LEADERSHIP STYLES AND PRACTICES OF SCHOOL HEADS AND ITS EFFECTIVENESS ON TEACHERS’ TEACHING ACCOMPLISHMENT
Ma. Rizza P. Olasiman
1, Leandro C. Torreon 2
1 Department
of Education – District of Anda, Bohol, Philippines
2 Bohol
Island State University – Candijay Campus, Cogtong, Candijay, Bohol,
Philippines
|
ABSTRACT |
||
It has been
known that leadership is vital in any organization and institution. The school heads leadership styles,
practices and teachers teaching accomplishment are interconnected. The study
assessed the level of school heads’ leadership styles and practices and its
effectiveness on teacher’s teaching accomplishments. There was a total of five hundred
ninety-eight (598) respondents who were the ninety-eight school heads and five
hundred. The researchers’ utilized
descriptive-survey design employing simple random sampling technique using
modified research tool on the school heads leadership styles. A survey tool
anchored from National adoption and Implementation of the Philippine
Professional Standards for School heads DepEd
Order No. 24 series (2020) for school heads
leadership practices and for teacher’s teaching accomplishment the
Result-Based Performance System (RPMS) was used. The result revealed that
there is no significant relationship between the school heads’ leadership
styles and their profile in terms of age, sex, experience, educational
attainment, and position or designation.
Further, there is sufficient evidence of significant correlation
between the leadership styles of school heads and the accomplishments of
teachers. Likewise, there is
sufficient evidence of significant correlation between the school heads’
leadership styles and teachers’ accomplishments. This study concludes that the school heads’
leadership styles were not influenced by the school heads’ age, sex,
experience, educational attainment, and position or designation. |
|||
Received 25 October
2024 Accepted 08 November 2024 Published 13 December 2024 Corresponding Author Ma. Rizza
P. Olasiman, marizza.olasiman@deped.com.ph DOI 10.29121/granthaalayah.v12.i11.2024.5728 Funding: This research
received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial,
or not-for-profit sectors. Copyright: © 2024 The
Author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License. With the
license CC-BY, authors retain the copyright, allowing anyone to download,
reuse, re-print, modify, distribute, and/or copy their contribution. The work
must be properly attributed to its author. |
|||
Keywords: Leadership Styles, Leadership Practices, Teaching Accomplishments, Effectiveness |
1. INTRODUCTION
Leadership is universal. It is one of the most challenging tasks a leader does in every organization as it plays a significant part in the development of schools and contributed to the teaching accomplishment of teachers. It is completely a challenging aspect of management hence it is a helping-method to teachers teaching effectiveness which aide to the full development of the learners as envisioned by the Department of education Aas & Paulsen (2019).
The school head is the most visible, susceptible, and potentially, the most influential member of the educational organization within the school”. An effective leader must have the ability to analyze and adapt leadership styles to fit the demand of the environment (Hersey & Blanchard (2012) as cited by Mann 2014). Consequently, achieving the organizational goal is the responsibility of the school heads Almusaed (2020).
The DepEd aims to continue and support the very satisfactory performance of the leader in school especially in the basic education in our country. It is imperative that good leadership practices like conducting various educational workshops to teachers keep abreast with the trend of education, classroom visits like observations and giving technical assistance to teachers, sending teachers to seminars and training that would help address some of the difficulties in the teaching and implementing different leadership styles Amon & Anggal (2021).
According to the “Great man Theory” (Thomas Carlyle, 19th Century) a leader is someone endowed with extraordinary traits with which he influences the team. Batas Pambansa Blg 232One leadership style may not be applicable to all since each one has a different attitude. In this case, a leader must be flexible to handle different needs of employees around him. Chin (2015) School heads ought to apply different leadership styles and practices that would fit the need of teachers, especially in the teaching and learning process. However, the role limitation of school heads in obtaining educational reform are progressively becoming noticeable to policy makers. The strong decision-making linked with positive viewpoints in leading people typically aimed at sustaining stability Warman (2021)
On the other hand, Fred Edward Fiedler’s contingency theory highlights the importance of both the leader’s personality and situation in which he operates. Cimene & Aladano (2013) The two important leadership styles involved in in theory are: task-motivated which refers to task accomplishment while relationship motivated refers to interpersonal relationships. An effective school head assists in creating atmosphere that encourages positive teacher insights and positive learning environment for all students. Darling-Hammond (2013), Mann (2014) states that a school head encourages the achievement of all the learners by promoting and supporting a school values and programs beneficial to learning and professional development. Therefore, organizational leadership and teaching performance are essential to the achievement of school organization goal.
