International Journal of Educational Research 80 (2016) 37–48

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate / i jedures

Diverse schools and uneven principal leadership in SaudiArabia

Saeed Aburizaizaha, Yoonjeon Kimb, Bruce Fullerb,*aUniversity of Jeddah, [10_TD$DIFF]Saudi ArabiabUniversity of California, Berkeley, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 2 May 2016Accepted 22 August 2016Available online xxx

Keywords:School organizationsLeadershipMiddle east

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: b_fuller@berkeley.edu (

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.08.0070883-0355/ã 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights

B. Fuller

reserved

A B S T R A C T

A variety of middle schools has flourished in Saudi Arabia – publicly funded, private, orinternational in character – as government tries to keep pace with rising family demand.This widening diversity of schools prompts questions over the social-class and ethnicdifferences of families served, and whether educational quality varies in consequentialways. We first describe the attributes of pupils enrolled in and qualities of 135 Jeddahmiddle schools, then estimate the extent to which school auspice predicts three elementsof school quality (associated with pupil achievement) – length of instructional time, theprincipal’s focus on instructional rigor, and organizational cohesion among teachers. Theseestimates take into account pupil attributes, enrollment size, and the adequacy of materialinputs. We find that private middle schools serve more advantaged pupils and displayhigher quality, compared with government-run schools, but no quality advantages forschools run by international sponsors were observed. Levels of instructional materials [83_TD$DIFF]

displayed little relation to the intensity of principal leadership or the social cohesion ofteachers inside schools. Implications for equity and government policy are discussed.

ã 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Diverse schools and [84_TD$DIFF]principal leadership in Saudi Arabia

Societies around the globe host a widening diversity of school organizations – spurred by discontent over standardizedforms and bureaucraticmanagement, alongwith the press formarket-friendly policies.Where governments struggle to keeppace with rising family demand, the count of private or international schools continues to grow. Many central governmentsalso attempt to decentralize school management, hoping to spur innovation and greater effectiveness locally. This mayinvolve vesting principalswith greater authority over budgets and teacher hiring, aiming to improve pedagogical practices orflexibility in responding to family preferences (Akkari, 2004; Fuller, 2015; Lockheed & Verspoor, 1991; Zajda & Gamage,2009).

Saudi Arabia offers one case in point, where demand for [85_TD$DIFF]schooling continues to climb, including for middle schools,expressed by native-born Saudi and foreign-born parents, often seeking English-medium instruction. As governmentstruggles to meet the rising cost of secondary education, it has allowed a variety of private and international schools toexpand, typically charging fees, while following the government curriculum (Prokop, 2003).

).

.

38 S. Aburizaizah et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 80 (2016) 37–48

We first examine how students and families differ among three education subsectors – government, international, andprivate schools – drawing froma survey of 135middle-school principals across the city of Jeddah conducted in 2014.We thenfocus on three domains of educational quality that help to predict student achievement: instructional time,principalleadership that focuses on instructional rigor and pedagogical gains, and social cohesion among teachers.

We find sharp differences in the language and social-class background of pupils served across the three types of middleschools. Private schools – but not international schools – display stronger educational quality than government schools, evenafter taking into account the types of families served and the adequacy of instructional materials. We place these findings inthe context of how governments respond to rising family demand [86_TD$DIFF]and widening inequalities that may result fromdiversifying forms of schooling.

1.1. Differing family preferences, diverse school organizations

The confluence of two forces prompt concern over howeducational qualitymay vary among differing types of schools, bethey run by government or private agencies. First, as many governments in the Middle East and North Africa achieveduniversal access to primary schooling, they soon faced rising demand for secondary education (Hamdan, 2015; Srivastava &Walford, 2016).

Second, the appeal of diverse forms of schooling has grown over the past generation in the eyes of many parents andpolicy makers. Diversifying forms of schooling, including a liberalized private sector, have become attractive to parentsseeking higher quality schools or types that match their educational philosophy or religious convictions (Hanushek, Kain,Rivkin, & Branch, 2006). Many government leaders, at times prompted by international donors, also have come to viewprivate or international schools as hosting higher quality and efficiency, allegedly offering inventive pedagogies or matchingparents’ differing preferences (Essid, Ouellette, & Vigeant, 2014; Jimenez & Lockheed, 1995).

We first turn to how this tandem press to expand secondary schooling and shift toward a public-private mix of diverseorganizations plays out in Saudi Arabia. We then advance an empirical strategy for assessing variation in school qualityamong government, international, and private schools – estimating the extent to which school auspice helps to account fordifferences in quality. We also distinguish between material inputs and social dimensions of quality, especially elements ofprincipal leadership that may nurture more cohesive, achievement oriented schools.

1.2. The growth of secondary schooling, public and private

Worries continue to grow in Saudi Arabia over the uneven quality, private cost, and disparities in achievement that mayresult from the spread of private and international schools. Whether greater public investment would necessarily raisequality remains a pressing question. Just over one-fourth of the Saudi government budget already goes for education in thisnation of 29.3 million people, equaling US$ 35.5 billion in 2010 (Al Sadaawi, 2010).

The royal family opened a handful of schools for boys in 1924, then began to expand education following the secondworldwar, as oil revenues fueled ambitious public projects. The founder of themodern Saudi state, King Abdulaziz Al-Saud, createda public-school structure, including six years of primary and three years of middle schooling, funding 226 schools by 1951(Ministry of Education, 2001). Only in 2003 did [87_TD$DIFF]government assume responsibility for the education of girls, although femaleenrollments in gender-separated institutions had crept upward since the 1960s (Al Hakami, 2004).

