Do instructional leadership, budget management, and teacher reflection predict literacy and numeracy achievement? [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

Дата публикации: 04-08-2026 08:32:41

Background Improving literacy and numeracy remains a central priority in Indonesian education reform, yet evidence on how school-level managerial and instructional factors relate to these outcomes remains limited, particularly within the National Assessment framework. Methods This quantitative explanatory study analyzed secondary administrative panel data comprising 2,952 school-year observations from elementary, junior high, and senior high schools in Bangka Belitung Islands Province, Indonesia, during 2022–2024. Data were obtained from Rapor Pendidikan, Dapodik, and BOS financial reports and standardized on a 0–100 scale. Panel regression and regression-based mediation analyses were conducted using EViews to examine the associations among principal leadership, budget management, teacher reflection, learning quality, and student literacy and numeracy achievement. Results Principal leadership, teacher reflection, and learning quality were positively associated with both literacy and numeracy achievement. Teacher reflection and learning quality emerged as key instructional predictors. By contrast, budget management showed significant negative associations with literacy, numeracy, and teacher reflection. The mediation analysis indicated a significant negative indirect pathway from budget management to student achievement through teacher reflection. Conclusions The findings suggest that financial resources alone do not guarantee stronger learning outcomes unless budget management is aligned with pedagogical development. Strengthening instructional leadership, reflective teaching cultures, learning quality, and the instructional orientation of BOS fund utilization may support improvements in literacy and numeracy in Indonesian schools.

Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

Corresponding author: Izza Mafruhah Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2026 Wijanarko GW et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Wijanarko GW, Mafruhah I, Hindrayani A and Sabandi M. Do instructional leadership, budget management, and teacher reflection predict literacy and numeracy achievement? [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2026, 15:1286 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.185505.1) First published: 04 Aug 2026, 15:1286 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.185505.1) Latest published: 04 Aug 2026, 15:1286 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.185505.1)

Introduction

Improving learning quality has become a central priority in Indonesia’s educational development, as students’ literacy and numeracy outcomes continue to show unsatisfactory performance levels. This priority is aligned with Indonesia’s long-term education roadmap and the global Sustainable Development Goal 4 agenda on quality education.¹^,² As core competencies of the twenty-first century, literacy and numeracy encompass not only the ability to read and perform basic calculations, but also critical thinking, problem solving, and the capacity to use information effectively in real-world contexts. However, these competencies remain unevenly distributed across regions, including in the Bangka Belitung Islands Province. This condition underscores the urgent need for systematic improvements in instructional processes to ensure that all students receive meaningful and high-quality learning experiences.

In line with these efforts, the Indonesian government has promoted learning transformation through the implementation of the Merdeka Curriculum, which emphasizes instructional flexibility, formative assessment, and the strengthening of the Pancasila Student Profile.¹ This curriculum reform requires schools to ensure that teachers possess adequate professional capacity and employ instructional strategies that effectively support the development of students’ foundational competencies. International evidence on curriculum reform and teacher professional learning further shows that teachers require sustained support to translate policy expectations into classroom practice.³^–⁵ However, field implementation indicates that learning quality remains uneven, and many schools are still unable to fully leverage policy support and curriculum flexibility to improve instructional practices.

As the largest funding instrument at the school level, the School Operational Assistance (BOS) program plays a critical role in supporting improvements in learning quality. The program is designed to provide schools with autonomy in managing their budgets to meet operational needs and enhance instructional processes. However, studies of school financing and BOS implementation indicate that funds are still frequently used to meet administrative and routine requirements, while allocations for improving learning quality and strengthening teacher capacity remain suboptimal.⁶^–⁹ Consequently, the main challenge lies not merely in the size of the budget, but in the effectiveness of its management and utilization to support improvements in student learning outcomes.

In this context, principal leadership plays a central role in ensuring that schools are able to manage educational resources strategically and with a strong emphasis on learning quality. Principals who exercise instructional, transformational, and learning-centred leadership can establish a clear academic vision, foster professional teacher collaboration, monitor instructional processes, and ensure that policies and resources are directed toward improving student learning outcomes.¹⁰^–¹⁸ However, evidence from Indonesian school leadership research indicates that many principals remain focused on administrative responsibilities and have not fully embraced their roles as instructional leaders,¹⁹^–²¹ resulting in educational resources that are not yet optimally leveraged to enhance instructional practices.

Beyond leadership, teachers’ professional competence is a critical factor influencing learning quality. In this regard, teacher reflection serves as a key practice for enhancing instructional performance in a continuous and sustainable manner. Reflective practice enables teachers to critically analyze the effectiveness of their instructional strategies, students’ responses, classroom management, and assessment results in order to make informed adjustments that improve the learning process.²²^–²⁷ This highlights that improving learning quality requires not only structural interventions such as budget provision but also a transformation in teachers’ professional culture within their daily practice.

