The Influence of Principal Leadership and School Committees on Teacher Performance at SDN Cluster V in Rupat, Bengkalis Regency

The interviews results with elementary school teachers in this cluster, it turns out that most teachers still use the lecture method in their learning. This raises social problems and new demands that cannot be predicted beforehand, so that education always faces problems because of the gap between what is expected and the results that can be achieved through the educational process. The research approach is associative quantitative, called quantitative. The population of this study were all teachers who were in SDN 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 28 Gugus V, Rupat District, Bengkalis Regency, amounting to 67 people. The sampling technique used is a saturated sample where all members of the population are used as samples. So the number of samples used in this study were 67 teachers. The results of this study: 1) There is a positive and significant influence between the variables of the Principal's Leadership on the teacher's performance at SDN Rupat. The higher the leadership given, the higher the teacher's performance. 2) There is a positive and significant influence between the variables of the School Committee on the teacher's performance at SDN Rupat. The higher the role of the school committee given, the higher the teacher's performance. 3) There is a jointly significant influence between the variables of the Principal's Leadership and the School Committee on the teacher's performance at the Rupat District Elementary School.

The interviews results with elementary school teachers in this cluster, it turns out that most teachers still use the lecture method in their learning. This raises social problems and new demands that cannot be predicted beforehand, so that education always faces problems because of the gap between what is expected and the results that can be achieved through the educational process. The research approach is associative quantitative, called quantitative. The population of this study were all teachers who were in SDN 4,5,6,7,9,and 28 Gugus V, Rupat District, Bengkalis Regency, amounting to 67 people. The sampling technique used is a saturated sample where all members of the population are used as samples. So the number of samples used in this study were 67 teachers. The results of this study: 1) There is a positive and significant influence between the variables of the Principal's Leadership on the teacher's performance at SDN Rupat. The higher the leadership given, the higher the teacher's performance. 2) There is a positive and significant influence between the variables of the School Committee on the teacher's performance at SDN Rupat. The higher the role of the school committee given, the higher the teacher's performance. 3) There is a jointly significant influence between the variables of the Principal's Leadership and the School Committee on the teacher's performance at the Rupat District Elementary School.


