Measuring the Performance of Private Secondary Schools in KwaZulu-Natal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your research highlights critical issues in performance management within the South African education landscape. However, the review identified several areas for enhancement to strengthen your manuscript. Consider including more recent statistics and contemporary examples to enrich the background and underline the urgency of your research. Updating the literature review with the latest studies and emerging theories will enhance your analysis, while providing clearer details on your sampling and data collection processes will improve transparency. Additionally, integrating more direct quotes from qualitative data could add richness to your findings. Lastly, a thorough exploration of limitations and alternative perspectives will deepen your discussion and strengthen your conclusions. Addressing these suggestions will clarify your contributions and elevate the overall impact of your research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Your research highlights critical issues in performance management within the South African education landscape. However, the review identified several areas for enhancement to strengthen your manuscript.

1. Consider including more recent statistics and contemporary examples to enrich the background and underline the urgency of your research. Updating the literature review with the latest studies and emerging theories will enhance your analysis
   Response: We have updated the background and literature review with recent statistics and contemporary examples that more clearly demonstrate the research topic's urgency and relevance. Specifically, we have incorporated findings from studies published in the last five years.
   
   
2. Provide clearer details on your sampling and data collection processes will improve transparency
   Response: We also expanded the Methods section to provide clearer details on the sampling strategy and data collection procedures, including the sampling frame, response rates, and data quality checks. We believe that these additions improve the transparency and reproducibility of the study
   
   
3. Additionally, integrating more direct quotes from qualitative data could add richness to your findings.

Response: Unfortunately, the study is a quantitative study, and no interviews were conducted. As such, direct quotations could be added.

 

4. Lastly, a thorough exploration of limitations and alternative perspectives will deepen your discussion and strengthen your conclusions. Addressing these suggestions will clarify your contributions and elevate the overall impact of your research.

Response: Thank you – this is a most needed section. Added new section on limitations and new perspectives – four specific points are raised and discussed based on the study

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author, Thank you for the opportunity to read your article. The topic of your research is interesting and may make a significant contribution in research. However, some issues should be addressed:

1. Abstract: a) please, specify the Sustainable Development Goal 4. This could be also specified/analysed in the text, as well, b) Avoid using uncommon abbreviations. If unavoidable, then define at the first mention in the abstract.
2. Keywords: the keyword 'model' should be better specified.
3. Introduction: The significance of the study could be further enhanced focusing on arguments about the study's relevance to an international audience, as well. This could further enhance the study' s contribution on literature and research worldwide.
4. Figure 2. Empirically validated model: the variable 'Academic discipline' is included in two factors. The name of one of them might be modified reflecting better the meaning of the factor to which it belongs.
5. page 8, sentences 289-290: The phrase 'A total of 285 questionnaires were distributed, and 274 were collected' is repeated and this does not help the reading. Please remove this or the other one (sentence 285-286).
6. As the study is based on construction and validation of a new research tool, it would be valuable if the questionnaire was included in the manuscript (maybe in Appendix) giving the opportunity to readers and other researchers to use this tool in the future or validate it in various contexts.
7. Study limitations should be included in the manuscript while future research could be enhanced.
8. Discussion section: a) The findings are mainly a technical analysis that might not be accessible to lay readers (policy makers, educators, practitioners and qualitative researchers). Therefore, a much stronger sense of audience is required, b) Strengthen more the connections between the findings and the literature review.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

Dear author, Thank you for the opportunity to read your article. The topic of your research is interesting and may make a significant contribution in research. However, some issues should be addressed:

1. Abstract: a) please, specify the Sustainable Development Goal 4. This could be also specified/analysed in the text, as well, b) Avoid using uncommon abbreviations. If unavoidable, then define at the first mention in the abstract.
   Response: defined the Goal 4 and also eliminated abbreviations from the abstract

 

1. Keywords: the keyword 'model' should be better specified.
   Response: Now defined as “performance management model”

 

1. Introduction: The significance of the study could be further enhanced focusing on arguments about the study's relevance to an international audience, as well. This could further enhance the study' s contribution on literature and research worldwide.
   Response: Introduction rewritten and added international relevance. Also added some sources to support more explicitly articulating the study’s relevance to an international audience. While the empirical context is South African private secondary schools, the challenges addressed (namely a holistic performance measurement, strategic alignment, and stakeholder accountability in education) are globally relevant. This positioning highlights the model’s potential applicability and transferability to private and independent schools in comparable international settings