Furthermore, Change-oriented leadership behavior theory asserts that a leader is responsible for identifying necessary changes in the environment, monitoring shifts, and engaging followers to gain their commitment for implementing changes Gil et al. (2005), Mikkelsen & Olsen (2019), Yukl (2013) & Yukl (2019). It involves observing and analyzing the environment, envisioning new opportunities for the organization, suggesting innovative solutions, and experimenting with different approaches to enhance results. Change-oriented leadership behavior can be defined as guiding organizational change through sensemaking techniques. Employees' attitudes and emotions, which significantly impact their job performance, largely depend on how they perceive and interpret the change process. Maitlis & Christianson (2014). This leadership style is based on contingency theory, which suggests that there are no universally effective leadership skills. Instead, it involves choosing a leadership style that aligns with the company’s needs and helps employees leverage their individual strengths Haleem (2020). Muring (2014), highlights that school principals play a crucial leadership role within the educational system. It is their responsibility to carry out the vision and the mission of the department. Therefore, they are engaged in every facet of the school's operations, including leading the development and implementation of all educational programs. School heads served to guide the teachers as they performed their job in developing learners who would meet the lifelong skills as envisioned by the Department of Education.
This situation motivated the researchers to conduct this study on the leadership styles and practices of school heads and its effectiveness to teachers’ teaching accomplishments in order to create an action plan school heads leadership styles and practices that would aid to the teachers’ teaching accomplishment.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
2.1. Design
The study utilizes a descriptive – correlational design. Surveys are often part of research designs through questionnaire. In this study, used a survey questionnaire investigate the school heads leadership styles and practices to its effectiveness in teachers’ teaching accomplishment.
2.2. Environment and Participants
CAMAG which comprises all elementary schools in the 5 districts of (CAMAG) Candijay, Anda, Mabini, Alicia and Guindulman were the locale of the study. The five districts were situated in the eastern part of Bohol Province.
The school heads and teachers of the public elementary schools in CAMAG District were the subject of the study. The researcher employed purposive selection of respondents to come up with reliable data representing the entire research locale. Specifically, the researcher identifies the total number of teachers in each school in every district. From Candjiay district there was a total of one hundred twenty-two (122) respondents composed of 22 school heads and one hundred (100) teachers. Anda district the has one hundred seventeen (117) respondents composed of seventeen (17) school heads and one hundred (100) teachers. Mabini district with one hundred twenty-two (122) respondents composed of twenty-two (22) school heads and one hundred (100) teachers. Alicia district with one hundred seventeen (117) respondents composed seventeen (17) school heads and one hundred (100) teachers. Lastly, Guindulman district with one hundred twenty (120) respondents composed of twenty (20) school heads and one hundred (100) teachers. Hence, total of five hundred ninety-eight (598) respondents took part in the study.
2.3. Materials
The study utilized a modified questionnaire in gathering data. The questionnaire used a 4-point Likert scale. Questionnaires was distributed personally to the respondents.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This study sought to assess the school heads leadership styles and practices and its effectiveness to teachers’ teaching accomplishment in the public school of CAMAG (Candijay, Alicia, Mabini, Anda and Guindulman) district, Bohol, Philippines.