The quality of education cannot be separated from the performance of educators, in this case the teacher. Teacher performance is related to several factors, and some of these factors can be grouped into internal and external. Internal factors are innate factors or those that come from the teacher himself, while external factors are in the form of the environment, be it the family environment or the work environment. The work environment is the relationship between teachers, school principals, school committees and all stakeholders. Christian (2019). When observed in the field, teachers can show maximum performance in carrying out their duties and functions as educators. However, there are still some teachers who have not shown good performance which will certainly affect the overall teacher performance. Teacher performance indicators can be seen from the sense of responsibility in carrying out the mandate of the profession they carry, as well as moral responsibility on their shoulders.
All of this will be seen from their obedience and loyalty in carrying out learning in the classroom and carrying out their education outside the classroom. From all these things, teacher performance can be measured from the results of the Teacher Competency Test (UKG). UKG according to Hermanto (2016) is a competency test process aimed at prospective teachers or teachers who want to get recognition and improve competence according to their profession. UKG is used to determine teacher mastery of pedagogic and professional competencies. The purpose is as an entry point for teacher performance assessment which functions as a control tool for the implementation of teacher performance assessment. Continuous professional development programs and teacher performance assessments must be carried out every year as a condition for promotion and functional teacher positions. Supardi (2013) suggests that teacher performance is the ability and success of teachers in carrying out learning tasks.
Based on the results of interviews with elementary school teachers in this cluster, it turns out that most teachers still use the lecture method in their learning. In this case, the learning process developed by the teacher still looks rigid and monotonous, and even seems to refer more to efforts to achieve high scores during school final exams and national final exams. Wahyosumidjo (2013) argues that "the principal must be able to treat the people who are his subordinates the same, so that there is no discrimination, on the contrary, a spirit of togetherness can be created between them, namely teachers, staff, and students".
This raises social problems and new demands that cannot be predicted beforehand, so that education always faces problems because of the gap between what is expected and the results that can be achieved through the educational process Shah (2010). The success of the educational process is largely determined by the ability of the educational leader himself at the school level, namely the principal, this is in line with the opinion of Mulyasa (2013) educational leadership related to the problem of the principal in increasing the opportunity to hold meetings effectively with teachers in a conducive situation. While Karwanti (2013) argues that the principal's leadership is the ability and competence of the principal, both hard skills and soft skills, to influence all school resources in order to be able to achieve the goals and targets set by the school. The behavior of the principal must be able to encourage the performance of the teachers, by showing a friendly, close and considerate feeling towards the teachers, both as individuals and as a group. Aprilana (2017).
According to the results of observations and interviews with researchers, there are obstacles in the leadership of school principals, including starting from the appointment of school principals or school organizations that are not transparent, principals rarely motivate teachers and education staff, and lack of enthusiasm for teachers under the leadership of the current principal. . Sutomo (2011) argues that leadership is defined as everything related to the work of leading. In the school environment, success or failure in carrying out tasks and administration is influenced by leadership, through leadership supported by adequate organizational capacity, then the implementation of good school governance will be realized, on the other hand leadership weakness is one of the causes of the collapse of educational performance in Indonesia Khasanah. 2019). This statement is supported by the results of research from Muizu (2014) which states that leadership has a significant effect, either partially or simultaneously on employee performance. This means that the better the implementation of leadership, the more optimal the performance of banking employees in Southeast Sulawesi will be. In his research, Satriadi (2016) states that there is a very strong relationship/correlation between the principal's leadership variable (X), and the performance of teachers at SMP Negeri 7 Tanjung Pinang of 0.826 or has a direct influence of 68.2%. This means that if the principal's leadership is good, the teacher's performance looks good. Maryanti (2020).
In Law No. 20 of 2003 concerning the national education system, community participation is regulated to cover a wider scope including the participation of individuals, groups, families, professional organizations, entrepreneurs and community organizations. The role is both in the implementation and control of the quality of education. The community also plays a role in supervising the management of education in both public and private units. The community is positioned as one of the important policy makers besides the government. The broad participation mechanism is also synergized and given a concrete platform, such as the education board and school committee. Mulyasa (2013) states that the school committee is an independent body that accommodates community participation in the context of improving the quality, equity and efficiency of education management in schools.
In his book Engkoswara (2011) summarizes the performance indicators of school committees, namely: school committees as a consideration body, school committees as a supporting body, school committees as controlling bodies, and school committees as liaison or mediator bodies. According to the results of observations and interviews of researchers in the field, there are several findings that become a problem, namely there are school committees whose terms of office exceed three years without a re-election process. There is even a school committee chairman who is not an active student parent/guardian. There is no coaching and capacity building for School Committees, as well as the unavailability of adequate facilities to support the performance of School Committees.
The school committee is based in the school and each school can have one school committee or join other schools to form a school committee. According to Sari (2017) in his research shows that the leadership role of the principal and the role of the school committee together have a significant effect on teacher performance, this can be seen from field research with a contribution of 93.2% it means that if the principal's leadership is carried out well and school committees carried out with good teacher performance will also increase. Renata (2018) Teachers as educators are one component in the educational process required to have good performance. Teacher performance is often the cornerstone in achieving the quality expectations of graduates from educational institutions. Therefore, the presence of teachers in the teaching and learning process still plays an important role in Salwa (2019). Next, Priansa (2018) also explained that "the implementation of teacher performance assessment involves various parties, starting from the central level (ministry), to the school principal level". At the micro-technical level, the teacher as an educator is an educational leader, he is very decisive in the learning process in the classroom, and this leadership role will be reflected in how the teacher carries out his role and duties Saputra (2013). This means that teacher performance is a very decisive factor for the quality of learning which will have implications for the quality of education output after finishing school. Teacher performance is basically a performance or performance carried out by teachers in carrying out their duties as educators. The quality of teacher performance will greatly determine the quality of educational outcomes, because the teacher is the party who has the most direct contact with students in the educational process at the school's educational institution Saputra (2013). To understand what and how the teacher's performance is, it will first be stated about the meaning of performance and how to manage performance in an effort to achieve organizational goals effectively and efficiently.
In an effort to improve teacher performance, the role of the principal as a leader is very important, the success or failure of a goal achieved by the school depends on the leadership of the principal. Therefore, one of the factors that support the achievement of teacher performance is the leadership style of the principal Andriani (2018). In managing school progress which is related to increasing student learning achievement, of course there are still many obstacles and obstacles encountered, for example human resources, unprofessional teaching staff, limited funds and lack of physical infrastructure, as well as community responses that are still lacking about the importance of education. and the condition of other facilities and infrastructure that are still limited and other factors need to be addressed this of course requires the participation of the school committee in thinking about this.
Based on this description, the researcher intends to analyze the influence of the leadership of the principal and school committee on teacher performance in terms of all aspects, considering that the teacher greatly determines the quality of the students who are guided, therefore the researcher will conduct a study entitled "The Influence of Principals and School Committee Leadership on Teacher Performance. Elementary School of Cluster V in Rupat District, Bengkalis Regency"

