Regression between Headmaster Leadership, Task Load and Job Satisfaction of Special Education Integration Program Teacher

Managing school is a daunting task for a headmaster. This responsibility is exacerbated when it involves the Special Education Integration Program (SEIP). This situation requires appropriate and effective leadership in addressing some of the issues that are currently taking place at SEIP such as task load and job satisfaction. This study aimed to identify the influence of headmaster leadership on task load and teacher job satisfaction at SEIP. Th is quantitative study was conducted by distributing 400 sets of randomized questionnaires to SEIP teachers across Malaysia through google form. The data obtained were then analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and AMOS software. The results show that there is a significant positive effect on the leadership of the headmaster and the task load of the teacher. Likewise, the construct of task load and teacher job satisfaction has a significant positive effect. However, for the construct of headmaster leadership and teacher job satisfaction, there was no significant positive relationship. This finding is very important as a reference to the school administration re-evaluating their leadership so as not to burden SEIP teachers and to give them job satisfaction. In addition, the findings of this study can also serve as a guide fo r SEIP teachers to increase awareness of the importance of managing their tasks. This study also focused on education leadership in general and more specifically on special education leadership.


Introduction
There are five factors that contribute to the issue of high SEIP teachers' task load, namely, teachers, students, policies, facilit ies and leadership (John Anderson, 2017). The first factor is the teacher's inability to manage tasks, minimal knowledge and a lack o f willingness to cooperate However, the most important factor in influencing the burden of high SEIP teachers' task load is that of headmasters' leadership because they are the individuals responsible for the overall operation of the school (John Anderson, 2017). A mong the problems faced by head teachers that could increase the tas k load of teachers and thus interfere with teacher job satisfaction are their o wn attitudes as reported by Nelson et al. (2014) showed that headmasters do not provide the encouragement and support to perform large, burdensome tasks. The attitude of those who do not pay proper attention to special education and the notion that special education is the only passenger in the school raises the issue of teachers' task load and the dissatisfaction of working special education teachers in SEIP endlessly (Erica & Raymond, 2009).

Background Research
In a preliminary interview with five SEIP teachers in Johor, it was found that leaders in a school with programs such as SEIP need to have sufficient knowledge of special education and demonstrate a fair attitude in dealing with teachers and students in school. They said that the headmasters of the school did not pay attention to SEIP and instead focused on the achievements of mainstream students. They also constantly burden teachers in the SEIP with a lot of outside work because their attitude towards the teachers is more so that the teachers do not have much work in the SEIP. So me of them said that headmasters always provide important work at the school level for teachers at SEIP because they lack knowledge of the extra task load that teachers face in managing SNS. They also stated that their headmaster was autocratic in delivering assignments, and all instructions given were coercive, without discretion and needed to be prepared in a short period. Shawnee et al. (2006) in their study of school leaders' knowledge of special education and its impact on their implementation of special education programs in secondary schools in North Carolina, USA found a direct impact on the construct. They assert that school leaders who do not have sufficient knowledge of special education will imp lement poor leadership on special education programs. The same is true of John Anderson (2017), who argues that the major p roblem with teachers' job satisfaction issues is the lack of knowledge and experience of major teachers in special education. Their lack of care will make special education programs in schools less successful (Shawnee et al., 2006). Engaged special education teachers will also face obstacles in the performance of their assignments due to the lack of ongoing support and guidance from the school administration (Junaidah & Nik Rusila, 2013). a. Research objective  To examine the regression between headmaster leadership, task load and SEIP teacher job satisfaction.
b. Research questions  Is there a regression between headmaster leadership, task load and SEIP teacher job satisfaction?