Table 1
Table 1 Profile of the Teacher Respondents |
|||
1.1 Age |
Frequency |
Percentage (%) |
Rank |
20 - 30 years old |
73 |
14.6 |
4 |
31- 40 years old |
201 |
40.2 |
1 |
41- 50 years old |
125 |
25 |
2 |
51 years old and above |
101 |
20.2 |
3 |
Total |
500 |
100% |
|
1.2 Sex |
|||
Male |
31 |
6.2 |
2 |
Female |
469 |
93.8 |
1 |
Total |
500 |
100% |
|
1.3 Teaching
Experience |
|||
1 below – 10 years |
239 |
47.8 |
1 |
11 - 20 years |
166 |
33.2 |
2 |
21 - 30 years |
78 |
15.6 |
3 |
31 - 40 years |
17 |
3.4 |
4 |
Total |
500 |
100% |
|
1.4 Highest
Educational Attainment |
|||
Bachelor’s Degree
Holder |
92 |
18.4 |
2 |
Bachelor’s Degree with
masteral unit |
343 |
68.6 |
1 |
Master’s Degree Holder |
58 |
11.6 |
3 |
With units in
Ph.D./Ed.D. |
7 |
1.4 |
4 |
Doctorate Degree
Holder |
0 |
0 |
- |
Total |
500 |
100% |
|
1.5
Designation/Teaching Position |
|||
Teacher I |
175 |
35 |
2 |
Teacher II |
4 |
0.8 |
3 |
Teacher III |
321 |
64.2 |
1 |
Total |
500 |
100% |
Age. The results revealed the bracket of 31-40 years old were the rank first of respondents having the frequency of 201 or 40.2%, 125 or 25% were aged 41-50 years old, there were 101 or 20.2% aged 51 years old and above and 73 or 14.6% belonged to the age bracket of 20-30 years old. It implies that many of the respondents are in the middle-aged.
Sex. Most of the respondents are females with the highest frequency of 469 or 93.8% while only 31 or 6.2% were males. This denotes that most of the teacher respondents were females.
Teaching Experience. It has been reflected that majority of teacher respondents spent 1 year below to 10 years of teaching with a frequency of 239 or 47.8% and approximately 166 or 33.2% spent 11-20 years of teaching. A frequency of 78 or 15.6% of teacher respondents spent 21-30 years of teaching and only 17 or 3.4% of teacher respondent spent 31-40 years in teaching.
Highest Educational Attainment. It is reflected in the table that majority of the teacher respondents with 343 or 68.6% were earning masteral units to enhance their professional growth which was vital in acquiring higher position. 92 or 18.4% were bachelor’s degree holder while 58 or 11.6% have acquired their master’s degree and only 7 or 1.4% pursue to acquire higher education and earned doctorate unit and none of the teacher respondents have acquired a doctorate degree.
Designation. Most of the respondents with a frequency of 321 or 64.2% were Teacher III while 175 or 35% were Teacher 1 and only 4 or 0.8% belonged to Teacher II.
As to the School head-respondents in terms of age, sex, years served as school head, highest educational attainment, and designation.
2.1 Age. The results revealed that the age range of 41-50 years old has the highest number of respondents having the frequency of 46 or 46.94%, 29 or 29.59% were aged 51 years old and above, there were 17 or 17.35% aged 31-40 years old and only 6 or 6.12% belonged to the age bracket of 20-30 years old. It implies that many of the respondents were in their late forties and were very experienced in leading people.
2.2 Sex. Most of the respondents are females with the highest frequency of 75 or 76.53% while only 23 or 23.47% were males. This denotes that most of the school head respondents were females.
2.3 No. of years served as School Head. It has been reflected that majority of respondents served as school head from 1 year below to 10 years with a frequency of 40 or 40.81% and approximately 37 or 37.76% served 11-20 years as school head. A frequency of 19 or 19.39% of school heads served for 21-30 while only 2 or 2.04% served for 31-40 years as school head and none of the respondents have served for over 41 years as school head.
2.4 Highest Educational Attainment. Most of the school head respondents with 61 or 62.24% were earning masteral units. 20 or 20.42% were master’s degree holder while 9 or 9.18% pursue to acquire higher education and earned doctorate unit while 4 or 4.05% have acquired their doctorate degree to enhance their professional growth which was vital in acquiring higher position whereas, there were 4 or 4.05% who did not pursue graduate studies.
2.5 Designation. School-in-charge got the highest frequency with 44 or 44.90%, they were the school heads that managed small schools in the district and were under the direct supervision of a cluster head who is a principal or a head teacher. There are 22 or 22.45% school heads were Principal I, and both Head Teacher I and Head Teacher III got the same frequency with 15 or 15.31% while only 2 or 2.04% were Principal II and none of the school head respondents were Principal III.