Methodology
The research approach was associative quantitative, called quantitative because the research data is in the form of numbers and the analysis uses statistics. Kerlinger in Sugiyono (2019). The problems discussed are associative problems where there is a causal relationship between variables in this study. Associative problem formulation is a research problem formulation that asks the relationship between two or more variables, where in a causal relationship there are independent variables (influenced variables) and dependent (influenced variables).
The location where this research was carried out was at SD N Gugus V, Rupat District, Bengkalis Regency, namely SD N 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 28. The population of this study were all teachers who were in SDN 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 , and 28 Cluster V, Rupat District, Bengkalis Regency, totaling 67 people. The sampling technique used was saturated sample where all members of the population were used as samples. So the number of samples used in this study were 67 teachers.

Results and Discussion
The discussion of the results of research that has been carried out includes: 1) Description of the research object according to age, gender, tenure and education level 2) the contribution of the independent variable (dependent) on the dependent variable (independent), 3) Testing the analysis requirements, and 4) Hypothesis test.

Description of Research Object
a) Characteristics of Respondents by Gender Characteristics of respondents by gender can be seen in Table 1. Based on Table 1, it can be seen that the number of male respondents was 12 people (40%), and 18 women (60%). This shows that the number of respondents in SDN Rupat are female teachers.

b) Characteristics of Respondents Based on Age
Characteristics of respondents by type of age can be seen in Table 2.
Thus, it can be concluded that the majority of respondents are in the 31-40 age group, which is 53.4%. c) Characteristics of Respondents Based on Working Period Characteristics of respondents based on years of service can be seen in Table 3. Based on Table 3, it can be seen that respondents with tenures of 1-10 are 3 people 10%, working years 11-20 are 21 people 70% and working years 21-30 are 6 people 20% Thus it can be concluded that the majority of respondents are in the range of 11-20 that is as much as 70%.

d) Respondents Based on Education Level
Respondents in this study have a diversity of education levels, where the level of education also affects work productivity in carrying out the work assigned to the teacher. Based on Table 4, it can be seen that respondents with a working period of high school are 3 people, 10% of S1 are 22 people, 75.4% and masters are 5 people, 16.7%. Thus, it can be concluded that the majority of respondents are in the range 21 which is as much as 73.4%.

Testing Requirements Analysis
Testing the requirements of the analysis carried out is by conducting a normality test, multicollinearity test.

a. Normality test
The normality test in this study was carried out with the aim of seeing whether or not the distribution of the data to be analyzed was normal. A normal distributed data can be seen using the Lilliefors method (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) with a significance level of 0.05. A data will be normally distributed if the significant value > = 0.05. and vice versa not normally distributed if the significant value <α = 0.05. Normality testing, using the following hypothesis: Ho: data is normally distributed. Ha: the data is not normally distributed.
The results of the normality test of the three variables can be seen in Table 5 below.

b. Multicollinearity Test
The multicollinearity test in this study was conducted with the aim of knowing whether there is a high correlation between independent variables in a regression model. A good regression model is that there is no correlation between the independent variables. Multicollinearity in the regression model can be seen by looking at the value of the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). The basis of the decision, if the VIF value > 10 or tolerance < 0.1, then the variable has a multicollinearity relationship, on the contrary if VIF < 10 or tolerance> 0.1, then the variable does not have a multicollinearity relationship. To determine the effect of these variables, then use linear regression analysis, namely simple linear regression and multiple linear regression. Simple linear regression was used to determine the magnitude of the influence of the discipline variable on teacher performance, and the magnitude of the influence of the teacher performance discipline variable, while multiple linear regression was used to determine the magnitude of the simultaneous influence of the Principal and School Committee Leadership variables on the Teacher Performance variable.