Furthermore, learning quality is a factor that directly shapes students’ literacy and numeracy development. Learning environments that actively engage students, incorporate formative assessment, provide meaningful feedback, and employ instructional approaches relevant to learners’ contexts have been shown to improve student outcomes across educational levels.²⁸^–³² Conversely, ineffective instruction and the absence of meaningful feedback remain among the key contributors to low foundational competencies. Thus, learning quality should be understood as the product of a complex interplay among school leadership support, resource utilization, and teachers’ professional capacity.

Although previous studies have examined the relationships among school leadership, BOS fund management, teacher professionalism, and student learning outcomes, most have done so in a partial manner and without considering the mechanisms linking these variables simultaneously. Research focusing on school leadership typically highlights its influence on school climate, teacher motivation, data-informed decision-making, and professional development,³³^–³⁵ whereas studies on BOS funding tend to emphasize issues of financial accountability, budget compliance, and expenditure constraints.⁶^,⁸^,⁹ Meanwhile, empirical investigations that position teacher reflection as a critical variable in transforming school resources into academic outcomes remain limited, particularly within the Indonesian context, where institutional pathways and school-background factors can shape educational trajectories.³⁶^,³⁷

Accordingly, an important research gap emerges: the need to develop a comprehensive model that explains how managerial factors, namely principal leadership and BOS fund management, and instructional factors, namely teacher reflection and learning quality, are associated with students’ literacy and numeracy outcomes. It is also necessary to examine whether teacher reflection serves as a mediating mechanism that links budgetary support to learning achievement. This perspective is consistent with integrative models which emphasize that the relationship between leadership and student outcomes often operates through changes in teachers’ instructional practices.³⁸

Based on the above background, this study analyzes two key issues. First, it examines the associations of principal leadership, budget management, teacher reflection, and learning quality with students’ literacy and numeracy outcomes in Bangka Belitung Islands Province. Second, it investigates the mediating role of teacher reflection in the relationship between budget management and learning achievement. Using three-year panel data sourced from the National Assessment and BOS financial reports, this study aims to provide contextually grounded empirical evidence regarding school-level determinants of student learning outcomes in an archipelagic region.

Theoretically, this study contributes to the literature by integrating instructional leadership and resource-based management perspectives into a unified analytical framework for explaining improvements in learning quality. Practically, the findings offer policy insights for schools and local governments in designing targeted strategies to strengthen literacy and numeracy outcomes through enhanced school leadership, a stronger culture of teacher reflection, and more effective BOS fund utilization oriented toward instructional quality. The novelty of this study lies in showing that learning outcomes are not only related to the availability of resources or the strength of school leadership, but also to how actively teachers engage in reflective practice to ensure that instructional strategies support students’ foundational competencies.

Methods

Study design

This study employed a quantitative explanatory design using school-level panel data. The analysis examined school-level associations and predictive relationships rather than making definitive causal claims. Two analytical models were used. Model 1 estimated the direct associations of principal leadership (X1), budget management (X2), teacher reflection (X3), and learning quality (X4) with students’ literacy (YL) and numeracy (YN) achievement. Model 2 tested whether teacher reflection mediated the relationship between budget management and learning outcomes.

The use of panel data was intended to capture variation across schools and across the 2022–2024 period. The design is appropriate for identifying longitudinal school-level patterns, but the observational nature of the data means that the results should be interpreted as associations and predicted relationships, not as experimental causal effects.

Setting, population, and sample

The study was conducted in Bangka Belitung Islands Province, Indonesia. The target population comprised all public and private elementary, junior high, and senior high schools in the province. A total of 1,082 schools constituted the target population. The study used three-year panel data covering the academic years 2022, 2023, and 2024, resulting in 2,952 school-year observations. The initial dataset consisted of 3,246 potential school-year records, derived from 1,082 schools observed across three academic years from 2022 to 2024. After applying the missing-data rule, 294 school-year records were excluded because they contained missing values in one or more core analytical variables. The final analytical sample consisted of 2,952 school-year observations from 984 schools. Because each school contributed complete observations for all three years, the final dataset formed a balanced panel.

A total sampling technique was applied by including all schools with complete and valid data for the variables required in the analysis. This strategy was selected because the study was designed to generate population-level evidence for policy-oriented educational decision-making. Schools or school-year records with incomplete values on the core variables were excluded during preprocessing.

Data sources and preprocessing

The study relied on secondary administrative data obtained from standardized institutional databases managed by the Indonesian government. Rapor Pendidikan provided school-level literacy and numeracy scores from the National Assessment and indicators of learning quality. Dapodik supplied school-level administrative information, including principal and teacher profile indicators used in constructing the leadership and teacher-related variables. BOS financial reports documented budget allocation, expenditure patterns, and school-level financial management practices associated with the School Operational Assistance program.