Table 2
Table 2 Respondents’ Perception on School Heads’ Leadership Style |
|||||||
Leadership Styles |
Teachers N1 = 500 |
School Head N2 = 98 |
Overall |
||||
Mean |
DI |
Mean |
DI |
Mean |
DI |
Rank |
|
Autocratic |
3.11 |
O |
3 |
O |
3.05 |
O |
3 |
Democratic |
3.56 |
HO |
3.64 |
HO |
3.6 |
HO |
1 |
Laizzes Faire |
3.11 |
O |
3.13 |
O |
3.12 |
O |
2 |
Composite Mean |
3.26 |
HO |
3.26 |
HO |
3.26 |
Highly Observable |
Legend:
Rating Scale Descriptive Interpretation
3.25 – 4.00 Highly Observable (HO)
2.50 – 3.24 Observable (O)
1.75 – 2.49 Slightly Observable (SO)
1.00 – 1.74 Not Observable (NO)
The table depicts that democratic leadership style gained the highest average of 3.60 verbally analyzed as Highly Observable. This only proves that most of the school heads leads with democracy. It further implies that respondents were able to work freely and happily.
Laizze’s faire leadership style got the second highest average of 3.12 analyzed as Observable. This implies that there was a minimal supervision of the school heads to the teacher’s performance and a moderate involvement in the instructional process.
In contrast, autocratic leadership style received the lowest average of 3.05 analyzed as Observable. This implies that school heads only few among the school heads had an irregular communication with the teaching staff and with limited involvement of teachers in decision making and less delegation of task.
Table 3
Table 3 Respondents’ Perception on Leadership Practices of School Heads |
|||||||
Statement |
Teachers N1 = 500 |
School Head N2 = 98 |
Overall |
||||
Domain 1: Leading Strategically |
WM |
DI |
WM |
DI |
WM |
DI |
Rank |
Average Weighted Mean |
3.59 |
HP |
3.58 |
HP |
3.59 |
HP |
|
Domain 2: Managing school operations and resources |
|
||||||
Average Weighted Mean |
3.6 |
HP |
3.61 |
HP |
3.61 |
HP |
|
Domain 3. Focusing on Teaching and Learning |
|
||||||
Average Weighted Mean |
3.54 |
HP |
3.56 |
HP |
3.55 |
HP |
|
Domain 4. Developing Self and Others |
|
||||||
Average Weighted Mean |
3.56 |
HP |
3.59 |
HP |
3.57 |
HP |
|
Domain 5. Building Connections |
|
||||||
Average Weighted Mean |
3.63 |
HP |
3.57 |
HP |
3.6 |
HP |
|
Composite Mean |
3.58 |
HP |
3.58 |
HP |
3.58 |
Highly Practiced |
|
Legend:
Rating Scale Descriptive Interpretation Weighted Mean (WM)
3.25 - 4.00 Highly Practiced (HP)
2.50 - 3.24 Practiced (P)
1.75 - 2.49 Slightly Practiced (SP)
1.00 - 1.74 Not Practiced (NP)
Domain 1. Leading Strategically. The table portrays that school heads “demonstrated knowledge of the DepEd vision, mission, and core values to foster shared understanding and alignment of school policies, programs, projects, and activities” gained the highest weighted mean of 3.66 verbally interpreted as Highly Practiced. Thus, it has been evident that school heads were fully oriented and guided with the DepEd vision, mission and core values that was consonance with the DepEd’ vision of producing learners equipped with 21st century skills as stated in DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013. Demonstrated knowledge and understanding of policy implementation and review to ensure that school operations are consistent with national and local laws, regulations, and issuances garnered a weighted mean of 3.63 still verbally interpreted as Highly Practiced.
On the other hand, identified relevant research findings from liable sources in facilitating data-driven and evidence-based innovations to improve school performance and demonstrated knowledge and understanding of utilizing learner voice to inform policy development and decision making towards school improvement have the lowest weighted mean of 3.53 interpreted as Highly Practiced. This implies that there is a need of the school heads to give focus on this aspect as to create programs which were learner centered.
Domain 2. Managing School Operations and Resources. Item 9” demonstrated knowledge and understanding of policies, guidelines, and issuances in managing finances such as allocation, procurement, disbursement, and liquidation aligned with the school plan. and item 12 managed school safety for disaster preparedness, mitigation, and resiliency to ensure continuous delivery of instruction got the weighted mean of 3.63 which is interpreted as Highly Practiced. While managed school data and information using technology, including ICT, to ensure efficient and effective school operations got the lowest weighted mean of 3.53 still interpreted as Highly Practiced.
