Do High Schools in South Korea Need More Female Principals? The Relationship between Gender and Leadership Performance

Introduction

A well-educated and well-trained population is essential to South Korea’s social and economic development. With respect to the quality of education, South Korea is one of top-ranked countries in the world. South Korean student achievement has ranked highly among OECD countries for the past decade (OECD, 2011)¹. Societal emphasis on education and the availability of highly qualified teachers are critical to students’ high performance levels. In particular, principals play a vital role in the successful performance of the schools they lead (Friedman, 2002; Krüger et al., 2007; Leithwood et al., 2010; Louis et al., 2010; Nettles & Herrington, 2007; Marks & Printy, 2003; Valentine & Prater, 2011). Principals contribute to improvements in student performance by influencing the conditions and climate of the school. A number of researchers have investigated the impact of school principal gender on student performance. Female principals were found to have positive influences on student achievement and job satisfaction among teachers (Brooks & Jones, 2010; Eagly & Carli, 2003; Hallinger et al., 1996; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Min, 2005; Pavan & Reid, 1994).

However, female principals and teachers have faced obstacles in the labor market in South Korea. Although the female teacher workforce has been increasing in elementary and secondary schools, the proportion of female teachers is still below the OECD average. Moreover, the proportion of female principals in the secondary school sector is the lowest among all OECD countries (OECD, 2010)². It seems unusual that so few female teachers are promoted to principal positions. We investigated the performance of female principals in South Korea and its effects on student achievement in order to determine whether the lower proportion of female school principals in secondary schools was attributable to their performance, cultural gender stereotypes, or other causes.

Despite the strong association between female principals and school and/or student performance noted in previous research, there have been few empirical studies confirming the relationship between the various types of performance of female principals and student achievement in the context of South Korean education (Min, 2005). The purpose of the present study was to examine the different performance patterns of male and female high school principals and their impact on student achievement. In particular, we focused on general high schools in metropolitan areas in South Korea. This is because general high schools in other parts of South Korea have an even smaller proportion of female school principals. The study investigated how male and female principals perform differently. It also analysed the extent to which these differences influence student academic achievement. Based on the study results, the study discussed the benefits that would result from an increase in the number of female high school principals.

Literature Review

Female Principal Workforce in South Korea

The educational system of South Korea is strongly government-centralised (FNBE, 2012; Kim et al., 2006). Although the system consists of three levels – central, macro-regional, and local – the central government is basically in charge of school funding and staffing, including the careers and advancement opportunities of teachers and principals. Thus, a principal’s role is relatively narrow, focusing on the management and supervision of a school according to guidance from the central government (Ministry of Education, 2013).

Principals in South Korea are appointed either via promotion or invitation (Kim et al., 2006). The promotion process involves a procedure in which principals are selected through an intensive review of candidates, including vice principals, school inspectors, and research officers. The invitation procedure involves inviting suitable principal certificate holders to apply for the vacant principal post at a school. Through multiphase processes, principals are appointed by the President of South Korea (FNBE, 2012). The term for principals is four years; they can serve up to eight years through serving two consecutive terms (FNBE, 2012; Kim et al., 2006). Teachers must first hold a vice principal position for three years in order to become a principal. Vice principals are selected through a promotion process similar to the one for principals (Joo, 2004).

The number of female teachers in elementary and secondary schools in South Korea has increased over the past 22 years, as shown in Table 1. In 2012, the total number of female teachers in elementary and secondary schools was 275,922 and of male teachers 149,470. In elementary schools and middle schools, the number of female teachers was higher than that of male teachers. In high schools, the number of male teachers was similar to that of female teachers.

However, as shown in Table 2, the gender ratio among principals remains highly unbalanced. Although the proportion of female principals has been increasing since 1990, the gender imbalance is still apparent. In 2012 the relative number of female principals in elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools was 28.2%, 22.7%, and 8.4% respectively. The proportion of female principals in high schools was especially low. In high schools, female teachers may have less access to leadership roles because there are more male teachers than female teachers. This may create masculine environments in high schools in South Korea and thus perpetuate prejudice and gender stereotypes that work against female teachers and principals.

