Holistic Leadership in Lebanese Catholic Schools: Enhancing Teacher Engagement, Student Achievement and Institutional Efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Holistic leadership has emerged as a critical approach in educational institutions, particularly in Catholic schools, where balancing faith-based traditions with modern educational demands is essential. Previous research highlights leadership as a key determinant of school success, influencing teacher engagement, student performance, and institutional efficiency. However, limited studies have explored the multidimensional impact of holistic leadership in faith-based educational settings.Objective: This study examines the role of holistic leadership in Catholic schools affiliated with the Congregation of the Maronite Sisters of the Holy Family. It investigates the relationship between leadership practices and institutional success, focusing on teacher engagement, student achievement, and administrative efficiency.Methods and Materials: A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. A stratified sample of 230 respondents (school directors, coordinators, teachers, and administrative staff) provided survey data, while 16 school leaders and 5 HR managers participated in semi-structured interviews. Statistical analyses, including correlation and regression models, assessed leadership’s impact on school performance.Results: Findings indicate a positive correlation (r = 0.45, p < 0.01) between leadership effectiveness and teacher engagement and (r = 0.38, p < 0.01) with student performance. Regression analysis revealed that leadership strategies explain 38% of variance in teacher well-being (R² = 0.38, p < 0.01) and 32% in student achievement (R² = 0.32, p < 0.01).Conclusion: Holistic leadership fosters institutional resilience by enhancing collaborative governance, teacher development, and administrative efficiency. The study highlights the need for inclusive leadership models, technological integration, and professional training to sustain long-term educational success. Future research should explore the causal mechanisms linking leadership strategies to student learning outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".