Fig. 1 displays historical growth in middle and senior secondary schools, along with the rising percentage of femalestudents, as reported to the World Bank (2014). By 2006 the Saudi government was aware of over 30,000 government andprivate schools operating, together enrolling over 5 million primary and secondary students (Almegidi, 2004; Ministry ofEducation, 2006).

Pressures on government persist to further expand schooling, demand that stems from families, women’s groups, andcivic leaders who worry over the nation’s dependence on foreign labor. Two-thirds of Saudi Arabia’s population is under30 years of age, although the nation’s fertility rate has begun to decline (Alyaemni, Theobald, Faragher, Jehan, & Tolhurst,2013; Eberstadt & Shah, 2012). Despite the untapped contribution of Saudi graduates to the nation’s stock of human capital,the economy still depends on foreign workers, making up 27% of the population (Alshumrani, 2007). Many speak Arabic inthe home and enroll their children in government schools. But foreign-born parents support a parallel, not-well-understoodnetwork of private schools. Women’s groups push for gender equity in government schools and comparable access to thenation’s expanding range of universities (House, 2012).

Educational quality remains awidespread concern as well, both among families and government officials (Alshaya, 2011;Trenwith, 2013). The presence of foreign populations, along with the desire of many Saudi parents to ready their children forglobal opportunities, strains government’s emphasis on Arabic as the primary language of instruction. The quality of basicfacilities and teachers remains worrisome. The education ministry increasingly rents space in private homes and officebuildings to host government schools, including 320 rented facilities in Riyadh alone (Ministry of Education, 2006). Teachershave historically delivered a centrally set curriculum in didactic fashion (Bouhlila, 2011).

This crucible of multiple pressures – aiming to expand and improve differing forms of secondary schools – has certainlyintensified in other developing nations over the past generation (Bouhlila, 2015; Fuller & Heyneman, 1989). Yet Saudi Arabiaoffers an intriguing case: while rapidly expanding access, government has struggled to lift the quality of middle-schoolteachers and principals; foreign and globally minded parents seek pedagogical innovations, often in English; and its

[(Fig._1)TD$FIG]

Fig. 1. Rising secondary school enrollment and share of pupils, female, Saudi Arabia, 1979–2011 (including breaks in reported time-series).

S. Aburizaizah et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 80 (2016) 37–48 39

widening diversity of schools hasmoved government to decentralizemanagement, even to charter additional schools ownedor operated by expatriates.

1.3. Case of Saudi Arabia—the appeal and quality of private secondary schools

The Saudi government is not alone in liberalizing the presence of non-government secondary schools, be they privateschools that serve native-born students [88_TD$DIFF]or the offspring of foreign-born parents. [89_TD$DIFF] The share of secondary pupils enrolled inprivate schools has grown over the past generation in several Arab societies, as shown in Fig. 2. UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, andQatar each display rising proportions of private school enrollments, when combining middle and senior secondaryinstitutions. Saudi Arabia, in contrast, has traditionally enrolled lower shares of students in the private sector, estimated bythe education ministry at 11% in 2007.

Saudi private schools can be split into three subgroups: (1) privates serving native-born Saudi parents and children,offering the government curriculum in Arabic, (2) religious schools that provide a combination of secular subjects and

[(Fig._2)TD$FIG]

Fig. 2. Percentage of secondary students attending private schools in the Middle East and North Africa, 1999–2013 (including breaks in reported time-series).

40 S. Aburizaizah et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 80 (2016) 37–48

Islamic instruction, and (3) schools that primarily enroll children of expatriates, campuses typically owned by foreign firms,providing instruction in English.

Little is known about the comparative quality of schools or achievement among students across these subsectors in theSaudi context. Government lightly monitors private and international schools; many do not participate in nationalexaminations. Non-government schools do not necessarily follow the official curriculum, at least those componentsdelivered in Arabic. On the other hand, parents report being attracted to private or international schools due to English-medium instruction and pedagogical techniques that are less didactic than those found in government schools.1

Overall, more than 90% of age-eligible Saudi youths attend some form of middle school, but achievement levels remainquite low, according to [90_TD$DIFF]international standards, based on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (Salehi-Isfahani, Hassine, & Assaad, 2012).2 Children from higher-income families often enroll in private or international schools,report more positive health behaviors, and perform at higher levels on tests (Farsi, Farghaly, & Farsi, 2004).

1.4. Theoretical accounts—diverse schools that reinforce unequal quality?

Scholars in the West have long studied the sorting of children into differentiated schools – at times marked by variablequality and unequal achievement levels. Our study of middle school quality across government and private sectors in theSaudi context is informed by three theoretical accounts.

Technical-functionalist accounts have long emphasized how diverse organizations sprout to advance varying social orproduction goals � serving distinct functions or roles within an industry or field (Parsons, Shils & Smelser, 1965; Weber1946). From this explanatory account, private or international schools offer variable quality, language of instruction, orpedagogies that fit diverse preferences expressed by parents.

But this functionalist account of what drives organizational differentiation has long been attacked by class-conflicttheorists, along with kindred scholars working in the sociology of markets. First, early periods of school expansion and theuniform organization of schooling do not necessarily correspond to technical or skilling demands pressed by capital (Meyer,Tyack, Nagel, & Gordon, 1979). Instead, the spread of schooling has been powered by the family’s pursuit of status or classposition, along with the state’s desire to signal membership in the modern world system (Fuller & Rubinson, 1992).

