Steering Division-Level School Improvement through Governance Foresight, Technical Assistance Quality, and Implementation Coherence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23297095Keywords:
educational governance, governance foresight, implementation coherence, instructional supervision, school improvement, technical assistance qualityAbstract
This study assessed the predictive contributions of governance foresight, technical assistance quality, and implementation coherence to division-level school improvement in Apayao Province, Philippines. Employing a cross-sectional explanatory survey design, the study involved 120 school heads, public schools district supervisors, education program supervisors, and selected division personnel identified through simple random sampling. Data were obtained using a structured questionnaire and analyzed through descriptive statistics, Spearman’s rank-order correlation, and multiple linear regression with heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors. The findings indicated high levels of governance foresight (M = 3.57), technical assistance quality (M = 3.51), implementation coherence (M = 3.50), and division-level school improvement (M = 3.52). However, weaknesses emerged in identifying institutional needs, monitoring technical assistance, maintaining policy consistency, and sustaining improvement initiatives. All three governance dimensions demonstrated significant positive correlations with school improvement. The regression model explained 31.4% of the variance in school improvement (R² = 0.314), with implementation coherence emerging as the strongest predictor (β = 0.317, p < 0.001), followed by governance foresight (β = 0.243, p = 0.010). Technical assistance quality showed a positive but statistically nonsignificant independent contribution. The findings suggested that coherent implementation and forward-looking governance were more closely associated with school improvement than technical assistance alone. Strengthening institutional coordination, anticipatory planning, and systematic follow-through could support more consistent and sustainable school improvement practices.
Downloads
References
Chua Reyes, V., Hamid, O., & Hardy, I. (2022). When reforms make things worse: School leadership responses to poverty, disasters, and cultures of crises in the Philippine education system. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(2), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.2009038
Department of Education. (2022). Adoption of the Basic Education Development Plan 2030 (DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2022). Department of Education. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2022/05/30/may-30-2022-do-024-s-2022-adoption-of-the-basic-education-development-plan-2030/
Hashim, A. K. (2020). Coaching and districtwide improvement: Exploring the systemic leadership practices of instructional coaches. Teachers College Record, 122(10), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012201005
Honig, M. I., & Rainey, L. R. (2019). Supporting principal supervisors: What really matters? Journal of Educational Administration, 57(5), 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2019-0089
Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
Moon, J.-M., Camburn, E. M., & Sebastian, J. (2022). Streamlining your school: Understanding the relationship between instructional program coherence and school performance. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 33(2), 260–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2021.2011750
Özdemir, N., Gümüş, S., Kılınç, A. Ç., & Bellibaş, M. Ş. (2024). A systematic review of research on the relationship between school leadership and student achievement: An updated framework and future direction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 52(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221118662
Premo, A. E., & Schunn, C. (2025). Network, school, and student demographic level effects of a networked improvement community on student reading outcomes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 85, Article 101451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2025.101451
Chua Reyes, V., Hamid, O., & Hardy, I. (2022). When reforms make things worse: School leadership responses to poverty, disasters, and cultures of crises in the Philippine education system. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(2), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.2009038
Russell, J. L., Bryk, A. S., Dolle, J. R., Gomez, L. M., LeMahieu, P. G., & Grunow, A. (2017). A framework for the initiation of networked improvement communities. Teachers College Record, 119(5), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900501
Salloum, S. J. (2022). Building coherence: An investigation of collective efficacy, social context, and how leaders shape teachers’ work. American Journal of Education, 128(2), 203–243. https://doi.org/10.1086/717654
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024/5: Leadership in education: Lead for learning. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/publication/leadership
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