All datasets were merged at the school-year level. Preprocessing included data cleaning, variable harmonization across years, normalization to a 0–100 scale, and cross-year consistency checks. Higher scores indicate stronger performance or higher reported quality on the relevant construct. Table 1 summarizes the operational definition, source, scale, and interpretation of each variable.

Table 1. Variable definitions, data sources, and measurement scales.VariableCodeData sourceMeasurement/operational meaningScale/interpretation Literacy achievementYLRapor Pendidikan/National AssessmentSchool-level literacy achievement score reported in the National Assessment framework.0–100; higher scores indicate stronger literacy achievement.Numeracy achievementYNRapor Pendidikan/National AssessmentSchool-level numeracy achievement score reported in the National Assessment framework.0–100; higher scores indicate stronger numeracy achievement.Principal leadershipX1Dapodik and/or Rapor Pendidikan indicators used by authorsSchool-level indicator representing principal leadership or instructional leadership characteristics available in the administrative dataset.0–100; higher scores indicate stronger leadership indicator performance.Budget managementX2BOS financial reportsSchool-level indicator derived from budget allocation, expenditure patterns, and financial management practices associated with BOS fund utilization.0–100; higher scores indicate stronger budget management indicator performance.Teacher reflectionX3Rapor Pendidikan/Dapodik indicators used by authorsSchool-level indicator representing reflective teaching practices and teachers’ use of feedback or assessment information to improve instruction.0–100; higher scores indicate stronger reflective teaching indicator performance.Learning qualityX4Rapor PendidikanSchool-level indicator representing the quality of the learning environment and instructional processes.0–100; higher scores indicate higher learning quality.

Variables and measurement

The dependent variables were literacy achievement (YL) and numeracy achievement (YN), both measured as school-level scores from the National Assessment. The independent variables were principal leadership (X1), budget management (X2), teacher reflection (X3), and learning quality (X4). Teacher reflection was also modeled as a mediator in the relationship between budget management and student achievement. All variables were standardized on a 0–100 scale to facilitate interpretation and comparison across indicators.

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was conducted using EViews. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the distribution of all variables. Panel regression was then used to estimate the associations between school-level predictors and literacy and numeracy outcomes. The general direct-effect models were specified as follows:

YL_it=β0+β1X1_it+β2X2_it+β3X3_it+β4X4_it+μ_i+τ_t+ε_it

YN_it=β0+β1X1_it+β2X2_it+β3X3_it+β4X4_it+μ_i+τ_t+ε_it

where i denotes school, t denotes year, μ_i represents school-level unobserved heterogeneity, τ_t represents year effects where applicable, and ε_it is the error term. Panel regression diagnostics were used to compare pooled ordinary least squares, fixed effects, and random effects estimators. The F-test for fixed effects, the Breusch-Pagan Lagrange Multiplier test, and the Hausman test were considered in selecting the final model. Heteroskedasticity diagnostics informed the use of Panel EGLS with cross-section weights in the final specification.

To determine the appropriate panel-data estimator, a series of model selection diagnostics was conducted before estimating the final models. First, the Chow test/redundant fixed effects test was used to compare the common effect model with the fixed effects model. The test was statistically significant for both literacy (YL), F(983,1963) = 22.475, p < 0.001, and numeracy (YN), F(983,1963) = 2.248, p < 0.001, indicating that the fixed effects specification was preferable to the common effect model. Second, the Hausman test was used to compare the fixed effects and random effects estimators. The Hausman test was also statistically significant for both literacy, χ²(5) = 76.889, p < 0.001, and numeracy, χ²(5) = 190.239, p < 0.001, supporting the use of the fixed effects estimator rather than the random effects estimator.

Based on these diagnostic results, the final direct-effect models were estimated using a cross-section fixed effects specification. Because heteroskedasticity was detected in the residual-based diagnostic tests, the final models were estimated using Panel EGLS with cross-section weights. The final analytical panel consisted of 984 schools observed over three academic years, producing 2,952 balanced school-year observations. The reported standard errors were not clustered at the school level; instead, the models used cross-section weights to account for heterogeneity across schools.

The mediation analysis followed a regression-based approach adapted for panel data. The mediator model estimated the association between budget management and teacher reflection:

X3_it=α0+α1X2_it+μ_i+τ_t+ε_it

The outcome models then estimated the associations of budget management and teacher reflection with literacy and numeracy:

YL_it=γ0+c'X2_it+bX3_it+μ_i+τ_t+ε_it

YN_it=γ0+c'X2_it+bX3_it+μ_i+τ_t+ε_it

The indirect effect was calculated as α1 x b, and the total effect was obtained by summing the direct and indirect effects. Statistical significance was interpreted at p < 0.05 for primary hypothesis testing and p < 0.10 for marginal effects. Because the data were observational, mediation estimates are interpreted as evidence of indirect statistical pathways rather than definitive causal mechanisms.