 

1. page 8, sentences 289-290: The phrase 'A total of 285 questionnaires were distributed, and 274 were collected' is repeated and this does not help the reading. Please remove this or the other one (sentence 285-286).
   Response: Thank you – we missed that. Removed the sentence at 285-286

 

1. As the study is based on construction and validation of a new research tool, it would be valuable if the questionnaire was included in the manuscript (maybe in Appendix) giving the opportunity to readers and other researchers to use this tool in the future or validate it in various contexts.
   Response: Added questionnaire as Appendix A in manuscript.

 

1. Study limitations should be included in the manuscript while future research could be enhanced.

Response: We have added a whole new section “Limitations and perspectives (as also requested by another reviewer) and discuss four limitations relevant to the study. This section 7.4 is added to the manuscript – see track changes version.

 

1. Discussion section: a) The findings are mainly a technical analysis that might not be accessible to lay readers (policy makers, educators, practitioners and qualitative researchers). Therefore, a much stronger sense of audience is required,

Response: Thank you – this point is of importance to audience accessibility. The manuscript has been revised to better translate the technical findings into practical, policy-relevant insights for non-technical audiences such as school leaders, policymakers, and practitioners. This approach should also assist other researchers to better understand the applicability rather than only the technical. On the other hand, we retained the technical stuff, as it also serves as a methodological roadmap for researchers developing models.

We also added a new section “7.5 Practical and policy implications”; explained the results from a practitioner’s perspective (see new paragraph in Section 7.3)  and improved the introduction to the discussion of results (see beginning of Section 7).

Specifically, the Discussion and Conclusion sections now include clearer, non-technical interpretations of the key findings, explicit explanations of what the results mean for school management practice, and a short practitioner-oriented summary of implications. These revisions ensure that the study remains methodologically rigorous while becoming more accessible and useful to a broader readership.

1. b) Strengthen more the connections between the findings and the literature review.

Response: the Discussion section has been revised to explicitly link the empirical findings back to the theoretical arguments and empirical evidence presented in the literature review. Specifically, the revised discussion now references key studies on balanced scorecard applications in education, leadership and organisational culture, student engagement, and performance management systems, demonstrating how the current findings confirm, extend, or nuance existing knowledge. These revisions strengthen the theoretical coherence of the manuscript and clarify its contribution to the literature.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents the development, validation and initial application of a holistic performance measurement model for private secondary schools in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. By adapting the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) to the educational context, the authors attempt to address the shortcomings in performance management in private schools - an area where empirical studies are indeed limited.

Overall, the topic is relevant, timely and valuable for both researchers and practitioners in educational management. The manuscript is well structured, provides a comprehensive bibliographic base and uses appropriate quantitative methods (EFA, CFA, goodness of fit indices). The study is original and contributes to the literature by developing and empirically validating a contextualized model.

Adapting the BSC to South African private schools fills a real research gap, as most educational models based on assessment forms are developed in foreign contexts.

The sequential four-stage design (systematic review → theoretical model → empirical validation → practical evaluation) is well-reasoned.

The findings offer clear managerial implications, particularly in terms of student engagement and organizational culture.

The literature review is extensive and provides a solid foundation.

The methodology is generally adequate, but some clarifications are needed.

Figures and tables are clear and well labeled.

The narrative flows logically from theory to methods and then to results. The results are generally well presented.

Major Revision:

1. The abbreviation must be made before using abbreviated words. For example, in the Abstract (line 14), or in the Keywords (“CFA”).
2. What is Sustainable Development Goal 4? It is also only mentioned in the Abstract and not at all in the rest of the manuscript.
3. The paper repeatedly invokes “novelty”, but clearer articulation of how the current model differs from other balanced scorecards tailored to education is needed.
4. Several components overlap with existing scorecard frameworks; the unique South African contextualization could be better highlighted.
5. Some citations are tangential, especially those related to leadership styles, without directly connecting them to the development of the model.
6. The review would benefit from a more critical synthesis than a list of studies.
7. Should it be explicitly mentioned what the selection criteria are for the 43 articles (line 142) that formed the basis "used to identify variables and inter-variable relationships in the theoretical model."?
8. The decision to use only staff (no students or parents) to assess performance should be justified.
9. The text "A total of 285 questionnaires were distributed, and 274 were collected." in lines 285-286 is repeated in lines 289-290.
10. Figures should be inserted after the paragraph in which they are first mentioned. Figure 1 should be inserted immediately after the paragraph ending on line 157. Also, the representation in the figure does not correspond to the text of the manuscript. In lines 153-154 it is stated that "Three of the four antecedents (except the Resource Perspective) comprise several sub-constructs", in Figure 1, Resource Perspective has 2 sub-constructs. And although in the text the second antecedent is called "Internal Processes for Academic Excellence" (line 152), in Figure 1 it is called "Internal perspective for academic excellence".
11. CFA fit indices for models 3 and 4 show a weak RMSEA (0.201 and 0.327), which is extremely high. The authors acknowledge this, but continue the analysis. A stronger justification is needed.
12. Hypothesis H0 seems to contradict Hypotheses H1.1-H1.4, because they encompass the relationships between the same sub-antecedents.
13. The negative correlations observed in the Learning and Development Perspective warrant further discussion – potentially indicating a model misspecification.
14. The statement “all other indices exceed thresholds by a wide margin” is correct, but must be balanced with the serious deviations of RMSEA.
15. The discussion section should integrate the conclusions more explicitly with the cited literature.
16. Strong negative correlations from the Learning and Development perspective may reflect underlying conflicts between subconstructs; authors should consider revising the measurement model.
17. Interpretation of performance (e.g., thresholds of 3, 3.5, 3.85) is useful, but should be based on validated benchmarks, not just previous studies.

Minor revision:

1. The problem statement (Section 3) could be formulated more concisely.
2. Some paragraphs are excessively long and mix theoretical and empirical arguments.
3. Ensure consistency in terminology (e.g., “internal perspective,” “internal processes”).

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

 

Major Revision:

 

1. The abbreviation must be made before using abbreviated words. For example, in the Abstract (line 14), or in the Keywords (“CFA”).

Response: Corrected

 

2. What is Sustainable Development Goal 4? It is also only mentioned in the Abstract and not at all in the rest of the manuscript.

Response: Quality education - added

 

3. The paper repeatedly invokes “novelty”, but clearer articulation of how the current model differs from other balanced scorecards tailored to education is needed.

Response: The manuscript has been revised to more explicitly distinguish the proposed model from existing balanced scorecard applications in education. Specifically, we now emphasise that prior models are often conceptual, context-neutral, or lack rigorous empirical validation. In contrast, this study develops and empirically validates a context-specific performance measurement model tailored to private secondary schools in South Africa.

The revised manuscript highlights three key contributions: (1) the contextual adaptation of the balanced scorecard to an emerging economy private education setting, (2) the integration of nuanced sub-antecedents such as student engagement, organisational culture, and infrastructure adequacy, and (3) the use of confirmatory factor analysis to statistically validate the model structure.

These revisions have been incorporated into the Introduction, Literature Review, and Conclusion to ensure that the study’s novelty and contribution are clearly articulate

We also added some text to show novelty

Introduction:  While prior studies have applied the balanced scorecard in educational contexts, these models are often generic, conceptually oriented, or developed in non-African settings. This study extends existing work by developing and empirically validating a context-specific, multidimensional performance model tailored to private secondary schools in South Africa. Unlike prior models, the proposed framework integrates culturally and operationally relevant constructs—such as student engagement, organisational culture, and infrastructure adequacy—within a unified measurement structure tested through confirmatory factor analysis.

Theory: Although several studies have adapted the balanced scorecard to educational settings (e.g., Rompho, 2020; Saksono & Bernardus, 2023; Dariyo et al., 2022), these models exhibit three key limitations. First, they are predominantly conceptual or case-specific and lack rigorous empirical validation using advanced statistical techniques such as confirmatory factor analysis. Second, they do not adequately reflect the contextual realities of private secondary schools in emerging economies, particularly in South Africa. Third, existing models tend to adopt generic scorecard dimensions without incorporating context-specific sub-constructs such as student behavioural engagement, organisational culture dynamics, and infrastructure constraints.

This study addresses these gaps by developing and empirically validating a context-sensitive performance measurement model that integrates these dimensions into a coherent and statistically tested framework.

