Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives on Effective and Sustainable School Leadership for Holistic Student Development: A Focus Group Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study investigated collectively the perspectives of three stakeholders (teachers, guardians/ parents, and students) on aspects of sustainable leadership practice, communication and engagement, vision, culture, and environment, support and resources, and challenges and recommendation to holistic students development at a private secondary school in Kathmandu, Nepal. Method: The study is a qualitative case study that utilized focus groups with teachers, parents, and students from a private school in Kathmandu, Nepal. Data were analyzed thematically to identify convergent and divergent views, and the researcher developed rigor to the study through triangulating stakeholders. Results: From the analysis of the data, five major themes took shape: sustainable leadership practice, communication and engagement, vision, culture, and environment, support and resources, and challenges and recommendation. Stakeholders identified sustainable leadership beyond the academic features of the school, identifying transparency, collaboration, and the wellbeing of students in the forefront. Students articulated emotional supports and their voice as top priorities; guardians and parents preferred trust in a partnership with the school; and staff valued site specific shared leadership and professional development. Conclusions: The evidence suggests the potential for a model of contextualized holistic leadership that combines aspects of instructional leadership, transformational leadership and distributed leadership, within a framework of cultural humility, relational trust, and ethics, to balance both academic excellence and socio-emotional wellbeing at the school level.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".