The School Heads’ Leadership Practices Among Public High Schools in the Schools Division of Kalinga
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20388946Keywords:
school heads’ leadership practices, instructional practices, public high schools, Kalinga, instructional leadership, transformational leadershipAbstract
This study examined the leadership practices of school heads among public high schools in the Schools Division of Kalinga and their relationship with teachers’ instructional practices. It focused on transformational, instructional, and administrative leadership practices, as well as teachers’ lesson planning, instructional delivery, classroom management, and student learning outcomes. The study employed a descriptive-correlational research design. Data were gathered from 312 respondents composed of 224 teachers, 56 master teachers, and 32 school heads across 32 public secondary schools in Kalinga. A structured questionnaire adapted from the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads and the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers was used. Data were analyzed using frequency, percentage, weighted mean, Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Walli’s test, Spearman’s rank-order correlation, and stepwise backward regression analysis. Findings showed that school heads’ leadership practices were often practiced overall, with administrative leadership obtaining the highest area mean, followed by instructional leadership and transformational leadership. Teachers’ instructional practices were always practiced overall, with lesson planning, classroom management, instructional delivery, and student learning outcomes all rated highly. However, the relationship between school heads’ leadership practices and teachers’ instructional practices was not statistically significant at the district level. Regression analysis likewise showed that leadership practices had very weak explanatory power in predicting instructional practices. The study concludes that while school heads demonstrated consistent leadership practices and teachers showed strong instructional practices, other contextual variables may better explain variations in instructional effectiveness. The findings imply the need for targeted leadership development, strengthened instructional supervision, improved assessment literacy, and collaborative school-based professional learning programs.
Downloads
References
Alonzo, R., & Mercado, L. (2023). Leadership practices during curriculum reforms in Philippine basic education. Philippine Journal of Educational Leadership, 9(1), 15-30. https://ejournals.ph
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
Dela Cruz, M., & Mendoza, R. (2019). Instructional supervision in Philippine schools. Philippine Journal of Education, 96(2), 45-58.
Department of Education. (2016). DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016: The Learning Action Cell. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/06/17/do-35-s-2016
Department of Education. (2017). DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2017: National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2017/08/11/do-42-s-2017
Department of Education. (2020). DepEd Order No. 24, s. 2020: National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2020/07/10/do-24-s-2020
Department of Education. (2024). DepEd Order No. 10, s. 2024: Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the MATATAG Curriculum. https://www.deped.gov.ph
Flores, J., & Caballero, M. (2019). Learning Action Cells and teacher collaboration. Philippine Education Review, 12(1), 33-47.
Garcia, A. I., & Reyes, E. M. (2020). Leadership performance of school principals: Basis for developing a leadership presence and influence workshop. Lyceum Northwestern University Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.17613/6he63-26j28
Gavino, M. (2013). Teaching performance among higher education faculty in Kalinga. Cordillera Journal of Higher Education, 5(2), 77-92.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699
Hallinger, P., & Kovačević, J. (2023). Digital instructional leadership in pandemic contexts. School Leadership & Management, 43(2), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2022.2091234
Mendoza, R. (2024). Instructional leadership practices and teacher performance in Philippine basic education. Philippine Journal of Educational Management.
Navarro, J. (2023). Professional learning communities and instructional improvement in public schools. Philippine Education Research Journal.
Reyes, A. (2021). Formative assessment and feedback practices in basic education classrooms. Asian Journal of Education Studies.
Santos, M. (2021). Learning objectives alignment and instructional effectiveness in secondary education. Philippine Journal of Curriculum Studies.
Torres, L. (2021). Administrative leadership and teacher performance in public schools. Journal of Philippine Educational Research.
UNESCO. (2022). Reimagining education for the future. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org
Villanueva, L. B. (2023). Analysis on code switching manifested by Filipino high school teachers. Diversitas Journal, 8(3), 2776-2798. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7652948
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.