Below I suggest some recent paper in the field that might be useful to include, to cover recent literature published in 2025, too.

Calderon-Villarreal, A., Garcia-Hernandez, A., Olvera-Gonzalez, R., & Elizondo-Garcia, J. (2025). Parental Involvement Barriers and their Influence on Student Self-Regulation in Primary Education. Education and Urban Society, 57(4), 327-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245251314489 

Daly, B. P., Resnikoff, A., & Litke, S. (2025). Effective School Leadership for Supporting Students’ Mental Health: Findings from a Narrative Literature Review. Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15010036

Kaya, E., Atasoy, R.,& Ozkul, R. (2025). Examination of decision-making processes of school administrators: Participation and effectiveness. International Journal of Studies in Education and Science, 6(1), 66-78. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijses.124

Comments on the Quality of English Language

- Spelling and proofreading are needed; see, for example:

- The form of writing should be consistent – see “Intraclass” and “Intra-class” (page 13, rows 491 and 492).

- Page 12, row 473, should be “forty-eight” or 48 and not “four-eight”.

Author Response

1. The abbreviation ESCS should be defined at first use, in Abstract (page 1, row 23), i.e.., Economic, Social, and Cultural Status.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. In row 23, I have added the suggested change for ESCS in a parenthesis, the revision was also marked in red.

2. Page 12, row 466: “this study was primarily interested in comparing differences in leadership practices in China” – should be mentioned HKG and MAC, because of their particularities.

Response 2: In row 466, I have added the suggested change and marked it red.

3. The author(s) should carefully revise some figures, as suggested below: In the Abstract is mentioned: “Data from 202 principals, 8,807 teachers, 10,291 parents, and 10,291 students”; later (page 12), “the final sample included 202 schools, 4,251 teachers (2,335 in Hong Kong, 1,916 in Macao), 10,291 students, and 10,291 parents”.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. I have made the relevant changes. In the abstract, 8,807 was changed to 4,251. The same change was also made in line 316.

4. On the same page, 12, row 474: “When it comes to the teachers, 4,233 (48.6%) were male, 4,474 were female (51.4%)” – it means 8707 teachers, and not 8807 as stated in Abstract!

Response 4: Thank you for your comment and sorry for the confusion. I have made relevant changes in row 474 and the following rows, and marked them in red. All the numbers are consistent. If you see some demographic question breakdowns not add up to 4,251 teachers, it is because that some teachers/respondents completed the questionnaire questions, but did not answer some of demographic questions (e.g., age, whether or not they completed a training program, etc).

5. Also, on row 469 is mentioned a total of 4251 teachers. Correct is 8807, 8707, or 4233 teachers? Row 474: “6,284 (78.4%) teachers were born in the country/region of test, while 1,884 (21.6%) were born in other countries/regions” – here the total means 8168 teachers!

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. I have updated all of the numbers in section 4.1 Descriptive Statistics (marked in red) to make sure everything is consistent.

6. Row 476: “In terms of teachers’ age, 1,575 teachers were between 20-29 years old (18.1%) at the time of data collection, 2,691 (31.0%) were between 30-39 years old. 2,461 (28.4%) teachers were between 40-49 years old, 1,797 teachers (20.7%) were between 50-59 years old, and only 155 (1.8%) teachers were 60 and above.! – here again, the total is different (8769)!

Response 6: Thank you so much for your comment. The relevant numbers have been updated.

7. Page 20, rows 686: “First of all, while PISA 2022 data collection and data handling were robust, the selection of only two countries/regions may not capture some nuances of school leadership perceptions due to its standardized survey design” I would suggest eliminating “countries/regions” when referring to Hong Kong and Macao and mention only regions, as everywhere else in the paper (Special Administrative Regions).

Response 7: I have deleted the word “countries” to avoid ambiguity.

8. - No references cited in the paper are from 2025. Below I suggest some recent paper in the field that might be useful to include, to cover recent literature published in 2025, too. Calderon-Villarreal, A., Garcia-Hernandez, A., Olvera-Gonzalez, R., & Elizondo-Garcia, J. (2025). Parental Involvement Barriers and their Influence on Student Self-Regulation in Primary Education. Education and Urban Society, 57(4), 327-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245251314489  Daly, B. P., Resnikoff, A., & Litke, S. (2025). Effective School Leadership for Supporting Students’ Mental Health: Findings from a Narrative Literature Review. Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15010036 Kaya, E., Atasoy, R.,& Ozkul, R. (2025). Examination of decision-making processes of school administrators: Participation and effectiveness. International Journal of Studies in Education and Science, 6(1), 66-78. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijses.124

Response 8: Thank you for your comment. After a careful view of the suggested reference, we have decided not include Daly et al. (2025) because our topic does not align with it. More specifically, we did not evaluate students’ mental health in this manuscript. We have added the first reference to section 1.7. We have added the third reference to section 1.4.

9. - Spelling and proofreading are needed; see, for example: - The form of writing should be consistent – see “Intraclass” and “Intra-class” (page 13, rows 491 and 492). - Page 12, row 473, should be “forty-eight” or 48 and not “four-eight”.

Response 9: Thank you so very much for your comment. I have made changes to the aforementioned suggestions and marked in red. I have also gone through the entire manuscript and tried my best correct other spelling issues.