Sociologists and education scholars have long shown how channels of expressed demand for private or alternativeschools reflect the stratified character of families. More economically advantaged families or pupils with better educatedparents tend to exercise school choicemore frequently than others in theMiddle East (Salehi-Isfahani et al., 2012). The class-conflict account of differentiation also highlights how school resources – be they family attributes, teacher quality, or levelsof instructional materials – often covary with the social-class status of families, including within Saudi Arabia (Aljabri &Alahmadi, 2012; [91_TD$DIFF]Henig & Hula, 2001; House, 2012).

Finally, neoclassical economic accounts allege that market competition will spur new organizational forms, as discerningparents express differing educational preferences or migrate to higher quality schools. This, in turn, will benefit schools thatattract [92_TD$DIFF]desired students andmore effective teachers (Hanushek et al., 2006). [93_TD$DIFF]A robust private sector, alongwith government-funded schools sensitive to differentiated family demand, [94_TD$DIFF] may spur the growth of diverse institutions.

1.5. Organizational differentiation in the Saudi context

With the rise of diverse secondary schools in Saudi Arabia, worries grow that families from differing social-class, ethnic,or language groups may sort into institutions of unequal quality. This has long concerned observers of the Saudi system,going back to 1938 when the newly unified kingdom issued regulations clarifying that the Directorate of Education heldjurisdiction over all privately financed schools, not only government funded institutions (Rugh, 2002). More recentlyscholars have detailed contemporary disparities in school quality and achievement among government [95_TD$DIFF]schools in middleeastern societies (Bouhlila, 2011; Chapman & Miric, 2009; Trenwith, 2013). Less is known about the comparative quality ofthe private and international subsectors.

The Saudi government has pushed to raise and make more uniform the quality of secondary schools in recent years (AlSadaawi, 2010). But little evidence exists to judge the efficacy of these policy efforts. Data remain especially scarce when itcomes to gauging variation in academic climate, the capacity of principals to exercise instructional leadership, and socialcohesion among teachers. The qualification of teachers and discrete indicators of instructional resources (e.g., quality offacilities, class size, availability of computers) also remain important as material signs of quality.

The school-effects literature [96_TD$DIFF]urges closer examination of key features of the school’s social organization – principalinstructional leadership, academic press to achieve, teacher collaboration and cohesion – that predict growth in studentlearning (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010; Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004).

1 Two Saudi scholars have tracked pupil performance in the area of civics or social studies, comparing government and religious schools, the latter knownas Holy Quran Schools. Among the nation’s 73 religious high schools, Al-Housain, (2012) found that 37 displayed very competitive achievement results,compared with the top government high schools between 2008 and 2010. Similarly, Qiyas (2015) found that religious middle schools, on average,outperformed government schools, although this study included no statistical controls for possible differences in the family background of students.

2 We also know that middle-school girls tend to outperform boys, at least in math and science (enrollment shares have become almost equal).

S. Aburizaizah et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 80 (2016) 37–48 41

But little is know about how these [97_TD$DIFF]organizational factors operate in the Saudi context, or how these elements of quality mayvary among or within the government, private, and international subsectors.

2. Research questions and analytic strategy

Despite these competing theoretical claims, we know little about how the robust growth of diverse forms of secondaryschools in theMiddle East result in differing levels of quality. In the Saudi context, onemight argue that competition from thespread of private schoolswould spur quality gains among government-run schools. On the other hand, if disparities in schoolquality stem from the economic capacity of private and international schools to attract stronger teachers and richerinstructional materials – perhaps financed bymore affluent parents – then institutional differentiationmay reinforce social-[98_TD$DIFF]class differences, both among native Saudi and expatriate families.

This paper examines whether quality differences operate among and within the three subsectors: government, private,and international middle schools operating in Jeddah during the 2014–15 school year. We also gauge the social-organizational features of school quality, moving beyond conventional material inputs. And we focus on the role of principalleadership in nurturing more cohesive school organizations. We address these empirical questions:

RQ1. Do mean levels of middle school quality vary significantly among Saudi Arabia’s three education subsectors:government, private, and international schools?

RQ2. Towhat extent does [99_TD$DIFF]the social organization of schooling – principal instructional leadership, academic press to raisepupil achievement, and teacher engagement – vary among schools within each subsector?

RQ3. Does variation in students’ social-class (SES) attributes largely explain differences in school quality, not school type?RQ4. Towhat extent canwe explain differences in school quality based on enrollment size, facilities quality, and adequacy

of instructional materials (in addition to student characteristics)?Our analytic strategy begins by distilling key social-organizational components of school quality that have been

measured and determined to have validity in predicting [100_TD$DIFF]student achievement. We then drew a sufficient sample of Jeddahmiddle schools to ensure adequate statistical power to estimate educational quality differences among government, private,and international schools from interviews conducted with principals. Our estimation procedure, married to our researchquestions, then examines the extent to which variation in school quality can be attributed to student attributes, basicorganizational structure (e.g., enrollment size, facilities), facets of principal leadership, and levels of instructional resourcesafter taking into account subsector membership.

3. Method

3.1. Data-sampling schools and principals

We first created an inventory of all known middle schools operating in the city of Jeddah, based largely on Ministry ofEducation data, excluding religious madrasas. This yielded 209 schools of which 147 were operated by government in 2013–14. The remaining 62 middle schools were classified as private if they were owned by a private individual or agency butfollowed the government curriculum, typically offering instruction in Arabic. Of these 62 schools, 15 were classified asinternational, given that the government curriculum was not utilized and a large share of students came from expatriatefamilies. These institutions were operated by foreign individuals or firms.

We then attempted to contact and interview each principal. Among government schools, 53% agreed to participate;interviewswere completedwith 89% of the (non-international) private school principals, and all 15 directors of internationalschools agreed to be interviewed. No clear explanation arose as to why the response rate was lower for government-runschools; it may bias our results toward greater participation of higher quality government schools.