Bias and limitations in the analytical design

Several precautions were taken to reduce bias and unwanted variability, including cross-year consistency checks, normalization of variables to a common scale, and use of school-year observations from standardized government databases. Nevertheless, the analysis may remain subject to unobserved confounding, measurement error in administrative indicators, and omitted school-level characteristics not available in the datasets. These issues are addressed further in the Discussion.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for all variables included in the analysis, based on 2,952 school-year observations from 984 schools in Bangka Belitung Islands Province over the 2022–2024 period. The table summarizes the minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation of the core constructs used in the direct-effect and mediation models: principal leadership (X1), budget management (X2), teacher reflection (X3), learning quality (X4), literacy achievement (YL), and numeracy achievement (YN).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of research variables.VariableNMinMaxMeanStd.Dev Principal Leadership (X₁)2,95240.0098.0073.8211.45 Budget Management (X₂)2,95235.00100.0076.1410.83 Teacher Reflection (X₃)2,95242.0099.0078.629.91 Learning Quality (X₄)2,95245.00100.0080.379.26 Literacy Score (YL)2,95240.0098.0072.5110.72 Numeracy Score (YN)2,95237.0096.0070.4611.28

The descriptive results show that all variables demonstrate adequate variability, indicating that meaningful statistical relationships can be examined in subsequent analyses. Principal leadership (M = 73.82, SD = 11.45) and budget management (M = 76.14, SD = 10.83) exhibit moderate dispersion, reflecting heterogeneous managerial and financial practices across schools. Teacher reflection (M = 78.62, SD = 9.91) and learning quality (M = 80.37, SD = 9.26) show relatively higher mean values. Literacy (M = 72.51, SD = 10.72) and numeracy scores (M = 70.46, SD = 11.28) fall within the mid-range, with substantial variation across schools.

Direct associations with literacy and numeracy achievement

To address the first research question, multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the extent to which principal leadership, budget management, teacher reflection, and learning quality predicted students’ literacy and numeracy performance. Table 3 presents the regression coefficients, significance levels, and explanatory power for both dependent variables.

Table 3. Regression results for literacy and numeracy achievement.VariableLiteracy (YL) βp-value Numeracy (YN) βp-value Principal Leadership (X₁)0.340*<0.0010.753*<0.001 Budget Management (X₂)−0.030***0.022−0.046***0.018 Teacher Reflection (X₃)0.177*<0.0010.733*<0.001 Learning Quality (X₄)0.492*<0.0010.542*<0.001 Constant16.384-15.811-N2,952 2,952 Adj R²0.878 0.879

Principal leadership demonstrated a strong and statistically significant positive association with both literacy (β = 0.340, p < 0.001) and numeracy (β = 0.753, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that schools with stronger leadership indicators tend to report higher student academic performance. Budget management exhibited a negative and statistically significant relationship with both literacy (β = −0.030, p = 0.022) and numeracy (β = −0.046, p = 0.018), suggesting that current budget management practices may not be optimally aligned with instructional improvement.

Teacher reflection was positively associated with literacy (β = 0.177, p < 0.001) and numeracy (β = 0.733, p < 0.001), reinforcing the centrality of reflective pedagogy in improving student learning. Learning quality also significantly predicted both literacy (β = 0.492, p < 0.001) and numeracy (β = 0.542, p < 0.001). Taken together, the four predictors accounted for a high proportion of variance in student performance, as reflected in the adjusted R2 values of 0.878 for literacy and 0.879 for numeracy.

Mediation effect of teacher reflection

To address the second research question, this study examined whether teacher reflection mediated the relationship between budget management and student learning outcomes in literacy and numeracy. The mediation results are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Mediation analysis results.PathEffect TypeBStd. ErrortSig.Interpretation X₂ → X₃Direct−0.1460.009−15.918<0.001Significant X₂ → YLDirect−0.0250.005−4.734<0.001Significant X₂ → YNDirect−0.0430.006−6.374<0.001Significant X₃ → YLMediator0.2130.00358.271<0.001Significant X₃ → YNMediator0.4670.00673.526<0.001Significant X₂ → X₃ → YLIndirect−0.031--<0.001Significant negative mediating effect X₂ → X₃ → YNIndirect−0.068--<0.001Significant negative mediating effect Total Effect on YLTotal−0.056--<0.001Significant negative total influence Total Effect on YNTotal−0.111--<0.001Significant negative total influence

Budget management exerted a negative and statistically significant association with teacher reflection (B = −0.146, p < 0.001). Teacher reflection itself showed strong and highly significant associations with literacy (B = 0.213, p < 0.001) and numeracy (B = 0.467, p < 0.001). The direct associations between budget management and the two learning outcomes were also negative and significant: literacy (B = −0.025, p < 0.001) and numeracy (B = −0.043, p < 0.001).

