Influence of headship instructional leadership proficiencies on academic performance: the case of rural primary schools of Kweneng region in Botswana

Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify the headship instructional leadership proficiencies, and how they influenced academic performance in high and low performing rural primary schools of Kweneng region. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative approach, using a multi-cross case study analysis was used. Data were collected through an in-depth, semi-structured and focus group interviews, observations and document analysis. Purposive sampling methods were used, and the study drew data from 56 participants. These were 4 school heads, 4 deputy school heads, 4 heads of department, 8 senior teachers, 12 teachers and 24 learners. Findings The cross-analysis case study findings revealed that high-performing rural primary schools involved their staff and stakeholders in crafting and implementation of the school vision, mission, values and strategic plans. This approach helped them in monitoring school and classroom instructions; hence, resulting in improved academic performance. On the contrary, low-performing schools paid lip service to “involvement” approach. Research limitations/implications The implication for further study is that any future study can consolidate and expand the findings of this research by focusing on Botswana's rural secondary schools. Practical implications The implication of this study is that the ability of an excellent school head with instructional leadership proficiencies can change a low-performing rural primary school into a high-performing rural primary school. Therefore, schools heads who have instructional leadership proficiencies can be placed in low-performing schools for transformation. Social implications Moreover, the social implication is that school heads from low-performing schools should benchmark instructional leadership proficiencies from high-performing schools. Originality/value The written case study narratives were given to participants for approval to find out if what was written was what they said. After their approval, the research supervisors validated them to check for biases and exaggerations.