The principal interviews were conducted in Arabic or English, based on their preferred language. Each lasted between 45and 90 [101_TD$DIFF]minutes. The interview protocol asked principals about (1) the social-class and nativity of students enrolled, and theeconomic status of their immediate neighborhoods, (2) scarcities of teachers or basic instructional materials, includingcomputing and science equipment, (3) how the principal allocated his or her management time, asking most extensivelyabout time spent on observing classrooms and attempting to raise pedagogical skills via development activities, (4)perceived levels of teacher competence and knowledge of the curriculum, along with the extent to which teacherscollaborated and observed one another in classrooms, and (5) the degree to which the school suffered from problems withabsentee or tardy pupils or teachers, as well as misbehavior or disrespectful behavior among students.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Dependent variables—variation in the social organization of middle schoolsGiven our focus on social-process dimensions of educational quality, we posedmany questions to principals that fell into

five domains related to the [97_TD$DIFF]organizational features of the school. These constructs generally predict steeper growth instudent achievement, at least when studied in Western contexts, as reviewed above.

Wemeasured instructional time, for example, by obtaining the number of hours in a typical school day andmultiplying bythe number of instructional days in the year. Five items pertained to time spent by the principal on instructional leadership

42 S. Aburizaizah et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 80 (2016) 37–48

activities, including visiting classrooms, organizing developmental courses for their teachers, talking through classroomproblems, and communicating pedagogical goals to staff members. These five interview items displayed moderately stronginter-item reliability (Cronbach’s a = 0.70).

Ten four-point scales were used to derive two variables related to social cohesion and climate. A principal-componentsanalysis was conductedwith oblique rotation that resulted in a two-factor solution. The items for each factorwere examinedto determine their conceptual commonalities. Six items loaded on the first factor that pertained to the extent of collaborativework and trust among teachers. These items asked principals: “To what extent are teachers expected to work together toidentify students that need extra help, to what extent do teachers in this school support each other, and to what extent areteachers open with each other.” Response options ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4). Inter-itemreliability for this index was high (a = 0.87).

Four items loaded on a second factor, academic expectations, reflecting teacher knowledge of the curriculum and students’desire to dowell in school. These items asked [102_TD$DIFF]principals how theywould characterize teachers’ understanding of the school’scurriculum, the degree to which teachers succeed in implementing the school’s curriculum, students’ desire to do well inschool, and closeness of relationships between teachers and students. Response options ranged from lowor very low, to highor very high. These four items displayed strong inter-item reliability (a =0.76).

A composite index was created to gauge problems with teacher or student engagement, drawing on seven inter-correlateditems, including questions on the gravity of problems with teachers arriving late, more severe absenteeism, or studentsarriving late or disrupting classrooms, cheating, or verbal abuse (a = 0.91).

3.2.2. Predictors of social-organizational qualityOur research questions focus first onwhether mean differences in quality vary among the three subsectors: government,

private, and international schools. Yet any discovered associations may be due [103_TD$DIFF]to he kinds of students and families served,not attributable to school type (subsector) per se. So, we enter into an ordinary least-squares regression a compositemeasureof pupil socio-economic status (SES). This includes two items: the principal’s estimate of the share of students enrolled frompoor or disadvantaged families, andwhether the surrounding neighborhood is populatedmostly by low-income families.Wealso include the share of students enrolled who are not native-born Saudis.

Our estimationprocedure thenproceeds to enter othermaterial features of the school thatmight further explain variationin school quality. These predictors include facilities quality, the scarcity or adequacy of instructional resources, andavailability of computer equipment (which varied independently of teacher scarcity and other instructional resources). Theindex of instructional material adequacy was derived from nine four-point scales that captured the extent to which theprincipal reports shortages of instructional materials, supplies, classroom space, teachers in math or English, staff to repairfacilities, and textbooks or instructional materials (a = 0.89). The response options ranged from a lot (1) to not at all (4).Facilities quality is simply a dichotomous variable indicating that the school operates in a rented facility, not owned bygovernment or a private operator. Computer availability is expressed as the number of computers operating in the school forstudents divided by the enrollment count.

4. Findings

We present our findings in three steps. First, we report mean differences in the social-organization and quality of Jeddahmiddle schools among Saudi Arabia’s three education subsectors (RQ1). Second, we detail the degree of variationwithin eachsubsector (school type), revealingwide between-school differences, especially among government and international schools(RQ2). Third, we estimate variation in school quality based on subsector, pupil socio-economic status (SES), structuralfeatures of the school, and [104_TD$DIFF]adequacy of instructional materials. That is, variation in social organization or quality – beyondsubsector membership – could be influenced by the character of students enrolled (RQ3) or the material inputs available toteachers and students (RQ4).

4.1. Between-subsector differences in school quality

Table 1 reports differences in student attributes and school qualities for each of the three types of schools: government,private, and international auspice. We see that schools situated in each subsector serve differing mixes of students andfamilies on average. Not one principal of a private school reported that more than half the students enrolled were fromdisadvantaged homes, comparedwith one-fourth and one-fifth of government and international school principals reportingthis level of disadvantage, respectively. The standardized SES index reveals that students attending government schools are afull standard deviation (SD) below their peers in private schools, with international school students resting at the full samplemean (z score =0.02) on average. One-third of private school students are non-Saudi natives, compared with one-fourth ingovernment and fully 87% in international schools.

Turning to teacher and school qualities, we see that teachers are fully credentialed less consistently in internationalschools (78%), as well as being less experienced, relative to teachers in government and private schools: two-thirds of Arabiclanguage teachers held less than five years experience, and one-third of math teachers had less than five years experiencewithin the international subsector.