Domain 3. Focusing on Teaching and Learning. Demonstrated understanding of managing a learner friendly, inclusive, and healthy learning environment got the highest weighted mean of 3.60 interpreted as Highly Practiced while set achievable and challenging learning outcomes to support learner achievement and the attainment of other performance indicators got the lowest weighted mean of 3.51 still interpreted as Highly Practiced.
Domain 4. Developing Self and Others. In provided opportunities to individuals and team in performing leadership roles and responsibilities got the highest weighted mean of 3.60 interpreted as Highly Practiced while led in organizing professional networks to provide colleagues opportunities to maximize their potential and enhance their practice got the lowest weighted mean of 3.54 still interpreted as Highly Practiced.
Domain 5. Building Connections. In building constructive relationships with authorities, colleagues, parents, and other stakeholders to foster an enabling and supportive environment for learners and involved the community, such as parents, alumni, authorities, industries and other stakeholders in school programs projects and activities to gain support for learner development, as well as school and community improvement got the highest weighted mean of 3.63 interpreted as Highly Practiced. Building good working relationship with stakeholders will aid in the improvements and success of school programs as school heads may gained full support from stakeholders while mentored school personnel in communicating effectively in speaking and in writing, as well as in the positive use of communication platforms, to facilitate information sharing, collaboration, and support got the lowest weighted mean of 3.57 still interpreted as Highly Practiced.
Overall, in school heads leadership practices Managing school operations and resources got the highest weighted mean of 3.61 interpreted as Highly Practiced. PPSSH emphasizes the significance of accountability and transparency, asserting that the decisions and actions of school heads are subject to public scrutiny and that the public has a right to access information. School heads are expected to acknowledge and assume responsibility, and are obligated to report, explain, and be accountable for their actions, outcomes, decisions, and policies (RA 9155, Chapter 1, Section 5)
Table 4
Table 4 Respondents’ Perception on Teacher’s Teaching Accomplishment |
|||
Statement |
WM |
DI |
Rank |
Domain 1: Content and Pedagogy |
|||
As a teacher, I … |
|||
Average Weighted Mean |
3.56 |
HP |
|
Domain 2. Learning Environment |
|||
Average Weighted Mean |
3.67 |
HP |
|
Domain 3. Diversity of Learners |
|||
Average Weighted Mean |
3.5 |
HP |
|
Domain 4. Curriculum and Planning |
|||
Average Weighted Mean |
3.57 |
HP |
|
Domain 5. Assessment and Reporting |
|||
Average Weighted Mean |
3.63 |
HP |
|
Domain 6. Community Linkages and Professional
Engagement |
|||
Average Weighted Mean |
3.62 |
HP |
|
Domain 7. Personal Growth and Professional
Development |
|||
Average Weighted Mean |
3.62 |
HP |
|
Composite Mean |
3.6 |
Highly Practiced |
Domain 1. Content Knowledge and Pedagogy. Teachers applied knowledge of content within and across curriculum teaching areas got the highest weighted mean of 3.63 interpreted as Highly Practiced. The results implies that teacher respondents are well equipped and engage on identifying learning objectives, competence and accompanying materials in attaining pupils learning competencies. On the other hand, used research-based knowledge and principles of teaching and learning to enhance professional practice got the lowest weighted mean of 3.50 still interpreted as Highly Practiced. PPST further specifies that teachers should implement developmentally appropriate and meaningful pedagogy based on the context of content knowledge and current research
Domain 2. Learning Environment. Maintained learning environments that promote fairness, respect, and care to encourage learning got the highest weighted mean of 3.74 interpreted as Highly Practiced while applied a range of successful strategies that maintain learning environments to motivate learners to work productively by assuming responsibility for their own learning got the lowest weighted mean of 3.60 still interpreted as Highly Practiced.
Domain 3. Diversity of Learners. Used differentiated, developmentally appropriate learning experiences to address learners’ gender, needs, strengths, interests, and experiences got the highest weighted mean of 3.56 interpreted as Highly Practiced. On the other hand, adapted and used culturally appropriate teaching strategies to address the needs of learners from indigenous groups got the lowest weighted mean of 3.41 still interpreted as Highly Practiced.
Domain 4. Curriculum and Planning. Setting achievable and appropriate learning outcomes that are aligned with learning competencies got the highest weighted of 3.61 interpreted as Highly Practiced while selected, developed, organized, and used appropriate teaching and learning resources, including ICT, to address learning goals garnered the lowest weighted mean of 3.53 still interpreted as Highly Practiced.