The indirect pathways through teacher reflection were negative and statistically significant for literacy (B = −0.031, p < 0.001) and numeracy (B = −0.068, p < 0.001). Because budget management was negatively associated with teacher reflection while teacher reflection was positively associated with learning outcomes, the resulting indirect effects were negative. The total effects further reinforced this pattern: budget management showed significant negative total associations with literacy (B = −0.056, p < 0.001) and numeracy (B = −0.111, p < 0.001). These results indicate a significant negative mediating pathway, not the absence of mediation.

Discussion

Principal leadership, budget management, teacher reflection, learning quality, and student achievement

The results provide a comprehensive picture of how school-level conditions are associated with student literacy and numeracy achievement in Bangka Belitung. Principal leadership demonstrated strong positive associations with both literacy and numeracy scores. This finding highlights the central role of school leaders in establishing clear instructional expectations, supporting teacher performance, and cultivating an academic climate conducive to effective learning. The results align with prior studies showing that principals who enact instructional and transformational leadership practices can strengthen student achievement by setting strategic direction and empowering teachers to improve classroom practices.¹⁰^–¹⁶^,³⁸

In contrast, budget management exhibited statistically significant but negative associations with literacy and numeracy outcomes. Although the coefficients were small, the negative direction indicates that current budgeting practices may not yet be aligned with instructional improvement. Prior evidence suggests that when financial resources are used predominantly for administrative compliance or non-instructional expenditures, their impact on student learning may be limited.⁶^–⁹ These results reinforce the argument that financial inputs alone do not guarantee better learning performance unless they are strategically directed toward teacher development, learning resources, and responsive instructional practices.

Teacher reflection emerged as one of the most influential predictors in the model, showing strong positive associations with both literacy and numeracy. This supports the growing body of evidence that reflective pedagogy, in which teachers analyze classroom decisions, use assessment data, and adjust instruction, has a meaningful relationship with student learning.²²^–²⁷^,³⁶ Learning quality also showed substantial and significant positive associations with both outcomes, reinforcing its role as a core determinant of student achievement. High-quality learning environments characterized by active engagement, relevant instructional materials, formative assessment, and feedback have consistently been associated with improved literacy and numeracy performance across educational systems.²⁸^–³²

Collectively, these findings suggest that although leadership and financial systems create the structural foundation of schooling, the most powerful school-level drivers of student achievement in this model are instructional in nature: teacher reflection and the quality of learning experiences. Improving literacy and numeracy outcomes in Bangka Belitung therefore requires a dual strategy: strengthening instructional leadership while ensuring that budget management is aligned with pedagogical priorities.

Teacher reflection as a mediating pathway

The mediation analysis provides important insights into how budget management and teacher reflection interact in relation to student learning outcomes. The results reveal a clear pattern: budget management was negatively associated with teacher reflection, indicating that current budgeting practices in the observed schools may not support, and may even inhibit, the development of reflective teaching behaviors. This condition mirrors previous findings that BOS funds are frequently allocated for administrative and routine expenditure rather than for instructional development or teacher professional growth.⁶^,⁸^,⁹

Despite this, teacher reflection remained one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of student achievement. Reflection had highly significant and positive associations with both literacy and numeracy. These results align with literature emphasizing the central role of reflective practice in enhancing instructional quality. Reflective decision-making can improve teachers’ pedagogical adaptations, deepen instructional coherence, and increase responsiveness to student needs.²⁵^–²⁷^,³⁶ Similarly, integrative models of school improvement argue that reflective agency constitutes a core mechanism through which instructional improvement and student learning gains are realized.³⁸

The mediation pathway further confirmed this pattern. The indirect effects of budget management on literacy and numeracy through teacher reflection were both significant and negative. This means that budget management, as currently captured in the dataset, is not operating as a pedagogical lever. Instead, the negative relationship between budget management and teacher reflection contributes to a negative indirect pathway to student achievement. These findings indicate the need to strategically realign BOS fund utilization with pedagogical activities such as classroom-based professional development, coaching, lesson study, formative assessment training, and the provision of high-quality learning resources.