Literature Review
Zakaria's (2016) study of headmaster leadership style and school effectiveness found that unrelated teacher tasks caused the teaching and learning process in the classroom to be disrupted, and this situation necessarily led to dissatisfaction with aspects of teacher work quality. In SEIP, students need to have teachers' full attention (Norashikin et al., 2015). They also point out that in leadership there is a need to be aware of a task in order to made a good change. Although this study is related to teacher leadership, the awareness needed to be higher for a school leader. Ah mad and Raziah (2009) view those headmasters should create a sense of satisfaction for teachers with carrying out their tasks. In the SEIP, for example, special education teachers dealing with SNS need to concentrate their energies as well as their effo rts on ensuring that SNS are well-received and well-educated (Special Education Division, 2015).
As outlined in the Special Education Integration Program Operations Handbook by Ministry of Education, among the roles of head masters in schools with SEIP are as follows, setting up a special education program integration committee and ensuring full functioning at the school level, ensuring all special education teachers implement SEIP with effectiveness, making the SEIP the years target, emphasizing that special education teachers implement the teaching process at their respective SEIP, conducting and monitoring of the teaching process of special education assistant/coordinator and special education teacher, ensuring the physical aspects of the classroom are safe and appropriate fo r the learning process, forging close working relationships between SNS's parents and the school, and providing periodic reports of SEIP ach ievement fo r Min istry of Education (Special Education Div ision, 2015). These guidelines clearly emphasize that special education teachers should pay particular attention to SNS and SEIP. However, most headmasters do not know and do not provide encouragement for special education teachers to carry out their tasks (Nelson et al., 2014). The problematic leadership of the headmasters will result in the burden of the SEIP teachers (Junaidah & Nik Rusila, 2013). This will also result in the loss of job satisfaction of special education teachers (John Anderson, 2017).
Nelson et al. (2014) stated that special education teachers who are burdened with high duties are not satisfied with carry ing out their co re tasks of teaching SNS. They also point out that the inconsistency of special education teachers' vacations increases their job satisfaction. Amalina and Azita (2016) support this assertion that increasing levels of pressure on SEIP teachers in co mpleting assignments have led to a lack of satisfaction in carrying out their assignments. Angela (2013) and Rabayah et al. (2010) on the other hand stated that SEIP teachers are physically unable to enjoy the satisfaction of working when no reward is given after the teachers have successfully completed the assignment.
Head masters who do not provide proper encouragement for SEIP teachers to perform the task also affect the job satisfaction of the teachers (Louise Strydom et al., 2012). Norizan et al. (2013) stated that the attitude of headmasters who do not understand the true role of SEIP teachers has led to the disruption of teachers' job satisfaction with teaching SNS. Similarly, Junaidah and Nik Rusila (2013) points out that those who understand the workings of SEIP teachers will adopt a leadership style that does not interfere with teacher satisfaction. Massithah (2009) states that teachers in SEIP are dissatisfied with their work because they are disturbed by the practice of headmasters and their negative attitude towards special education. Whereas Peggy Lau (2008) found that the satisfaction of special education teachers is influenced by their work relationships with peers and teachers.
The issue of high tasks load on teachers in SEIP due to the leadership of headmasters has persisted for many years

Research Methodology
This study used the full quantitative method in data collection.
Researchers distributed randomized questionnaires sets of 119 items to SEIP teachers using google form. A total o f 400 respondents answered the questionnaire comp letely and suitably for analysis. The data were then analy zed by Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) using AMOS 21. The test is performed by combin ing all three constructs in one structural model. Through these structural models, the regression between constructs can be identified. The main criterion for determining this compatibility is to look at the positive factor loading value that should be ≥ 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010). For fitness index, the RMSEA value should be ≤ 0.08 (Byrne, 2001), wh ile the GFI, CFI and TLI values should be ≥ 0.90 (Bentler, 1990;Hatcher, 1994). Relat ive / Normed Ch i-Square values must be approximately ≤ 5.0 (Bentler, 1990). In order to verify the regression between constructs, Standardized Regression Weight must be taken into account (Fornell & Larcker, 1981;Hair et al., 2010). In addition, significant values must be <0.05 to indicate acceptable values (Creswell, 2012).