Table 1Attributes of students, teachers, principals, and middle schools in Jeddah by subsector (n =135 schools).

Government schools International schools Private schools x2 tests and F-tests betweensubsectorsa

StudentsSocio-economic status

Students from disadvantaged homesless than 10% (%)

34.6 40.0 83.3

Students from disadvantaged homesmore than 50% (%)

24.4 20.0 0.0 x2 (4) = 28.4, p<0.001

Socio-economic (SES) index score �0.35 0.02 0.65

Percentage of students from the attendance zone 39.4 45.3 43.8Percentage of students, non-Saudi natives 25.2 86.9 33.2 F(6,260) = 17.6, p<0.001

TeachersPercentage of certified teachers 98.3 77.7 92.1Years of teaching experience

Arabic teachers less than 5 years (%) 1.2 66.7 26.2Arabic teachers 10 years and more (%) 65.4 0.0 52.4 x2 (4) = 48.0, p<0.001Math teachers less than 5 years (%) 1.2 33.3 19.0Math teachers 10 years and more (%) 47.4 13.3 40.5 x2 (4) = 21.2, p<0.001

Teacher collaboration and trust (index) �0.06 �0.16 0.18 F(4,262) =3.6, p<0.01

PrincipalsA lot of time spent on student behavior problems (%) 55.1 53.3 45.2 x2 (2) = 1.1, p = 0.58A lot of time spent visiting classrooms (%) 59.0 46.7 73.8 x2 (2) = 4.3, p = 0.12A lot of time spent organizing teacher developmentactivities (%)

21.8 13.3 52.4 x2 (2) = 14.4, p<0.01

Principal instructional leadership (index) �0.11 �0.19 0.27 F(2,132) =2.3, p = 0.10

School OrganizationBasic structure

Size, total student enrollment 417 193 154Fees charged parents annually(median in Saudi riyals)

0 9,500 13,333

Pedagogy, collaboration, school climateLanguage of instruction, Arabic only (%) 96.2 0.0 88.1 x2 (2) = 83.4, p<0.001Severity of teacher, student problems (index) 0.15 0.37 �0.41Student and teacher commitment toperform well academically (index)

�0.26 0.43 0.34

Material resourcesRent school facility (%) 37.2 86.7 64.3 x2 (2) = 16.6, p<0.001Pupils per classroom 27.8 20.2 18.4Pupils per computer 27.8b 36.9b 5.5Instructional materials (index) 0.08 0.20 �0.22 F(16,234) = 15.4, p<0.001Reported teacher shortages

Serious shortage of English teachers (%) 21.8 33.3 45.2 x2 (2) = 7.2, p<0.05Serious shortage of math teachers (%) 21.8 20.0 42.9 x2 (2) = 6.54, p<0.05

All indices are standardized z-scores,*p<0.05,**p<0.01,***p<0.001.a For continuous variables, MANOVA is conducted by variable groups of student, teacher, principal, and school characteristics. Chi-squared tests are

conducted for categorical variables.b Seven government schools and one international school had no computers available.

S. Aburizaizah et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 80 (2016) 37–48 43

The character of social relations among teachers varies by subsector as well. The index of reported collaboration and trustamong teachers ranges one-third of a standard deviation (SD) higher for private school teachers, relative to internationalschool peers. This level of collaboration and trust falls in between for teachers in government schools.

Principals at private schools more frequently reported spending “a lot of time” visiting classrooms and arrangingprofessional development activities for their teachers, comparedwith principals in government or international schools. Theoverall instructional leadership index ranged almost one-half SD higher for principals in private, compared with peerssituated in international, schools.

Regarding the organizational structure of participating schools, enrollment levels in the government subsector weremuch greater (417 students on average), compared with international (193) and private counterparts (154). Average tuition

44 S. Aburizaizah et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 80 (2016) 37–48

costs ranged considerably higher in private, relative to international schools. Yearly hours of instruction rangedmuch higherin international schools on average.

The social-organizational cohesion of private schools appears to be much stronger, relative to the other two subsectors.The principal’s reported severity of problems with tardiness or absenteeism among teachers and students equals over one-half SD lower within private, compared with government, schools. The index of academic commitment among teachers andstudents is highest among international schools, rising about two-thirds SD above the mean commitment [105_TD$DIFF]reported ingovernment schools.

The ratio of pupils per classroomwasmuch higher in government schools (28:1 on average), comparedwith international(20:1) and private schools (18:1). Computers were most scarce in international schools and more abundant in privateschools.

We also examined the [106_TD$DIFF]interrelationship of social-organizational andmaterial indicators of school quality. Table 2 displayssimple correlations among subsector membership and all quality indicators, including the social-organizational indicatorsand material features of quality that may affect these social relations inside schools.

Beyond confirming between-subsector differences seen inTable 1,we also see that enrollment size (higher in governmentschools) tends to be associated with weaker material resources. Principals at larger schools reported lower availability ofcomputer technology (r =�0.56). Larger schools – mostly under government auspice – tended not to locate in rentedfacilities, compared with smaller private or international schools.

We also observe relationships among the social-organizational indicators of quality. For instance, stronger instructionalleadership of principals is positively associated with greater teacher collaboration (r= 0.25) and greater expectations amongteachers and students to perform well in school (r= 0.22). Teacher collaboration and higher expectations are correlated atr= 0.49 as well.

These correlations overall suggest weak relationships between material indicators of quality and social-organizationalfeatures – with the exception of resource shortages. We test below in a regression environment whether material facets ofquality are related to social-organizational dimensions when including all covariates in the estimation models.