a. The Influence of Principal Leadership (X1) on Teacher Performance (Y)
The first hypothesis testing is that there is a significant effect of Principal Leadership (X1) on Teacher Performance (Y). The t-test value of the Principal Leadership variable is 0.562 and the significance value is 0.000. Thus it can be seen that the significance value of the Principal Leadership variable is smaller than the expected significance value of 0.05 (α = 5%). The results of the partial test can be interpreted that the influence of the Principal's Leadership on the teacher performance variable is significant (the null hypothesis is rejected). In the table, it is known that the value of tcount = 0.562 and the value of sig = 0.000. The magnitude of the value of ttable with a lot of data n=30, variable k=2, df=n-k, obtained ttable=2,042. Then tcount>ttable, and sig 0.000 <0.05. So it can be concluded that leadership (X1) has a significant influence on teacher performance (Y). Thus the first hypothesis which reads that there is a significant influence between leadership (X1) on teacher performance (Y) is accepted.  From the results of the study in Table 9, the adjusted R square value in the model is 0.546 or 54.6%. This shows that the ability of the independent variable, namely Principal Leadership and Teacher Performance, simultaneously has an effect of 54.6% on the teacher performance variable, while the remaining 45.4% is explained by other variables not observed in this study.

b. Effect of School Committee (X2) on Teacher Performance (Y)
Testing the second hypothesis is that there is a significant influence between the School Committee (X2) on Teacher Work Discipline (Y).
The t-test value of the School Committee's variable is 2.628 and the significance value is 0.011. Thus it can be seen that the significance value of the Principal Leadership variable is smaller than the expected significance value of 0.05 (α = 5%). The results of the partial test can be interpreted that the influence of the School Committee variable on the teacher performance variable is significant (zero hypothesis is rejected). The linearity test in this study was carried out with the aim of knowing the existence of a linear relationship pattern between the variables of leadership and teacher performance.

c. The Influence of Principal Leadership (X1) and School Committees (X2) on Teacher Performance (Y)
Testing the third hypothesis is that there is a significant effect between the variables of Principal Leadership (X1) and School Committees (X2) on Teacher Work (Y). From Table 13, the t-test value of the Leadership variable is 6.600 and the significance value is 0.000 while the School Committee variable is 2.975 and the significance value is 0.043. Thus it can be seen that the significance value of the Principal and School Committee Leadership variables is smaller than the expected significance value of 0.05 (α = 5%). The results of the partial test can be interpreted that the influence of the Principal and School Committee Leadership variables on the teacher performance variable is significant (zero hypothesis is rejected) and the constant values are (a) = 19.629, b1 = 0.484 and b2 = -0.247. The regression equation formed Y=19,629+0,484X_1-0.247X_(2,) The meaning of the regression equation, namely the value of the constant (a) of 19,629 means that if the leadership of the principal and school committee is equal to zero, then the teacher's performance is 19,629 . The workload regression coefficient (b1) of 0.484 means that every one unit increase in the workload, it will also be followed by an increase in teacher performance of 0.484 one unit assuming the Principal's Leadership variable remains. The work saturation regression coefficient (b2) of 0.247 contains meaning that for every one unit increase from the school committee, it will also be followed by an increase in teacher performance of 0.247 one unit with the assumption that the school committee variable remains. The linearity test in this study was conducted with the aim of knowing the existence of a linear relationship pattern between the variables of leadership and school committees on teacher performance. From table 14, the deviation from linearity row is known to have Fcount = 43.252, and a significant value of 0.000. The magnitude of Ftable with the number of samples n=30, variable k=2, df1=k-1, and df2=n-k, obtained Ftable=4.17. So that Fcount < Ftable, and sig 0.417 > 0.05. So it can be concluded that there is a linear relationship between the leadership and school committee variables and the teacher performance variable.
In the linearity line, it is known that the Fcount = 43,252, and the significant value is 0.000. Then Fcount > Ftable, and sig 0.000 < 0.05. So it can be concluded that there is a significant relationship between the Leadership and School Committee variables and the teacher performance variable. In Table 15, the value of R Square (r2) is 0.574. By using the coefficient of determination, the magnitude of the influence between the variables of the principal's leadership and the school committee on teacher performance is 57.4%. The remaining 42.6% was determined by other factors that were not part of this study. Thus, the magnitude of the influence between the variables of Principal Leadership (X1) and School Committees (X2) on teacher performance (Y) is at a moderate level. This effect is illustrated by each increase in one unit of Principal Leadership and School Committees, it will be followed by an increase in teacher performance of 0.574 one unit.