Limitations and future research

This study has several limitations. First, the analysis was based on school-level administrative data, not individual student-, teacher-, or principal-level data. Therefore, the results should be interpreted as school-level associations. Second, although the dataset covered three years, the observational design does not permit definitive causal inference. Third, the study focused on one archipelagic province, which may limit generalizability to other Indonesian regions with different governance, geography, and school-resource conditions. Fourth, the variables depended on administrative indicators, which may contain measurement error or may not fully capture the complexity of instructional leadership, budget use, teacher reflection, and learning quality. Future research should incorporate richer budget-expenditure categories, student-level outcomes, qualitative evidence on school budgeting practices, and robustness tests across provinces and school levels.

Conclusions

This study concludes that literacy and numeracy outcomes in schools across Bangka Belitung Islands Province are strongly associated with instructional factors and school leadership. Principal leadership, teacher reflection, and learning quality were positively associated with student achievement, supporting the argument that instructional leadership and pedagogical processes are central to improving foundational skills. At the classroom level, reflective teaching practices and high-quality learning environments consistently related to stronger student performance, underscoring the importance of continuous pedagogical evaluation, meaningful student engagement, and formative feedback.

In contrast, budget management showed significant negative associations with literacy, numeracy, and teacher reflection. The mediation results further revealed a significant negative indirect pathway from budget management to student achievement through teacher reflection. This finding indicates that current financial governance practices may be insufficiently aligned with instructional improvement and may inadvertently constrain pedagogical innovation. Overall, the study contributes empirical evidence by showing that financial resources alone do not guarantee academic improvement unless they are strategically integrated with leadership practices, reflective teaching, and teacher professional development. Future studies should test these relationships using richer longitudinal data and comparative designs across diverse educational contexts.

Ethical considerations

This study was conducted in accordance with established ethical research standards and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki concerning research involving human participants and human-subject data, particularly with respect to privacy, confidentiality, and responsible data use. The study protocol was reviewed by Komite Etik Penelitian, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia, under Reference Number 4335.1/UN27.02/PK.03.08/2026 dated 5 March 2026. The committee granted a waiver of informed consent because the study used only secondary, anonymized administrative data and involved no direct interaction with human participants.

The datasets used in this study consisted of school-level indicators of literacy and numeracy achievement, learning quality, principal leadership, teacher reflection, and budget management obtained from Rapor Pendidikan, Dapodik, and BOS financial reports. No individual student, teacher, or principal identifiers were accessed, processed, or reported. All data were processed in accordance with applicable national data protection regulations and were used solely for academic research purposes.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The authors declare that generative artificial intelligence tools, including ChatGPT and Gemini, were used exclusively for language editing and grammatical improvement. The use of AI did not influence the scientific content, study design, data analysis, data interpretation, results, or conclusions of the manuscript. Full responsibility for the content remains with the authors.

Data availability

Underlying data

The raw administrative data used in this study are not publicly available because they were obtained from restricted government-managed education databases and contain school-level administrative information. The original datasets are owned and managed by the relevant Indonesian government education authorities through the Rapor Pendidikan, Dapodik, and BOS financial reporting systems. The authors do not have permission to redistribute the raw datasets or the anonymized derived analytical dataset.

Researchers wishing to access the data should submit a formal request to the data-owning institution and may contact on the email [email protected], for guidance on the application route, required documentation, and access conditions. Requests should include the research purpose, researcher affiliation, variables requested, intended period of analysis, ethics approval or exemption where required, and a proposed data-protection plan. Access is subject to approval by the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education of the Republic of Indonesia and/or the Education Office of Bangka Belitung Islands Province, a formal data-use agreement, and compliance with applicable data protection and confidentiality requirements. Data may be used only for legitimate academic or policy research purposes and may not be used to identify individual students, teachers, principals, or schools.

Extended data

No additional extended data are currently available in a public repository. The completed STROBE checklist for this observational school-level panel study will be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Data analysis was conducted using EViews. The descriptive statistics, panel regression models, diagnostic tests, and mediation analysis were conducted using standard EViews procedures. No custom software or original programming code was developed for this study. The statistical outputs used to support the reported results may be provided by the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to the same data-access and confidentiality conditions described above.

Reporting guidelines

This observational school-level panel study was reported in accordance with the STROBE reporting guideline for observational studies. The completed STROBE checklist will be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

No figures are included in this manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their sincere appreciation to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia for granting access to the administrative datasets used in this study, including National Assessment results, Dapodik records, and BOS financial reports. Special thanks are also conveyed to the Education Office of Bangka Belitung Province for facilitating data coordination across schools. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of school administrators and teachers who ensured accurate reporting within national education systems. Their support enabled a comprehensive and reliable examination of leadership, budgeting, teacher reflection, and learning outcomes across the region.

