Educational Leadership, Institutional Capacity and Student Dropout: A Systematic Literature Review
Saved in:
| Title: | Educational Leadership, Institutional Capacity and Student Dropout: A Systematic Literature Review |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Bity Salwana Alias (ORCID |
| Source: | International Journal of Educational Management. 2026 40(4):786-804. |
| Availability: | Emerald Publishing Limited. Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, West Yorkshire, BD16 1WA, UK. Tel: +44-1274-777700; Fax: +44-1274-785201; e-mail: emerald@emeraldinsight.com; Web site: http://www.emerald.com/insight |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2026 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Information Analyses Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Literature Reviews, Instructional Leadership, Dropouts, Educational Practices, Dropout Prevention, Administrator Role, Educational Administration, Administrator Responsibility, Organizational Theories, Risk Management |
| DOI: | 10.1108/IJEM-01-2026-0108 |
| ISSN: | 0951-354X 1758-6518 |
| Abstract: | Purpose: This study synthesises recent empirical evidence on how educational leadership theories and management practices shape institutional responses to students at risk of dropout. It reframes dropout as a leadership-mediated, system-level organisational challenge rather than an individual deficit, and advances an integrative framework connecting leadership orientations, institutional capacity, governance alignment and student risk domains. Design/methodology/approach: Guided by the PRISMA framework, a systematic review was undertaken across Scopus and Web of Science, targeting peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2025. Following screening and eligibility assessment, 32 studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were assessed against explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria and appraised using a Kitchenham-based quality framework. Data were synthesised through integrative thematic analysis involving staged coding, cross-study comparison and higher-order abstraction. Findings: The review identified four interrelated themes--(1) the application of transformational, instructional, and distributed leadership theories, (2) leadership responses to behavioural and psychosocial risk, (3) data-informed approaches addressing absenteeism and disengagement through early warning systems and (4) the evolving role of school leaders characterised by adaptive, collaborative and technology-supported practices. Findings indicate a shift towards integrated leadership configurations that position schools as coordinated organisational actors mediating institutional capacity and student risk. Research limitations/implications: The review is confined to peer-reviewed, English-language studies published between 2020 and 2025 and indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, potentially limiting representation of earlier foundational work or regionally indexed scholarship. Nonetheless, the findings offer a structured platform for advancing leadership-focused dropout research and underscore the need for longitudinal and cross-regional analyses of implementation dynamics. Practical implications: The findings indicate that effective dropout prevention hinges on coordinated leadership across system, school, and classroom levels. Policymakers should advance governance alignment and sustained implementation frameworks, while school leaders reinforce institutional capacity through data-informed coordination, collaborative structures, and early warning systems. At the classroom level, practitioners are expected to monitor emerging risk proactively and apply relationally responsive practices before disengagement intensifies. Social implications: By repositioning student dropout as an organisational process shaped by leadership, this review foregrounds the shared institutional responsibility for mitigating educational exclusion. Strengthened governance coherence and institutional capacity may enhance student engagement, reduce inequitable outcomes, and support sustained educational participation. Such systemic approaches advance broader inclusion and equity goals by addressing dropout risk through coordinated institutional action rather than deficit-based individual attribution. Originality/value: This review extends educational leadership scholarship by linking leadership theory with institutional capacity and governance alignment in the domain of dropout prevention. Moving beyond student-level predictors, it proposes an inductively derived framework that situates leadership as the organisational mediating layer shaping student risk pathways. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1506119 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Purpose: This study synthesises recent empirical evidence on how educational leadership theories and management practices shape institutional responses to students at risk of dropout. It reframes dropout as a leadership-mediated, system-level organisational challenge rather than an individual deficit, and advances an integrative framework connecting leadership orientations, institutional capacity, governance alignment and student risk domains. Design/methodology/approach: Guided by the PRISMA framework, a systematic review was undertaken across Scopus and Web of Science, targeting peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2025. Following screening and eligibility assessment, 32 studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were assessed against explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria and appraised using a Kitchenham-based quality framework. Data were synthesised through integrative thematic analysis involving staged coding, cross-study comparison and higher-order abstraction. Findings: The review identified four interrelated themes--(1) the application of transformational, instructional, and distributed leadership theories, (2) leadership responses to behavioural and psychosocial risk, (3) data-informed approaches addressing absenteeism and disengagement through early warning systems and (4) the evolving role of school leaders characterised by adaptive, collaborative and technology-supported practices. Findings indicate a shift towards integrated leadership configurations that position schools as coordinated organisational actors mediating institutional capacity and student risk. Research limitations/implications: The review is confined to peer-reviewed, English-language studies published between 2020 and 2025 and indexed in Scopus and Web of Science, potentially limiting representation of earlier foundational work or regionally indexed scholarship. Nonetheless, the findings offer a structured platform for advancing leadership-focused dropout research and underscore the need for longitudinal and cross-regional analyses of implementation dynamics. Practical implications: The findings indicate that effective dropout prevention hinges on coordinated leadership across system, school, and classroom levels. Policymakers should advance governance alignment and sustained implementation frameworks, while school leaders reinforce institutional capacity through data-informed coordination, collaborative structures, and early warning systems. At the classroom level, practitioners are expected to monitor emerging risk proactively and apply relationally responsive practices before disengagement intensifies. Social implications: By repositioning student dropout as an organisational process shaped by leadership, this review foregrounds the shared institutional responsibility for mitigating educational exclusion. Strengthened governance coherence and institutional capacity may enhance student engagement, reduce inequitable outcomes, and support sustained educational participation. Such systemic approaches advance broader inclusion and equity goals by addressing dropout risk through coordinated institutional action rather than deficit-based individual attribution. Originality/value: This review extends educational leadership scholarship by linking leadership theory with institutional capacity and governance alignment in the domain of dropout prevention. Moving beyond student-level predictors, it proposes an inductively derived framework that situates leadership as the organisational mediating layer shaping student risk pathways. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0951-354X 1758-6518 |
| DOI: | 10.1108/IJEM-01-2026-0108 |