Figure 1. Hypothesis Testing Results
Based on Figure 1, it can be seen that the research results are as follows.  This research is in line with the research written by Susanto (2015). The results of the research analysis show that: (1) there is a positive and significant influence of the principal's leadership variable on school effectiveness; (2) there is a positive and significant effect of teacher performance variables on school effectiveness;

The Influence of Principal Leadership (X1) on Teacher Performance (Y)
(3) there is a positive and significant influence on the school committee's performance on school effectiveness; (4) there is a positive and significant influence together with the principal's participatory leadership variable, teacher performance, and school committee performance on school effectiveness.

The Effect of Principal Leadership (X1) and the Role of State Elementary School Committees (X2) Together on Teacher Performance (Y)
The Effect of Principal Leadership (X1) and the Role of School Committees (X2) Together on Teacher Performance at SDN (Y) Rupat The results showed that there was an influence of principal's leadership on teacher performance. The t-test value of the Leadership variable is 6,600 and the significance value is 0.000, while the School Committee variable is 2.975 and the significance value is 0.043. Thus it can be seen that the significance value of the Principal and School Committee Leadership variables is smaller than the expected significance value of 0.05 (α = 5%). R Square (r2) is 0.574. By using the coefficient of determination, the magnitude of the influence between the variables of the principal's leadership and the school committee on teacher performance is 57.4%. The remaining 42.6% was determined by other factors that were not part of this study.
So the conclusion is that there is a positive and significant influence on the leadership of the principal and the school committee on teacher performance. The principal's leadership has a positive direction of influence, namely the better the principal's leadership, the greater the teacher's performance, and vice versa. And the better the role of the School Committee towards teachers, the higher the teacher's performance, and vice versa. And obtained a significant influence jointly between the variables of the Principal's Leadership and the School Committee on the Teacher's Performance at SDN Rupat.
This research is in line with research conducted by Christyawan (2011) which shows that there is a significant influence between pedagogic competence on the performance of teachers at SMA Negeri 2 Sukoharjo in the 2010/2011 academic year. The results showed that the relative contribution of pedagogic competence (X1) to teacher performance (Y) was 50.9% and the relative contribution of principal leadership (X2) to teacher performance was 49.07%. While the effective contribution of pedagogic competence (X1) to teacher performance (Y) is 16.08% and the effective contribution of principal leadership (X2) to teacher performance (Y) is 15.50%.
Further research was carried out by Leonard (2008). From the results of this study, it can be stated that partially, each independent variable makes a significant contribution to improving performance. This can be seen from the contribution given by work motivation partially by 49% and also from the contribution given by the working environment partially by 39.5%. In accumulation, the contribution of the two is partially quite large, amounting to 88.5%, or in other words only 11.5% which needs to be partially explained by other variables.

Conclusion
First, the variable of teacher performance in the SDN Rupat District is seen to be in the Medium interpretation. The two variables of the Principal's Leadership within the Cendana Education Foundation are seen from the demographic side, namely in terms of gender, age and teacher tenure, which are in the Medium interpretation. The three variables of the School Committee in the SDN Rupat District are at a low interpretation. Fourth, there is a positive and significant influence between the variables of the Principal's Leadership on the teacher's performance at SDN Rupat. The higher the leadership given, the higher the teacher's performance. Fifth, there is a positive and significant influence between the variables of the School Committee on the teacher's performance at SDN Rupat. The higher the role of the school committee given, the higher the teacher's performance. So there is a significant influence jointly between the variables of the Principal's Leadership and the School Committee on the performance of the Rupat District Elementary School teachers. The higher the role of the Principal's Leadership given to the teacher, the higher the level of teacher performance owned by the teacher assuming the role of the School Committee remains. Furthermore, the higher the level of the school committee's role assigned to teachers, the higher the level of teacher performance they have with the assumption of permanent school leadership.