References

1. Kementerian Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional/Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional: Peta Jalan Pendidikan Indonesia Tahun. 2025–2045. Jakarta, Indonesia: Kementerian PPN/Bappenas; 2024.
2. Saini M, Sengupta E, Singh M, et al.: Sustainable development goal for quality education (SDG 4): a study on SDG 4 to extract the pattern of association among the indicators of SDG 4 employing a genetic algorithm. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023; 28(2): 2031–2069. Publisher Full Text
3. Haug BS, Mork SM: Taking 21st century skills from vision to classroom: what teachers highlight as supportive professional development in the light of new demands from educational reforms. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021; 100: 103286. Publisher Full Text
4. Ventista OM, Brown C: Teachers’ professional learning and its impact on students’ learning outcomes: findings from a systematic review. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. 2023; 8(1): 100565. Publisher Full Text
5. Wilkinson S, Freeman J, Simonsen B, et al.: Professional development for classroom management: a review of the literature. Educ. Res. Eval. 2020; 26(3–4): 182–212. Publisher Full Text
6. Hadna AH: An evaluation of the school operational assistance (BOS) policy and its effect on teacher performance in Indonesia. Malays. Online J. Educ. Manag. 2022; 10(2): 1–4. Reference Source
7. Husnidar, Khairuddin, Bahrun: Implementation of education financing management in improving the quality of learning in junior high schools. J. Educ. Manag. Learn. 2024; 2(2): 74–80. Publisher Full Text
8. Leani M, Lian B, Putra AY, et al.: Obstacles in the management of school operational assistance funds (BOS) at State Elementary School 1 Koba, Central Bangka Regency. LENTERNAL: Learn. Teach. J. 2025; 6(3): 93–100. Publisher Full Text
9. Yusuf M, Abdul Karim H, Dasril: Optimising the management of school operational assistance (BOS) fund in public primary schools. Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Islamic Education (ICMIE). 2024. Publisher Full Text
10. Chen D, Bos W: Relationship between principal leadership and student achievement: a comparative study between Germany and China. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2023; 102: 102868. Publisher Full Text
11. Day C, Gu Q, Sammons P: The impact of leadership on student outcomes: how successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educ. Adm. Q. 2016; 52(2): 221–258. Publisher Full Text
12. Herman R, Gates SM, Arifkhanova A, et al.: School leadership interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act: evidence review. RAND Corporation; 2017. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
13. Hallinger P, Hosseingholizadeh R: Exploring instructional leadership in Iran: a mixed methods study of high- and low-performing principals. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2019; 48(4): 595–616. Publisher Full Text
14. Sebastian J, Allensworth E, Wiedermann W, et al.: Principal leadership and school performance: an examination of instructional leadership and organizational management. Leadersh. Policy Sch. 2019; 18(4): 591–613. Publisher Full Text
15. Özdemir N, Gümüş S, Kılınç AÇ, et al.: A systematic review of research on the relationship between school leadership and student achievement: an updated framework and future direction. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2022; 52(5): 1020–1046. Publisher Full Text
16. Shen J, Wu H: The relationship between principal leadership and student achievement: a multivariate meta-analysis with an emphasis on conceptual models and methodological approaches. Educ. Adm. Q. 2024; 61(2): 234–281. Publisher Full Text
17. Bellibaş MŞ, Gümüş S, Kılınç AÇ: Principals supporting teacher leadership: the effects of learning-centred leadership on teacher leadership practices with the mediating role of teacher agency. Eur. J. Educ. 2020; 55(2): 200–216. Publisher Full Text
18. Li L, Hallinger P, Ko J: Principal leadership and school capacity effects on teacher learning in Hong Kong. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2016; 30(1): 76–100. Publisher Full Text
19. He P, Guo F, Abazie GA: School principals’ instructional leadership as a predictor of teachers’ professional development. Asia-Pac. J. Second Foreign Lang. Educ. 2024; 9(1): 63. Publisher Full Text
20. Lumban Gaol NT: School leadership in Indonesia: a systematic literature review. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2021; 51(4): 831–848. Publisher Full Text
21. Sofo F, Fitzgerald R, Jawas U: Instructional leadership in Indonesian school reform: overcoming the problems to move forward. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 2012; 32(5): 503–522. Publisher Full Text
22. Asare PY, Amo SK: Developing preservice teachers’ teaching engagement efficacy: a classroom managerial implication. Cogent Educ. 2023; 10(1): 2170122. Publisher Full Text
23. Daff L, Tame C, Sands J: A course design approach that encourages reflective practice habits. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2024; 22(2): 100990. Publisher Full Text
24. Gechere T, Oumer J, Ouke T: Influence of principals’ instructional leadership and teachers’ efficacy on students’ performance in secondary schools in the Wolaita Zone, South Ethiopia. Discov. Sustain. 2025; 6(1): 967. Publisher Full Text
25. Hsieh C, Khau AH, Song Y, et al.: Impact of school leadership on teachers’ instructional practices: examining mediating roles of collegiality and teacher autonomy using Vietnam TALIS 2018. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2025; 132: 102621. Publisher Full Text
26. Schildkamp K: Data-based decision-making for school improvement: research insights and gaps. Educ. Res. 2019; 61(3): 257–273. Publisher Full Text
27. Woodcock S, Sharma U, Subban P, et al.: Teacher self-efficacy and inclusive education practices: rethinking teachers’ engagement with inclusive practices. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2022; 117: 103802. Publisher Full Text
28. Choi JH, Meisenheimer JM, McCart AB, et al.: Improving learning for all students through equity-based inclusive reform practices: effectiveness of a fully integrated schoolwide model on student reading and math achievement. Remedial Spec. Educ. 2016; 38(1): 28–41. Publisher Full Text
29. Goshu BS, Woldeamanuel MM: Education quality challenges in Ethiopian secondary schools. J. Educ. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2019; 31(2): 1–15. Publisher Full Text
30. Riani SS, Ain SQ: The role of school principal in implementing education quality management. J. Ilm. Sekol. Dasar. 2022; 6(2): 204–211. Publisher Full Text
31. Rusticus SA, Pashootan T, Mah A: What are the key elements of a positive learning environment? Perspectives from students and faculty. Learn. Environ. Res. 2023; 26(1): 161–175. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
32. Yan Putra A, Fahmi M: The role of principal leadership in improving educational quality: insights from Indonesia. PPSDP Int. J. Educ. 2025; 4(2): 568–573.
33. Louis KS, Murphy J, Smylie M: Caring leadership in schools: findings from exploratory analyses. Educ. Adm. Q. 2016; 52(2): 310–348. Publisher Full Text
34. Lee C, Camburn EM, Sebastian J: School context, school leaders’ data-informed decision making, and student achievement: evidence from Florida. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 2025; 36(1): 45–70. Publisher Full Text
35. Kilag OKT, Sasan JM: Unpacking the role of instructional leadership in teacher professional development. Adv. Qual. Res. 2023; 1(1): 63–73. Publisher Full Text
36. Abrams LM, Varier D, Mehdi T: The intersection of school context and teachers’ data use practice: implications for an integrated approach to capacity building. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2021; 69: 100868. Publisher Full Text
37. Juhaidi A, Fitria A, Hidayati N, et al.: Examining factors influencing enrolment intention in Islamic higher education in Indonesia: does Islamic senior high school matter? Soc. Sci. Hum. Open. 2025; 11: 101243. Publisher Full Text
38. Qadach M, Schechter C, Da’as R: From principals to teachers to students: exploring an integrative model for predicting students’ achievements. Educ. Adm. Q. 2020; 56(5): 736–778. Publisher Full Text