Table 1

Changing Proportions of Female Teachers in Elementary and Secondary Schools

Table 2

Changing Proportions of Female Principals in Elementary and Secondary Schools

The gender imbalance among principals in South Korea becomes more obvious when the situation is compared to that in other countries. As shown in Figure 1, the relative number of female teachers in South Korea during 2007 and 2008 was 64.4%, ranking South Korea 16th out of 23 countries. The relative number of female principals in South Korea during 2007 and 2008 was 15.0%, placing South Korea second to last out of 23 countries.

Figure 1

Relative Number of Female Teachers and Principals in Schools Providing Lower Secondary EducationSource: OECD, 2010

Despite the increase in the female teacher workforce, studies from various countries have recognised problems relating to the under-representation of female principals (Arar & Oplatka, 2013; Brinia, 2011; Coleman, 2007; Shapira et al., 2011; Shakeshaft et al., 2007). For instance, in the case of the Arab education system in Israel, it is not as easy for female teachers to obtain a principal’s position as it is for male teachers (Arar & Abu-Rabia-Queder, 2011, cited as Arar & Oplatka, 2013). Arar and Oplatka (2013) indicated that cultural backgrounds affect the perceptions and attitudes of principals and teachers within schools. There are various cultural barriers, such as sex-discriminatory working conditions and sex-role stereotyping, for women entering school leadership positions. South Korea is no exception in this regard. Cultural background is a critical issue of female workforce in South Korea.

Traditional and new gender roles of women seem to coexist in South Korea (Kim & Han, 1996; Kong, 1997; Eun, 2007). Women with traditional gender roles based on Confucianism were required to obey to men, and they were supposed to stay at home, not dealing with public affairs (Kong, 1997). However, with a rapid increase of women’s education and labor participation over the past three decades, women in South Korea became enlightened with the notion of equal rights between women and men in roles, educational opportunity, social participation, and family values. Although South Korea seems to be moving towards a gender equal society, distorted thinking about gender roles and prejudices against women still remain. These residual attitudes consistently place Korean women in lower positions, lead them to be treated as less important than men, exclude them from prestigious occupations, and alienate them from politics (Kim & Han, 1996; Kong, 1997).

Research Methods

Data and Sampling

The data used is from Seoul Education Longitudinal Study of 2010 (SELS 2010). The Seoul Education Research and Information Institute (SERII) has been collecting longitudinal data since 2010 to facilitate the understanding of the structure and characteristics of all public and private schools, from elementary to high schools, in Seoul, South Korea. SELS 2010 used two-stage stratified cluster random sampling. The process involved first sampling schools and then sampling students. The data collected covered education-related information from students, teachers, principals and parents, and concrete information about the schools, such as numbers of students, teachers, and classrooms.

The present study focused on high school data. The analysis covered a total of 5,235 students and 78 general high schools. Most of the principals in the data sample were male (85.9%) and there were only 11 female principals (14.1%) in the data sample (Table 3). Every school principal and a total of 4,408 students completed response forms. Schools with female principals were more likely to have more female students than male students (Table 4).

Table 3

Number of Principals by Gender

Table 4

Number of Students by Gender of School Principal

Measures

There were two sets of variables at the student level: academic achievement and school satisfaction. Academic achievement was the schooling outcome, with three items describing the average scores of national-level achievement test for general high school students in three subject areas (Korean, English, and mathematics). Every student in general high school must take the national-level achievement test each year. The present study used the mean value of three subjects as an indicator of academic achievement. The mean score of academic achievement in the present study was 54.46. Student school satisfaction is another schooling outcome variable, with eight items, each scored on a five-point Likert scale. The scale has an acceptable inter-item reliability coefficient of 0.80.

There were five variables at the school level, namely the relationship between principal and teachers, the relationship between principal and other stakeholders, class-related activities, job satisfaction, and teacher–student ratio. Table 5 presents these variables in detail, with coding information. Cronbach’s alpha value of job satisfaction of the principal was 0.71, the relationship between the principal and teachers was 0.79, and the relationship between the principal and other stakeholders 0.87.