Domain 5. Assessment and Reporting. In monitored and evaluated learner progress and achievement using learner attainment data got the highest weighted mean of 3.66 interpreted as Highly Practiced while utilized assessment data to inform the modification of teaching and learning practices and programs garnered the lowest weighted mean of 3.59 still interpreted as Highly Practiced.
Domain 6. Community Linkages and Professional Engagement. In built relationships with parents/guardians and the wider school community to facilitate involvement in the educative process got the highest weighted mean 3.64 interpreted as Highly Practiced. Reviewed regularly personal teaching practice using existing laws and regulations that apply to the teaching profession and the responsibilities specified in the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers got the lowest weighted mean of 3.60 still interpreted as Highly Practiced.
Domain 7. Personal Growth and Professional Development. Adopted practices that uphold the dignity of teaching as a profession by exhibiting qualities such as caring attitude, respect, and integrity garnered the highest weighted mean of 3.65 interpreted as Highly Practiced. Developed a personal professional improvement plan based on reflection of one’s practice and ongoing professional learning got the lowest weighted mean of 3.59 still interpreted as Highly Practiced.
Table 5
Table 5 Test of Association Between the School Heads’ Leadership Practices and Their Profile |
|||||
Profile |
X2 |
df |
p-value |
Interpretation |
Decision |
Age |
5.09 |
3 |
0.166 |
Not Significant |
Do Not Reject H0 |
Sex |
4.13E-05 |
1 |
0.995 |
Not Significant |
Do Not Reject H0 |
Experience |
2.44 |
3 |
0.485 |
Not Significant |
Do Not Reject H0 |
Highest Educational
Attainment |
3.38 |
4 |
0.496 |
Not Significant |
Do Not Reject H0 |
Position/Designation |
2.52 |
4 |
0.641 |
Not Significant |
Do Not Reject H0 |
*Correlation
is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed) |
The test of association between the school heads’ leadership styles and their profile in terms of age, sex, experience, highest educational attainment and position or designation. The result revealed that there is no significant between the school heads’ leadership styles and their profile in terms of age, X2(3)=5.09, p=0.166, sex, X2(1)=0.0000413, p=0.995, experience, X2(3)=2.44, p=0.485, educational attainment, X2(4)=3.38, p=0.496, and position or designation, X2(4)=2.52, p=0.641, thus failed to reject the null hypothesis. This denotes that the leadership practices of school heads are not influenced by their age, sex, experience, highest educational attainment, and designation. It further implies that whether they are young, middle-aged, or matured, does not effect on how they performed their duties and responsibilities as school head.
Table 6
Table 6 Test of Correlation Between the School Heads’ Leadership Styles and Teachers’ Accomplishments |
|||||
Variables |
rs |
df |
p-value |
Interpretation |
Decision |
School Heads’
Leadership Styles and Teachers’ Accomplishments |
0.428 |
498 |
<.001 |
Significant |
Reject H0 |
*Correlation
is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed) |
The test of the correlation between the leadership styles of school heads and the accomplishments of teachers. The result shown that there is sufficient evidence of significant correlation between the leadership styles of school heads and the accomplishments of teachers, r(498)=0.428, p<.001, thus the null hypothesis is rejected. This infers that school heads leadership styles are vital in the teacher’s teaching accomplishments.
Table 7
Table 7 Test of Correlation Between the School Heads’ Leadership Practices and Teachers’ Accomplishments |
|||||
Variables |
rs |
df |
p-value |
Interpretation |
Decision |
School Heads’
Leadership Practices and Teachers’ Accomplishments |
0.641 |
498 |
<.001 |
Significant |
Reject H0 |
*Correlation
is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed) |
The test of the correlation between the leadership practices of school heads and the accomplishments of teachers. The result deduced that there is sufficient evidence of significant correlation between the school heads’ leadership styles and teachers’ accomplishments, r(498)=0.641, p<.001, thus the null hypothesis is rejected. This implies that when school heads have effective leadership practices, teachers may perform well in school.
4. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1. Conclusions
The school heads’ leadership styles have nothing to do with the school heads’ age, sex, experience, educational attainment, and position or designation. The school heads’ leadership styles are very important in supervising the teachers’ accomplishment in the teaching and learning process. Moreover, the practices of school head play a vital role in the teachers’ accomplishment in giving quality education to the learners. Through school heads’ leadership styles and practices which produces quality teachers that can provide quality education for the learners.
4.2. Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations were drawn: The Department of Education (DepEd) shall unceasingly provide programs enhancing the development of effective leadership styles and practices of school heads. Alternatively, School heads ought to continue to pursue the best practices on leadership. They shall maintain the qualities in designing and monitoring the school framework to assure instructional success to utilize and maximize the pedagogical competence of teachers. In addition, teachers shall continue their best practices on their pedagogical competencies that aided the success of teaching and learning process. Further, learners’ academic performance is to be monitored closely through assessment of learning outcomes as to develop programs that would aid the development of a holistic learner.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
None.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
None.
REFERENCES
Aas & Paulsen (2019). National Strategy for Supporting School Principal's Instructional Leadership: A Scandinavian Approach. Journal of Educational Administration, 57-5, 540-553. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0168
Almusaed, A. (2020). The Role
of Supervisor on Developing
PhD Students' Skills.
International Conference on Humanities,
Social and Education Sciences, 25-36.
Amon, L., & Anggal,
N. (2021). An Implementation
of School-Based Management in Curriculum and Learning
Processes. A Literature Review. European Journal of Research Development and Sustainability, 2(7), 90-98.
Batas Pambansa Blg 232 (1982). An Act Providing for the Establishment and Maintenance of an Integrated System of Education.
Chin, R. (2015). Examining Teamwork and Leadership in the Fields of Public Administration, Leadership, and Management. Team Perform. Manage, 21, 199-216. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-07-2014-0037
Cimene, F. T. A., & Aladano, A. N. (2013). Leadership Perspective from the Philippines: Its Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice. Culture and Gender in Leadership. Published. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137311573_4
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Preparing the 21st Century Teacher for the Implementation of Outcomes-Based Education: The Practical Reality. American Journal of Educational
Research.
DepEd Order No. 24 series
(2020). National Adoption and Implementation
of Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads.
DepEd Order No. 36, s. (2013). Deped Vision Mission Core Values.
DepEd Order No. 37, s. (2015). The Comprehensive Disaster Risk Reduction and Management.
Deped Order No. 42, s. (2017). National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers.
Deped Order No. 8, s. (2015). Policy Guidelines on Classroom Assessments for the K to 12 Basic Education Program.
Felisilda & Torreon (2020). Effects of Broken Family on Pupils' Behavioral and Academic Success. International Journal of Research- Granthaalaya. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i10.2020.1526
Fiedler, F.E. (2022). A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness.
Ki. (2019). Filipino Leadership Styles - What are the Four Distinctive Filipino Leadership Styles.
Mejica, P. et. al (2019). Instructional leadership of School Heads as Determinants of Pedagogical Competence of Teachers. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(1).
Ng, L. T., & Rivera, J. P. (2018). Exploring Transformational Leadership and Fellowship in a Cultural Context: The Case of the Philippines. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.59588/2350-8329.1142
Northouse P. G. (2018). Leadership:
Theory and Practice, 8th Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Peregrino, L. et.al. (2021). School
Heads Comptence and Qualifications:
It's Influence on School
Performance. CiiT International Journal of Data
Mining and Knowledge Engineering, 13(1).
Republic Act 9155. Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001. August 11, 2001.
Republic Act No. 6713. Code of Conducts and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Research Gate (2018). Modern leadership and Management Methods for Development Organizations.
Rivera, J. P., & Ng, L. (2018). Exploring Transformational Leadership and Fellowship in a Cultural Context: The Case of the Philippines. Asia Pacific Social Science Review, 17(3), 136-141. https://doi.org/10.59588/2350-8329.1142
Rivera, M. (2018). Leading Growth Through the Digital Leader. Article in Journal of Leadership Studies.
Sikandar, A., & Ali, R. S. (2018) Impact of Leadership Style on the Performance of Students: An Application of Hershey and Blanchard Situational Model. Bulletin of Education and Research, 40(3), 73-74.
Torres, P. A. (2019). Finding Indigenous Values Behind Filipino Leadership.
This work is licensed under a: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
© Granthaalayah 2014-2024. All Rights Reserved.