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

© 2026 Wijanarko GW et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status:

AWAITING PEER REVIEW

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 04 Aug 2026

Comment

Схожие новости

#	Наименование новости	Информативность	Дата публикации
1	Reflective Practice and Teacher Growth Mindset in Collaborative School Cultures: The Moderating Role of Professional Learning Community among Indonesian In-Service Teachers [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]	6.16	07-08-2026
2	Effectiveness and Implementation of Teacher Quality Improvement Policies: A Systematic Literature Review [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]	5.53	15-07-2026
3	AI-Supported Literacy Ecosystems in Elementary Education: Preparing Future Skills for Lifelong Learning and Vocational Development [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]	11.4	06-08-2026
4	Policy, Governance, and Global–Local Tensions in Teacher Professional Development and Educational Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]	7.12	05-08-2026
5	Leading beyond the Job Description: Investigating the Association between Principals’ Leadership Styles and Teachers’ Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in North Wollo Secondary Schools [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]	10.66	20-07-2026
6	Women Leadership in Educational Institutions: A Systematic Literature Review [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]	5.98	22-07-2026
7	A Social Interdependence-Based Cooperative Learning Model for Fostering Collaboration Skills in Pre-Service Teacher Education [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]	9.98	27-07-2026
8	Determinants of Khmer-Vietnamese Bilingual Education Effectiveness: A Multi-Layer Ecosystem Perspective from the Mekong Delta, Vietnam [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]	12.88	27-07-2026
9	Teacher Enjoyment and Attitudes Toward Student Struggles in Mathematics: Evidence from Indonesian Elementary Schools [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]	6.38	07-08-2026
10	From ESP-Permissive to ESP-Driven: Recontextualizing English in Indonesia’s Vocational Curriculum [version 1; peer review: 1 approved]	11.54	27-07-2026

Классификация: . Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 10. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 11.64. Источник: f1000research.com.

Вход на сайт

Просмотр новости

Найдите то, что Вас интересует

Do instructional leadership, budget management, and teacher reflection predict literacy and numeracy achievement? [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

Дата публикации: 04-08-2026 08:32:41

Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

Схожие новости