Table 5 shows the means and standard deviations of student academic achievement, dependent variables, explanatory variables, and coding information.

Table 5

Student- and School-Level Variables

Results

In this following section, the present study provides t-test analyses to examine gender differences in the performance of high school principals, and two-level HLM analyses to assess the relationship between school performance of principals and their student academic achievement.

Table 6 shows that there was a significant difference in student academic achievement between schools with female principals and those with male principals, t (5,168)=−9.18, p < 0.001. The gender of the principal also showed an association with school satisfaction among high school students, t (5,147)=−2.71, p < 0.01. These results showed that schools with female principals had better student academic outcomes and higher rates of school satisfaction.

Table 6

Student Achievement and School Satisfaction among Students

Table 7 shows the mean differences between the genders in their school performance. Female principals had better relationships with their teachers than male principals, t (77)=−2.04, p < 0.05, and reported higher levels of job satisfaction than male principals, t (77)=−2.47, p < 0.05, that is to say that male principals spent average below 2-4 hours per week, and female principals did average above 4-6 hours. Female principals tended to spend more time participating in school board meetings than male principals, t (77)=−2.09, p < 0.05, and paid more attention to their professional development than male principals t (77)= −2.13, p < 0.05. These gender gaps were still evident in class-related activities such as curriculum-related activities and encouraging teachertraining (Table 7). Female principals expended more effort on curriculum-related activities than did male principals, t (77)=−1.96, p < 0.05. They also made greater efforts to arrange teachers’ training and re-training, t (77)=−2.49, p < 0.05. Based on the t-test results shown in Table 6 and 7, the study found that gender differences in school performance of principals and the impact of gender on their students’ academic achievement. Female principals did perform better for their schools and their students had higher academic achievement than male principals’ students.

Table 7

School Principals’ Performance by Gender

To examine the relationship between school performance of principals and their students’ academic achievement, the study utilized a two-level HLM. For the unconditional model of HLM, Table 8 shows that the overall mean of student achievement was 54.56, and this differed significantly in inter- and intra-school analyses. The null hypothesis of no variance in the average student achievement between the schools was rejected, x² (1, N=4225)=3121.05, p < 0.001 (Table 8). This means that 43% (210.63/486.07) of the variance was between the schools and there was significant inter-school variance that could be modelled. The remaining 47% was at the student level.

Table 8

Unconditional Model Results of Student and School Variables on Student Achievement

For level 1, intra-school analysis, the second step in the multilevel analysis was to build a level 1 regression model using student-level variables as predictors of student achievement. The level 1 model included student satisfaction as the student-level predictor. As shown in Table 9, school satisfaction among high school students was found to be positively related to their academic achievement (b = 7.75, p < 0.01). The proportion variance is explained at level 1 by (275.44−267.49)/275.44 = 0.03 (Table 8). This means that using student-level school satisfaction as a predictor of student achievement reduced the intra-school variance by 3%.

Table 9

Conditional Model Results of Student‐Level Variables on Student Achievement

At level 2, school-level analysis, the extent to which the adjusted variations in the average of student achievement (the intercept) could be explained by the combined effects of the level 2 and level 1 predictors was examined. Six inter-school (level 2) predictors of student achievement were examined: relationship between principal and teachers, relationship between principal and other educators, number and allocation of hours worked by the principal, job satisfaction, teacher–student ratio, and class-related activities performed by the principal. As in the intraschool model, each effect was adjusted for all other effects. In this way, the school satisfaction of high school students, which is a level 1 variable shown in Table 10, is controlled in this analysis.