 

4. Several components overlap with existing scorecard frameworks; the unique South African contextualization could be better highlighted.

Response: We agree that the unique South African contextualization needed to be more clearly emphasised. In the revised manuscript, we have explicitly highlighted the contextual contributions that distinguish our model from international frameworks. These include:

• Student engagement challenges (e.g., low pre-class preparation scores).
• Organisational culture dynamics (e.g., staff respect and student perceptions of value).
• Infrastructure adequacy (e.g., disparities in sanitation, utilities, and internet access).
• Socioeconomic and linguistic realities (e.g., code-switching and parental exclusion due to language policies).

These additions are now discussed in the Introduction (pp. 3–4), Literature Review (Sections 2.2–2.3), and Results Discussion (Section 7). We believe this strengthens the manuscript by making the South African contextualization more explicit and demonstrating the model’s originality beyond existing scorecard frameworks.

 

5. Some citations are tangential, especially those related to leadership styles, without directly connecting them to the development of the model.

Response: We have carefully reviewed the citations related to leadership styles and refined their integration into the manuscript. In the revised version, we now explicitly connect these studies to the development of the performance measurement model by showing how leadership practices influence antecedents such as teacher professionalism, organisational culture, and innovative work behaviour, which are embedded within the Learning and Growth perspective of our scorecard. Tangential references have been removed or repositioned to ensure that all citations directly support the theoretical and empirical development of the model. These clarifications are reflected in the Literature Review (Sections 2.1–2.3), where leadership studies are now framed as mechanisms that strengthen the contextual antecedents of the South African model.

 

6. The review would benefit from a more critical synthesis than a list of studies.

Response: We have revised the Literature Review to move beyond a descriptive listing of prior studies and instead provide a more critical synthesis. Specifically, we now compare and contrast how different frameworks address performance measurement, highlight gaps in their applicability to South African private schools, and explain how these gaps informed the development of our model. This strengthens the argument that while international scorecard frameworks provide useful foundations, they lack contextual sensitivity to issues such as infrastructure inequality, linguistic diversity, and organisational culture. The revised synthesis is presented in Section 2.1–2.3.

 

7. Should it be explicitly mentioned what the selection criteria are for the 43 articles (line 142) that formed the basis "used to identify variables and inter-variable relationships in the theoretical model."?

Response: Valid point – no such a strong delineation not needed – rewritten this part “softer”.

 

8. The decision to use only staff (no students or parents) to assess performance should be justified.

Response: We motivated the population and why we excluded children. See track changes doc “While students and parents are critical stakeholders in school performance, this study focused exclusively on staff respondents (teachers, administrators, and principals). Staff members were selected because they are directly responsible for implementing performance management practices and thus provide informed perspectives on the antecedents measured in the scorecard. Ethical considerations also limited the inclusion of minors, as obtaining consent and ensuring anonymity across multiple schools posed significant challenges. Additionally, the study’s primary objective was to validate the structural fit of the proposed model, for which staff perspectives were most appropriate. Future research will expand the framework to include student and parent evaluations, thereby offering a more holistic assessment of school performance.”

 

9. The text "A total of 285 questionnaires were distributed, and 274 were collected." in lines 285-286 is repeated in lines 289-290.

Response: Removed duplicate sentence

 

10. Figures should be inserted after the paragraph in which they are first mentioned. Figure 1 should be inserted immediately after the paragraph ending on line 157. Also, the representation in the figure does not correspond to the text of the manuscript. In lines 153-154 it is stated that "Three of the four antecedents (except the Resource Perspective) comprise several sub-constructs", in Figure 1, Resource Perspective has 2 sub-constructs. And although in the text the second antecedent is called "Internal Processes for Academic Excellence" (line 152), in Figure 1 it is called "Internal perspective for academic excellence".

Response: Thank you – we missed that one. Corrected to be “Internal perspective for academic excellence” Also standardised reference to perspective, not to be sentence case

 

11. CFA fit indices for models 3 and 4 show a weak RMSEA (0.201 and 0.327), which is extremely high. The authors acknowledge this, but continue the analysis. A stronger justification is needed.