4.2. Variation in quality among schools within subsectors

Let’s turn next to variation within subsectors, displayed for key indicators. Panel A in Fig. 3 for example, shows thedistribution of the pupil-SES index for each subsector. The vertical axis reports the percentage of cases that hold the indexscores displayed on the horizontal axis (standardized z-scores).

We see that pupil-SES levels vary quite evenly across the 78 participating government schools. Private schools servedhigher SES students, and the distribution is skewed toward those with high index scores, compared with peers attendinggovernment or international schools. The latter set of schools tends to host slightly higher SES pupils, relative to governmentschools, while this distribution is spread fairly evenly. This is an important discovery: international middle schools serve awide variety of students in terms of their social-class background, unlike private schools, which consistently serve better-offfamilies. [107_TD$DIFF]

Panel B showwide variability in annual fees or tuition charged to parents, although the modal level equals about 10,000Saudi riyals (about US$ 2700). International schools, in contrast, have a slightly lower modal fee level, but a much narrowerdistribution across the 15 schools in our sample. These feesmay be paid by parents or by employers as a benefit of expatriateemployment.

Fig. 4 displays variation within each subsector for the two social-organizational features (dependent variables). Panel Ashow differing distributions of the level of problemswith teacher and student engagement. Themodal level for governmentschools falls just below the standardized mean (zero), yet schools are widely distributed on this variable. Private schools

Table 2Correlations between school subsector, dependent variables, and possible predictors of social-organizational features (n - 135 schools).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 Government school 1.002 Private school �0.79 1.003 International school �0.41 �0.24 1.004 Length instructional time �0.22 0.10 0.20 1.005 Principal leadership �0.13 0.18 �0.07 0.00 1.006 Teacher collaboration, trust �0.08 0.12 �0.06 0.29 0.25 1.007 Academic commitment �0.31 0.23 0.15 0.22 0.22 0.49 1.008 Teacher/pupil discipline 0.18 �0.28 0.13 �0.06 �0.05 �0.19 �0.24 1.009 Student SES index �0.41 0.44 0.01 0.18 0.02 0.08 0.22 �0.20 1.0010 Non-Saudi students, share �0.33 �0.03 0.55 0.11 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.07 �0.18 1.0011 Enrollment count 0.54 �0.46 �0.18 �0.04 �0.12 �0.04 �0.05 0.12 �0.19 �0.08 1.0012 Instructional materials 0.10 �0.15 0.07 �0.10 �0.19 �0.27 �0.11 0.07 0.07 �0.02 �0.03 1.0013 Computer availability �0.49 0.52 0.00 0.07 0.17 0.19 0.14 �0.15 0.29 0.01 �0.56 �0.21 1.0014 School in rented building �0.33 0.18 0.25 0.06 0.09 �0.05 0.03 0.00 �0.04 0.07 �0.46 �0.10 0.12

[(Fig._3)TD$FIG]

PANEL A. Student socio-economic status (SES) index PANEL B. Yearly fees charged parents 0

.2.4

.6.8

Density

-2 -1 0 1 2ses index

government

private

international

0.0

00

02

.00

00

4.0

00

06

.00

00

8.0

00

1D

ensity

0 10000 20000 30000 40000level of fee

private

international

Fig. 3. Distributions of student and tuition characteristics of schools by subsector (n =135 schools). PANEL A. Student socio-economic status (SES) index.PANEL B. Yearly fees charged parents.

S. Aburizaizah et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 80 (2016) 37–48 45

display a lower mean on engagement problems, along with a narrower distribution. International schools show a widedistribution, more closely approximating that observed for government schools.

Panel B shows internal heterogeneity within each subsector on the principal leadership index, which shifts to the right(higher on average) among private school principals. Still, significant internal heterogeneity among principals can beobserved within each subsector.

4.3. Do student attributes or material inputs shape the social organization?

School typemaycorrespond to particular enrollment patterns ormaterial resources that, in turn, [108_TD$DIFF]drive the relative vitalityof the school organization. So, we next included relevant covariates in our estimation models, after taking into account thesubsector effects anticipated from the mean differences reported above (Table 3). We test [109_TD$DIFF]whether the coefficients tied to

[(Fig._4)TD$FIG]

PANEL A. Problems with teacher and student engagement PANEL B. Principal instructional leadership index

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

Density

-2 -1 0 1 2 3teacher and student problems

government

private

international

0.1

.2.3

.4D

ensity

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2instructional leadership

government

private

international

Fig. 4. Distributions of teacher and student engagement problems and teacher collaboration by subsector (n =135 schools). PANEL A. Problemswith teacherand student engagement. PANEL B. Principal instructional leadership index.

Table 3Accounting for variation in the social organization of Jeddah middle schools (standardized coefficients and significance of t-statistics reported, n =135schools).

Instructional time Principalinstructionalleadership

Teacher collaborationand trust

Student and teachercommitment

Problems with student andteacher engagement

School SubsectorPrivate school 0.34* 0.20 0.21 0.38** 0.41* 0.17 0.24 0.12 �0.12 0.60*** 0.34 0.34 �0.56*** �0.46** �0.45*

International school 0.75** 0.66* 0.71* �0.08 �0.19 �0.34 �0.10 �0.43 �0.41 0.69** 0.12 0.19 0.22 0.24 0.22

Student StatusSES index 0.14 0.16 �0.05 �0.01 0.09 0.11 0.20** 0.21** �0.10 �0.10Non-Saudi student 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.27*** 0.26** 0.01 0.01

School StructureSchool facility, rented �0.03 0.15 �0.10 �0.07 0.04

Material ResourcesAdequacy ofinstructionalresources

�0.12 �0.14 �0.25*** �0.11 0.04

Computeravailability

�0.05 0.09 0.14 �0.03 �0.01

MODEL STATISTICSF-value 4.48*** 2.76** 1 .84* 2.30 1.37 1.45 1.03 1.13 2.40** 7.05*** 5.95*** 3.60*** 5.90*** 3.24** 1.85*

Adjusted [82_TD$DIFF]r2 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.13 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.04

* p<0.10.** p<0.05.*** p<0.01.