Model 3 in Table 10 shows that, after controlling for student-level variables, two of the six school structural variables had a significant effect on student performance: teacher–student ratio and class-related activities performed by the principal. The cross-level interaction between students’ school satisfaction and the teacher–student ratio was significant (b = -3.06, p < 0.01) and the interaction between students’ school satisfaction and class-related activities performed by the principal was also statistically significant (b = 12.62, p < 0.05). It means that the more class-related activities of principals, the higher academic achievement of their students. The regression coefficient connecting principals’ performance to student academic achievement continued to be statistically significant. In the model 3, the regression coefficient connecting students’ school satisfaction to their academic achievement was not significant even though student satisfaction is positively associated with academic achievement at the student level in the model 2. It means that the school performance is strong relationship with students’ academic achievement than their school satisfaction. The two-level HLM results provide that the performance of school principals was found to have a significant effect on student achievement. The proportion variance could be explained at level 1 by (275.44−191.97)/275.44=0.30. Thus, using student-level school satisfaction as a predictor of student achievement reduced the intra-school variance by 30%.

Table 10

Conditional Model Results: School‐Level Variables and Student Achievement

Discussion and Conclusion

The present study was performed on a sample of high schools and first-year students in South Korea. It was based on secondary data collected using SELS 2010.The study investigated the relationships between academic achievement at the student level and school principals’ performance as school-level predictors. Overall, the conclusion was that there are significant associations between the school-level predictors and students’ academic achievement. The performance of school principals was found to have a significant effect on student achievement. There were also significant gender differences in principals’ performance in five respects. First, female principals acted creatively in constructing a school environment. Female principals are more likely than male principals to introduce and support strong programs for staff development, to encourage innovation, and to experiment with instructional approaches. Second, female principals were found to have better relationships with teachers. As several studies (Blackmore, 1993; Eagly et al., 1995; Grogan, 2005) have indicated, female principals tend to have a greater focus on social relationships, and they have an influence on more equitable and inclusive school surroundings. Third, female principals were found to expend more effort than male principals on class-related activities, such as curriculum development and teacher training. These school principal leadership activities impacted on student achievement. It may be that female principals are likely to stress the importance of instructional competence in teachers and to be attentive to task completion within instructional programs, as suggested by Grogan and Brunner (2005b). At the same time, more female than male principals build school-wide communities that can help foster the academic and social growth of the student (Grogan & Brunner, 2005a). Grogan and Brunner (2005a) explain why female principals produce better performance in school: women have a strong interest in the education of the whole child and in looking out for those who are most at risk, and also view the position of leader in the school as an attractive opportunity to make a difference for children and their families. Fourth, female principals have a stronger commitment than male principals to the school and to their own profession. The results of the study show that they more likely to undergo more hours of professional development and to participate in more school board meetings than their male counterparts. According to Brunner and Grogan (2007), female principals have spent more time in the school than men before they take formal leadership positions such as principal or superintendent. It is much harder for women to attain these higher positions, so they work twice as hard as men (Kim, 2013; Lee et al., 2005). Lastly, female principals spend on average two more hours per week than male principals participating in school board meetings. There are two main views on this. According to Grogan (2005), female principals value these meetings more highly than male principals, and are much more likely to include teachers in the groups providing input. Thus, female principals appear to be situating their leadership efforts within the larger community. Strachan (1999) indicated female principals are active and creative in constructing their own leadership practice to effectively fit the needs of their students. Coleman (2005) presented another perspective, suggesting that female principals in secondary schools often have psychological problems, such as feelings of isolation or marginalization in meetings, because they are working with a majority of male head teachers in their region. For instance, a female principal stated, “I was surprised at the first meeting because I am not ‘just a school teacher’” (p. 12). Female principals might need more time to cope with such a male-centric atmosphere.

These significant gender differences in principal performance in high schools come not from biological differences, but from principals’ perception of gender, which is socially constructed, and from the patriarchal society and school culture. Many scholars (Coleman, 2005; Grogan, 2005; Skrla, 2003; Young, 2003, 2005) have indicated that imbalance and discrimination exist in organizational settings, in areas such as recruitment, hiring, promoting, salary, and benefits. These difficulties merely scratch the surface of the inequities that have an impact on women in educational leadership, yet the perception persists that women have achieved equity (Skrla, 2003). According to Grogan (2005), very few female educators serve in the head position in school, which means that there are few role models and few opportunities to even discuss the possibility. The fact is that we still have a long way to go before equity for South Korean female principals is truly achieved.