Response: Thank you very much. On closer scrutiny, we found that we have reported the incorrect figures in the RMSEA table (independent) & (Pclose) RMSEA for both models 3 & 4. (0.054 & 0.057) We have corrected this in the article. The RMSEA is now well within limits. Also fixed in text description lines 383-386.

 

12. Hypothesis H0 seems to contradict Hypotheses H1.1-H1.4, because they encompass the relationships between the same sub-antecedents.

Response: Yes, this was a cat in a bird cage… we discussed it at length, and there are two ways to address this valid comment.

Option 1: Address H0 and H1 as overall hypotheses.

H0: There are no significant positive relationships between the school performance antecedents and their respective sub-antecedents.

H1 (overall hypothesis):
There are significant positive relationships between the school performance antecedents and their respective sub-antecedents.

H1a–H1d (specific hypotheses):

• H1a: There are significant positive relationships between the student perspective and its sub-antecedents.
• H1b: There are significant positive relationships between the internal perspective and its sub-antecedents.
• H1c: There are significant positive relationships between the learning and growth perspective and its sub-antecedents.
• H1d: There are significant positive relationships between the resource perspective and its sub-antecedents.

Option 2: Remove H0 and H1 and just list specific hypotheses

We opted for this option and removed the overall hypotheses, as it provides a simpler and easier reading option.

H1a–H1d (specific hypotheses):

• H1a: There are significant positive relationships between the student perspective and its sub-antecedents.
• H1b: There are significant positive relationships between the internal perspective and its sub-antecedents.
• H1c: There are significant positive relationships between the learning and growth perspective and its sub-antecedents.
• H1d: There are significant positive relationships between the resource perspective and its sub-antecedents.

Also changed the sections Acceptance of hypotheses section

 

13. The negative correlations observed in the Learning and Development Perspective warrant further discussion – potentially indicating a model misspecification.

 

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the discussion of the negative correlations within the Learning and Growth perspective. While the overall model demonstrated acceptable fit indices, these negative correlations may indicate model misspecification or conceptual tensions among subconstructs. For example, staff respect for students and students’ perceived value of teachers may represent overlapping but distinct cultural dynamics that interact in unexpected ways. We have therefore acknowledged this limitation and proposed that future research should test alternative specifications of the Learning and Growth perspective, including redefining subconstruct boundaries or introducing moderating variables (e.g., leadership style, resource adequacy). These clarifications have been added to the Results (Section 7) and Discussion (Section 8).

 

14. The statement “all other indices exceed thresholds by a wide margin” is correct, but must be balanced with the serious deviations of RMSEA.

Response: See response to Q11 – with the correct (and acceptable) RMSEA values now inserted, we did not change it

 

15. The discussion section should integrate the conclusions more explicitly with the cited literature.

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the Discussion section to more explicitly connect our conclusions with the cited literature. We now show how our findings on student engagement, organisational culture, and infrastructure adequacy align with or diverge from prior studies. This integration strengthens the paper's theoretical contribution by situating our results within the broader scholarly discourse. The revisions are reflected in the Discussion (Section 8)

 

16. Strong negative correlations from the Learning and Development perspective may reflect underlying conflicts between subconstructs; authors should consider revising the measurement model.

Response: See question 13 – dealt with there

 

17. Interpretation of performance (e.g., thresholds of 3, 3.5, 3.85) is useful, but should be based on validated benchmarks, not just previous studies.

 

Response: In the revised manuscript, we have clarified that the thresholds used (e.g., 3.0, 3.5, 3.85 on the 5-point Likert scale) were interpreted against established psychometric conventions and statistical validation criteria. Specifically, we now reference the use of Cronbach’s alpha reliability standards (≥0.70), Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin adequacy (≥0.70), and confirmatory factor analysis fit indices (CFI, NFI, TLI ≥0.90) as benchmarks for interpreting satisfactory performance levels. This ensures that our interpretation is not arbitrary but aligned with validated measurement standards. These clarifications have been added to the Results (Section 7) and Methodology (Section 6).

 

 

Minor revision:

 

1. The problem statement (Section 3) could be formulated more concisely.

Done – rewritten more concisely

 

2. Some paragraphs are excessively long and mix theoretical and empirical arguments.

The article was language re-edited by a professional editor and checked for paragraphs.

 

3. Ensure consistency in terminology (e.g., “internal perspective,” “internal processes”).

Standardise throughout