46 S. Aburizaizah et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 80 (2016) 37–48

subsector membership decline as we enter measures of student attributes and material features of schools. These possiblesubstitution effects help to reveal what factors may operate beneath subsector membership to account for variation ininstructional time, principal leadership, and [110_TD$DIFF]remaining facets of social organization.

The first three columns of Table 3, for instance, regress the length of instructional time on subsector membership, studentattributes, school structure and availability of material resources. We see that instructional time is significantly longer inprivate and international schools, compared with government schools (the reference group). But as we enter student andschool attributes the coefficient for private schools falls from 0.34 to 0.21 and becomes insignificant. The coefficient tied tointernational school status, in contrast, remains constant inmagnitude andmarginally significant (declining from p<0.05 top<0.10). It appears that the student SES index is substituting for subsector membership (Table 3 reports standardizedcoefficients).

Results for levels of teacher trust and collaboration show no significant association with a school’s subsector. But schoolswith a greater scarcity of instructional resources host teachers that collaborate less, as reported by principals. Student andteacher commitments to learning are considerably higher in private and international schools, relative to government schools.Yet these differences are largely explained by pupil attributes, including the SES index and the share of students of non-Saudiorigin. Inclusion of these pupil characteristics reduces the magnitude of the coefficient tied to subsector membership by atleast half. On the other hand, problems with student or teacher engagement are not explained by pupil attributes. Privateschools steadily experience fewer problems in this domain.

Overall, school type is significantly related to length of instructional time, principal leadership, commitment toachievement, and social engagement among pupils and teachers. Both private and international schools manifest thesefacets of social organization with greater strength, compared with government schools. Yet it appears that differences instudents attracted by private and international schools help to account for their school’smore cohesive social fabric. Levels ofinstructional resources only display an association with stronger teacher collaboration and trust, suggesting that pupilattributes offer more enabling social conditions than material inputs per se.

5. Discussion and policy implications

These findings reveal sharp disparities among the three subsectors along several indicators of quality, as Saudi Arabiapermits a widening diversity of middle schools to serve a pluralistic range of families. This includes variability ininstructional time, whether principals focus on instructional gains, and the trust, social cohesion, and learning expectationsheld by teachers and students.

We uncovered systematic (mean) differences among government, private, and international schools, along withvariability among schoolswithin each subsector. Private schools, perhaps not surprisingly, stand out as displaying high levels

S. Aburizaizah et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 80 (2016) 37–48 47

of quality and social cohesion, relative to government schools. More notable, international schools do not look so differentfrom government schools on most quality indicators.

Private schools attract students from higher social classes on average, and a greater proportion of non-Saudi children,relative to government schools, which serve predominantly native-born Saudi students from lower-income or middle-classfamilies. International schools are more difficult to characterize, serving a diverse spectrum of children from native andexpatriate families. This emergent stratification of students and families may be hurried by the desire of parents for higherquality schools and instruction in English. Whether and how this sharp differentiation among types of schools serves toreproduce economic and social disparities in Saudi Arabia deserves greater attention by researchers and policy makers.

Another intriguing finding is that the level of material inputs and instructional tools available in schools failed toconsistently predict beneficial facets of social organization or instructional leadership exercised by the principal. Teachersexpressed less trust and collaboration with peers in schools with more scarce instructional materials. But overall, materialinputs were unrelated to the social-organizational dimensions of quality: instructional time, leadership focused on teaching,staff collaboration, and student or teacher commitment to learning. This points to the need for additional research in theMiddle East on the [111_TD$DIFF]relative independence between material inputs and social organization – distinct domains requiringtailored policy strategies.

We know that instructional leadership by principals can help build cohesion among teachers and a normativecommitment to learning and human development. It appears that private schools offer such favorable conditions forpursuing effective leadership by principals. Yet the range of internal variation within each subsector also suggests thatprincipal leadership and cohesive social organizations can be built in government schools, even when concrete inputs andinstructional materials remain in short supply. This calls for more careful thinking among policy makers on how to bestintervene to lift school quality, along with additional work on how some principals nurture robust social worlds inside theirschools. [112_TD$DIFF]

These findings hold two policy implications. First, governments in the Middle East should distinguish betweenpurchasing material inputs and long-term efforts to raise the quality of school leadership, perhaps decentralizing specificauthority to principals. The Saudi nation invests much in the government school system, [113_TD$DIFF]while yielding low levels ofachievement on average. This suggests that how [114_TD$DIFF]schools are organized locally, [115_TD$DIFF]along with how teachers and principals areprepared to engage students, play a stronger role than simply raising school budgets.

Second, these three education sectors could more openly share knowledge of local practices regarding principalleadership and [116_TD$DIFF]how to best build social cohesion among teachers. The private school sector in the Saudi context enjoysserving children from better-off families. But we also observe strong teamwork and cohesion within many governmentschools. Each sector can likely articulate key lessons for principals, teachers, and [117_TD$DIFF]policy makers – a conversation thatgovernment and civic groups might open-up and amplify. Greater support for careful research on the social organization ofschooling by international donors and government would empirically enrich this important conversation. [118_TD$DIFF]

Acknowledgments

We thank themany school principals in Jeddahwho took time to participate in our interviews. Funding for this studywasprovided by King Abdulaziz University and the Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley.