Although female high school principals were found to perform better than male high school principals, the labor market for female educators is still very weak compared with the market for male educators. There are various factors that are relevant in gender leadership issues, such as national culture, society, workplace culture, nature of the organization, and organizational demographics (Pounder & Coleman, 2002). In particular, Confucianism, a key feature of South Korea’s national culture, has created a stronger culture than exists in Western society. South Korea is a highly conservative and male-oriented society, and the public school system reflects this situation (Sohn & Kenney, 2007). This hierarchical and conservative education system has created significant obstacles for female teachers. The glass ceiling effect is driven by prejudice and stereotypes that work against female principals, and it may hinder their promotion and entry into leadership positions. Confucianism, a representative ethical system followed in much of East Asia, focuses on the subordination of a woman to a man, and favors a strong cultural preference for a son (Collins & Bosworth, 1996; Wang & Yao, 2003). These attitudes may contribute to the imbalance in the pool of potential principals. These patriarchal cultural values subject women to expectations of submissiveness and may create inequalities between women and men (Mestry & Schmidt, 2012). This also creates barriers for career women who aspire to managerial positions, as well as barriers to entry into the labor market.

Significant decreases in school effectiveness in South Korea will continue unless the performance of female principals is recognized and valued. Female teachers need to be encouraged and promoted to principal positions. Leadership opportunities need to be open to both female and male teachers equally. It is necessary to create the conditions and climate in high schools in which female teachers may aspire to be principals, and in which principals are encouraged to play effective roles. By increasing the number of women who enter leadership roles in South Korean high schools, workforce diversity and school effectiveness may be enhanced, and such changes may help to improve the public school system in South Korea.

Ideally schools should be prepared to improve equality in their work environments, including hiring, promotion, and other work-related opportunities. Schools should also be ready to implement active policies to reflect female professionalism and experiences, or systems for the advancement of principals, not only for women, but also for men. A more balanced and equitable school environment may have a positive influence on students as well as on future principals.

This quantitative approach has limitations in terms of capturing the gender differences between school principals in depth. For future research, it will be very important to employ qualitative research methods to reveal the perceptions and experiences of both women and men about how they form their professional identity, what gender behaviors are rewarded in each case, how divisions of labor are organized in schools and in wider society, and how gender behaviors are performed in rural and suburban school surroundings.