Findings
Based on the findings of the study as summarized in Table 1, it can be stated that this model of structure achieves its match. The findings also show that when the headmasters' leadership construct increases 1, the teacher task load construct increases by 0.892. Whereas if the task load construct increased by 1, the job satisfaction construct increased by 0.786, and in the event of a 1 increase for the headmaster leadership construct, the job satisfaction construct increased by 0.122, as shown in Table 2. H1: The construct of the headmaster leadership has a significant positive impact on the construct of the teachers task load. The results of the Structural Equation Model analysis of the path coefficients between headmasters' leadership and teacher task load showed significant positive effects (β = 0.892, p = 0.000, p <0.005). This indicates that there is a positive and significant direct effect on headmaster leadership and teacher task load.
H2: The construct of the teachers task load has a significant positive impact on the construct of the teachers' job satisfaction. The results of the Structural Equation Model analysis of the coefficients of the path between teachers' task load and teachers' job satisfaction showed significant positive effects (β = 0.786, p = 0.000, p <0.005). This indicates that there is a positive and significant direct effect on teachers' task load and teacher job satisfaction.
H3: The construct of the headmasters' leadership has a significant positive impact on the construct of teachers' job satisfaction. The results of the Structural Equation Model analysis of the coefficients of the path between headmasters' leadership and teachers' job satisfaction showed no significant positive effects (β = 0.122, p = 0.140, p> 0.005). This indicates that there is a positive but not significant direct effect on head masters' leadership and teachers' job satisfaction.

Discussion
The findings show that there is a significant positive effect on the headmasters' leadership and the teachers' task load. This means that there is a positive and significant direct impact on the leadership of the headmasters with the teachers task load. This finding is in line with Abdul Rahim et al. (2006), who found that everything that a headmaster does in their leadership would put a teacher at a disadvantage over the task they were doing. The study also found that the leadership of headmasters is also a major factor in influencing the way their teachers work. Th is also supports the statement by Mustamin and Muzzammil (2013) that school principals need to be competent to carry out their heavy-duty as leaders for the welfare of teachers and the achievement of student.
The findings of this study are also consistent with the findings of a study by Junaidah and Nik Rusila (2013) who found that leadership factors are a major factor in determining teacher task load. In addition, the study by Rabayah et al. (2010) also explained that the high task load faced by SEIP teachers was the result of external assignments by school leaders. Similarly, the statement by Nelson et al. (2014) emphasized that the external task that burdened the SEIP teachers came fro m headmasters who practice leadership that is less suited to the special education environment.
The findings show that headmaster leadership has a positive effect on teacher job satisfaction but it is not significant. This indicates that there is a positive direct effect on headmaster leadership on teacher job satisfaction, but it is not significant. This situation occurs when the construct is incorporated into a model that has a mediator factor. Th is indicates that teachers' job satisfaction will be disrupted by the leadership of the headmasters in the event of heavy task loads. If the tests were conducted directly between the headmaster and teacher job satisfaction without involving the mediator, the findings of the study would show significant positive effects between the two constructs in the model. The findings of this study found that there is a significant positive effect on teacher task load and teacher job satisfaction. This indicates that there is a d irect and positive influence on teacher task load on teacher job satisfaction. This demonstrates that the high task load borne by SEIP teachers has an impact on their job satisfaction. The findings of this study are in line with the study by Muhammad Hisham, Jamalu l Lail and Azlin Norhaini (2017), who stated that high task load will affect teachers' ability to work better. Muyan and Ramli (2017) also agree that the mastery of the leadership style in the school by the principals in delivering the tasks should enable SEIP teachers to perform their tasks with joy and satisfaction. Junaidah and Nik Rosila (2013) also agree that the task load needs attention, which aims to maximize teachers' commit ment to the task that ensures their job satisfaction. A study by Habib and Zaimah (2012) also found that teachers' task load and teacher job satisfaction were strongly correlated. Johan (2013) and Marquardt (2009) explain that the tasks and responsibilities that are assumed at one time effect the work environ ment and teacher's satisfaction. Similarly, John Anderson (2017) argues that the major problem of teachers' job satisfaction issues is the lack of knowledge and experience of head masters in special education as well as high task load.

Conclusions and Suggestion
Overall, there were relationships and influences among the constructs in this study namely headmasters leadership, teacher task load and teacher job satisfaction. The model developed shows that the leadership of the headmaster influences the task load of teachers as well as the job satisfaction of SEIP teachers. The effect of headmasters' leadership on teacher job satisfaction is due to the in fluence of teacher task load. All of the influences shown by the three constructs on each other are based on positive, significant and practical weight regression values. As a suggestion, it is proposed that this study be conducted qualitatively to obtain more research data. Vot No. K207, FGRS/ 1/2019/SS109/UTHM/02/1 and thank Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia for partially sponsoring the research.