References

Akkari, A. (2004). Education in the Middle East and North Africa: The current situation and future challenges. International Education Journal, 5, 144–153.Al Hakami, A. (2004). Educational evaluation in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Paper presented at the evaluation strategies to achieve comprehensive quality in

education program.Al Sadaawi, A. (2010). Saudi national assessment of educational progress. International Journal of Educational Policy and Leadership, 5, 1–14.Al-Housain, H. (2012). Holly quran memorisation schools. Almarefh Journal, [119_TD$DIFF] vol. 7 [Riyadh Ministry of Education].Aljabri, N., & Alahmadi, A. (2012).Determinants of academic tracking in girls’ high schools in Saudi Arabia. Boston: Association for Education Finance and Policy.Almegidi, A. (2004). The development of the educational system in Saudi Arabia. Riyadh: Al-Roashd Library.Alshaya, S. (2011). Saudi Arabia—TIMSS papers. Boston: Boston College, International Study Center.Alshumrani, S. (2007). Saudi Arabia—TIMSS 2007 encyclopedia. Boston: Boston College, International Study Center.Alyaemni, A., Theobald, S., Faragher, B., Jehan, K., & Tolhurst, R. (2013). Gender inequities in health: An exploratory qualitative study of Saudi women's

perceptions. Women and Health, 53, 741–759.Bouhlila, D. (2011). The quality of secondary education in the Middle East and North Africa: What canwe learn from TIMSS’ results? Compare, 41, 327–352.Bouhlila, D. (2015). The [121_TD$DIFF]Heyneman-Loxley effect revisited in the middle east and north africa: Using TIMSS 2007 database. International Journal of

Educational Development, 42, 85–95.Bryk, A., Sebring, P., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, P. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.Chapman, D., & Miric, S. (2009). Education quality in the middle east. International Review of Education, 55, 311–344.Eberstadt, N., & Shah, A. (2012). Fertility decline in the muslim world. Policy Review [hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/118261].Essid, H., Ouellette, P., & Vigeant, S. (2014). Measuring efficiency of Tunisian schools in the presence of quasi-mixed inputs. Lille: Université des sciences et

technologies de Lille.Farsi, J., Farghaly, M., & Farsi, N. (2004). Oral health knowledge: Attitude and behavior among Saudi school students in Jeddah city. Journal of Dentistry, 32,

47–53.Fuller, B., & Heyneman, S. (1989). Third world school quality: Current collapse: Future potential. Educational Researcher, 18, 12–19.Fuller, B., & Rubinson, R. (1992). The political construction of education: the state, school expansion, and economic change. New York: Praeger.Fuller, B. (2015). Organizing locally: how new decentralists improve education, health care, and trade. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ham

Han

HenHouJimLeit

LocMe

MinMinParProQiy

RugSal

SrivTre

WeWoZaj

48 S. Aburizaizah et al. / International Journal of Educational Research 80 (2016) 37–48

dan, A. (2015). Challenges and constraints encountered by Saudi pre-service science teachers: A critical perspective. Learning and teaching in highereducation: Gulf perspectives. . . [Retrieved] zu.ac.ae.ushek, E., Kain, J., Rivkin, S., & Branch, G. (2006). Charter school quality and parental decision making with school choice. Journal of Public Economics, 91,823–848.ig, J., & Hula, R. (2001). The color of school reform: race, politics, and the challenge of urban education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.se, K. (2012). On Saudi Arabia: its people, past, religion, fault lines, and future. New York: Random House.enez, E., & Lockheed, M. (1995). Public and private secondary education in developing countries. Washington, DC: World Bank [Discussion Paper 309].hwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., &Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: how leadership influences student learning. Minneapolis: Center forApplied Research and Educational Improvement.kheed, M., & Verspoor, A. (1991). Improving primary education in developing countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.yer, J., Tyack, D., Nagel, J., & Gordon, A. (1979). Public education as nation-building in America: Enrollments and bureaucratization in the American states:1870–1930. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 591–613.istry of Education (2001). Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia within the last hundred years. Riyadh: Farazdk Press.istry of Education (2006). A statistical summary report on the education of boys and girls in Saudi. Riyadh: Dar Al-Hilal Press.sons, T., Shils, E., & Smelser, N. (1965). Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.kop, M. (2003). Saudi Arabia: The politics of education. International Affairs, 79, 77–89.as. National Centre for Assessment in Higher Education. The rank order of schools on national examination results in science. http://qiyas.sa/ApplicantsServices/SchoolsRank/Pages/Ranks%20aspx Accessed 08.09.15.h, W. (2002). Education and Saudi Arabia: Choices and constraints. Middle East Policy, 9, 40–55.ehi-Isfahani, D., Hassine, N., & Assaad, R. (2012). Equality of opportunity in educational achievement in the Middle East and North Africa. Giza: EconomicResearch Forum [Working Paper 689].astava, P., & Walford, G. (Eds.). (2007). [124_TD$DIFF][81_TD$DIFF]Private schooling in less economically developed countries. Oxford: Symposium Books.nwith, C. (2013). Saudi schools blame female teachers for closing. Arabian Business. Com . http://www.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-schools-blame-female-teachers-for-closure-488257. html.ber, M. (1946). Essays in sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.rld Bank (2014). World development indicators. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.da, J., & Gamage, D. (2009). Decentralisation, school-based management, and quality. Globalisation, Comparative Education, and Policy Research, 8, 3–22.