References

• Arar, K., & Oplatka, I., (2013), Gender debate and teachers' constructions of masculinity vs. femininity of school principals: The case of Muslim teachers in Israel, School Leadership & Management, 33(1), p97-112. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.723620]
• Beck, L. G., (1992), Meeting the challenge of the future: The place of a caring ethic in educational administration, American Journal of Education Aug, p454-496. [https://doi.org/10.1086/444025]
• Blackmore, J., (1993), In the shadow of men: The historical construction of educational administration as a masculinist enterprise. In J. Blackmore & J. Kenway (Eds.), Gender matters in educational administration and policy: A feminist introduction, London: Falmer Press, p27-47.
• Brinia, V., (2011), Female educational leadership in primary education in Greece: A theoretical framework based on experiences of female school leaders, International Studies in Educational Administration, 39(3), p37-58.
• Brooks, M., & Jones, L., (2010), Middle school principals: The relations between gender and years of administrative experience to school’s academic growth trends, National forum of educational administration and supervision journal, 27(4), p1-4.
• Brunner, C., & Grogan, M., (2007), Women leading school systems: Uncommon roads to fulfillment, Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
• Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W., (1992), Hierarchical linear models, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Bryk, A., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q., (2010), Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226078014.001.0001]
• Chapman, J. D., (1988), A model for shared decision making in the school principalship, Educational Administration Quarterly, 3, p49-61.
• Coleman, M., (2004), Gender and headship in 2004: Reflections on work in progress, Management in Education, 18(4), p23-27. [https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206040180040501]
• Coleman, M., (2005), Gender and headship in 2004: Reflections on work in progress, Management in Education, 33(2), p3-20.
• Coleman, M., (2007), Gender and educational leadership in England: A comparison of secondary headteachers’ views over time, School Leadership and Management, 27(4), p383-399.
• Collins, S. M., & Bosworth, B. P., (1996), Economic growth in East Asia: accumulation versus assimilation, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, p135-199. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2534621]
• Cotton, K., (2003), Principals and student achievement: What the research says, Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development(ASCD).
• Diquinzio, P., (1993), Exclusion and essentialism in feminist theory: the problem of mothering, Hypatia, 8(3), p1-20. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1993.tb00033.x]
• Duke, D., Shower, B. K., & Imbers, M., (1980), Teachers and shared decision making: The costs and benefits of involvement, Educational Administration Quarterly, 16, p93-106. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X8001600108]
• Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L., (2003), The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence, The Leadership Quarterly, 14, p807-834. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004]
• Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B.T., (1990), Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis, CHIP Documents, Paper 11. Retrieved June 10, 2013, from http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/chip_docs/11.
• Eagly, A., Karau, S., & Makhijani, M., (1995), Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: a meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 117, p125-145.
• Eun, K. S., (2007), A comparative analysis of the changes in the values and attitudes toward gender equality and gender roles in Korea, The Review of Korean Studies, 10(5), p11-29.
• Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE), (2012), International survey on educational leadership: a survey on school leader’s work and continuing education. Retrieved June 12, 2013, from http://www.oph.fi/download/143319_International_survey_on_educational_leadership.PDF.
• Frank, K., (1999), Quantitative methods for studying social context in multilevels and through interpersonal relations, Review of Research in Education, 23, p171-216. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1167290]
• Friedman, I.A., (2002), Burnout in school principals: Role related antecedents, Social Psychology of Education, 5, p229-251.
• Gilligan, C., (1982), In a different voice: psychological theory and women's development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Grogan, M., (2005), Echoing their ancestors, women lead school districts in the United States, International Studies on Educational Administration, 33(2), p21-30.
• Grogan, M., & Brunner, C., (2005a), Women superintendents and role conceptions: (Un) Troubling the norms, In L. Björk & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), School District Superintendents: Role Expectations, Professional Preparation, Development and Licensing (pp. 227-250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Grogan, M., & Brunner, C., (2005b), Women leading systems: what the latest facts and figures say about women in the superintendency today, School Administrator, 62(2), p46-50.
• Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K., (1996), School context, principal leadership, and student reading achievement, The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), p527-549. [https://doi.org/10.1086/461843]
• Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H., (1996), Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995, Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(5), p5-44.
• Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H., (1998), Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995, Educational Administration Quarterly, 9, p157-191.
• Held, V., (2006), The ethics of care: personal, political and global, NY: Oxford university press, Inc.
• Howell, S. L., Chater, V. K., & Schied, F. M., (2002), Gender and Women’s experience at work: a critical and feminist perspective on human resource development, Adult Education Quarterly, 52, p112-127.
• Joo, S. H., (2004), A comparative study on principals’ initial training, selection and professional development between Korea and USA, The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 21(3), p389-409.
• Kim, E., Kim, K., Kim, D., & Kim, E., (2006), Improving school leadership country background report for Korea, Korean Educational Development Institute. Retrieved May 15, 2013, from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/39279389.pdf.
• Kim, H., (2013), Explore career development of female recently obtained doctoral degree in education, The Journal of Digital Policy & Management, 11(12), p685-696. [https://doi.org/10.14400/JDPM.2013.11.12.685]
• Kim, Y. H., & Han, J. H., (1996), Korean women’s consciousness of sex-roles, marriage and child-rearing, Asian Women, 2, p149-172.
• Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R., (2006), The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(4), p319-333. [https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160404]
• Kong, M. H., (1997), Rethinking women’s status and liberation in Korea, Paper presented at the Conference on Asia-Europe relations, Asia House Essen and Heinrich-Boell-Foundation, Soset. Retrieved June 25, 2013, from http://www.Asienhaus.org/publikat/tagung97/kong.htm.
• Krüger, M. L., Witziers, B., & Sleegers, P., (2007), The impact of school leadership on school level factors: Validation of a causal model, school effectiveness and school improvement, An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 18(1), p1-20.
• Lee, S-E., Kwon, L-L., & Yoon, Y-H, ., (2005), Role and advancement of the female elementary principal from the perspective of eco-feminism, Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 22(3), p123-142.
• Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D., (2010), Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning, Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), p671-706. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10377347]
• Locher, B., & Prügl, E., (2001), Feminism and constructivism: worlds apart or sharing the middle ground?, International Studies Quarterly, 45, p111-129. [https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00184]
• Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K., (2010), How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey, school effectiveness and school improvement, An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 21(3), p315-336.
• Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M., (2003), Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership, Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), p370-397. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03253412]
• Mestry, R., & Schmidt, M., (2012), A feminist postcolonial examination of female principals’ experiences in South African secondary schools, Gender and Education, 24(5), p535-551.
• Min, M. S., Analysis of teachers’ perception on the leadership effectiveness of male and female principals, (2005), Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(3), p153-178.
• Ministry of Education and Science Technology of South Korea, (2012), 2012 Education Statistics in South Korea.
• Ministry of Education, (2013), Education system: secondary education. Retrieved May 15, 2013, from http://english.moe.go.kr/web/1696/site/contents/en/en_0206.jsp.
• Morris, J., (1999), Managing women: secondary school principals in Trinidad and Tobago, Gender and Education, 11(3), p343-355. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09540259920627]
• Nettles, S., & Herrington, C., (2007), Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy, Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), p724-736. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560701603239]
• OECD, (2010), Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First Results from TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• OECD, (2011), Education and Skill. How’s life? Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Pavan, B. N., & Reid, N. A., (1994), Effective urban elementary schools and their women administrators, Urban Education, 28(4), p425-438. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085994028004007]
• Pounder, J., & Coleman, M., (2002), Women – better leaders than men? In general and educational management it still “all depends”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), p122-133.
• Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E., (2012), The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning, Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), p626-663. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11436273]
• Shakeshaft, C., Brown, G., Irby, B. J., Grogan, M., & Ballenger, J., (2007), Increasing gender equity in educational leadership. Handbook for achieving gender equity through education, Retrieved May 25, 2013, from http://welv.org/GenderEquityArticle.pdf, 2, p103-129.
• Shapira, T., Arar, K., & Azaiza, F., (2011), ‘They didn’t consider me and no-one even took me into account’: Female school principals in the Arab education system in Israel, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(1), p25-43.
• Skrla, L., (2003), Normalized femininity: Reconsidering research on women in the superintendency. In M. D. Young & L. Skrla (Eds.), Reconsidering Feminist Research in Educational Leadership, p247-264, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Sohn, D. W., & Kenney, M., (2007), Universities, clusters, and innovation system: The case of Seoul, Korea, World Development, 35(6), p991-1004. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.05.008]
• Strachan, J., (1999), Feminist educational leadership: Locating the concepts in practice, Gender and Education, 11(3), p309-322. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09540259920609]
• Strachan, J., (2002), Feminist educational leadership: not for the fainthearted. In C. Reynolds (Ed.), Women and school leadership: international perspectives, p111-126, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M., (2011), Instructional, transformational, and managerial leadership and student achievement: High school principals make a difference, NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), p5-30. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636511404062]
• Wang, Y., & Yao, Y., (2003), Sources of China’s economic growth 1952-1999: Incorporating human capital accumulation, China Economic Review, 14(1), p32-52.
• Young, M., (2003), Troubling Policy Discourse: Gender, Constructions, and the Leadership Crisis. In M. D. Young, & L. Skrla (Eds.), Reconsidering Feminist Research in Educational Leadership, p265-298, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Young, M., (2005), Shifting away from women’s issues in education leadership in the US: evidence of backlash?, International Studies in Educational Administration, 33(2), p31-42.