performance and practices among public elementary school...

SMCC Teacher Education Journal

32

Performance and Practices Among Public Elementary School Heads

ANDRONICO P. CUESTAhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5504-8322

[email protected] Normal University, Agusan Campus

Gunning Fog Index: 13.35 • Originality 99% • Grammar Check: 99%Flesch Reading Ease: 44.10 • Plagiarism: 1%

ABSTRACT

Improving student learning outcomes is a perennial challenge facing school system worldwide. This study was conducted to determine the performance and practices among public elementary school heads of Prosperidad Districts. A descriptive survey was conducted to 40 public elementary school heads of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. Three groups of respondents were used to solicit information on the leadership skills, roles, and practices of these 40 school heads. A validated questionnaire was used to generate responses from the 40 school heads, 193 teachers, and four district supervisors. Findings of the study revealed that female school heads generally do better than their male counterparts in performing the leadership role as (a) Direction Setter, (b) change agent, (c) spokesperson, and (d) coach. School heads who are assign in big school generally do better than those assigned in small schools in performing the leadership role as (a) Direction Setter, (b) change agent, (c) spokesperson, and (d) coach. It was suggested that the opportunities for leadership should be equal to both male and female teachers. Teachers who have been in the service for a long span of time and have acquired advanced degrees in educational management should be given priority for promotion.

KEYWORDS

Performance and Practices, Public Elementary, School Heads, Prosperidad Districts, descriptive, Philippines

SMCC Teacher Education JournalISSN Print: 2008- 0598 • ISSN Online: 2008-0601

Volume 1 • June 2019DOI:

Peer Reviewed Journal

33

INTRODUCTION

In the pursuit of improvement, educators introduce various innovations. Improving student learning outcomes is a perennial challenge facing school system worldwide. One of these innovations includes encouraging decentralization and implementation of collaborative school governance, thus, the creation of the School-Based Management (SBM) under Republic Act 9155.(Known as Governance of Basic Education Act) emphasizes decentralization of school governance (Chiesa & Serretti, 2009).

School-Based Management, piloted and implemented by the 23 participating divisions of the Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP), is among the several initiatives developed within the Department of Education to significantly raise levels of student performance. It is the institutional expression of decentralization of education at the grassroots level (Hidalgo, 2006). Based on the national policy of decentralization, SBM is originally set by the Philippine Local Government Code of 1991(RA 7160)as a response to the new challenges for sustainable human development by enabling local communities to become self-reliant and more effective partners in the attainment of national goals. Subsequently, DECS Order no.230 in 1999, further defined decentralization to mean the promotion of School-based Management, transfer of authority and decision-making from central and regional offices to the divisions and schools, sharing education management responsibilities with other stakeholders such as the Local Government Units(LGUs)and Parent Teachers Community Association (PTCAs)and Non-Government Organizations(NGOs)and devolution of education functions.

Moreover, with the enactment on August 11, 2001 of RA 9155 (An Act Instituting a Framework of Governance for Basic Education and Other Purposes), the legal mandate for decentralization of governance in basic education was finally articulated. Its Declaration of Policy under Section 2 sets the directions of basic education in the Philippines. With the approval of Five-Year Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) for Basic Education (1994-2004), the goals of the educational system are stated as follows:(1) enhance school holding power; (2) improve the school and raise the quality and academic excellence; (3) enhance the relevance of the curriculum; and (4) establish administrative and management improvements to gear bureaucracy for decentralization and modernization.

Consistent with the law, national educational policies, plans and standards of the school heads shall have twelve (12) authority, accountability and responsibility of which the researcher classified them into four leadership roles which was adopted from the research of Albareda, Lozano, Tencati, Midttun, & Perrini, (2008); they are the following: 1. Direction Setter(Setting the mission, vision, goals and objectives);2.Change Agent ( Creating an environment within the school that is conducive to teaching and learning, implementing, monitoring and assessing the school curriculum);3.Spokesperson (Establishing school and community networks); and 4. Coach (Recommending the


34

staffing complement of the school).Monje, Orbeta, Francisco-Abrigo, & Capones (2019) defines that the privilege

and authority given to the school heads would help themselves depending on how far school heads have understood and exercised their leadership roles.

According to Sergiovanni (2005), school heads more often focus on the physical structure of the school and give less attention to the academic achievement of the pupils believing that there are advisers who manage the academic development of the pupils. With this, school heads hardly perform their roles and show ineffective leadership practices. However, school heads that have balance practice of their leadership roles tend to perform both physical structure and pupils academic improvements.

On October 2011, results of School-Based Management Monitoring and Evaluation revealed that out of 40 schools in Prosperidad Districts, only one school met the standard requirements for level III and 13 met the standard requirements for Level I. The results illustrated further that the majority of the schools in Agusan del Sur, Prosperidad Districts in general, did not qualify in the SBM accreditation for an effective school. The Criteria which are the basis on how the schools are rated are as follows:75% below (poor performance)75%-80%(Beginning-Level I)81%-90%(Standard-Level II)91%-100%(Mature-Level III)These criteria gave us enough explanations on what level are those schools which did not qualify during the monitoring and evaluation of all schools of Prosperidad Districts.

With this current problem at hand, the researcher who is also a school head felt it a responsibility to be an instrument in advancing the school heads’ leadership skills, which would translate into better service to the general clientele. The researcher then sought to determine the performance and practices among the school heads of Prosperidad Districts.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

This study aimed to determine the performance and practices among public elementary school heads of Prosperidad Districts.

FRAMEWORK

This study is anchored on the theory of Transformational Leadership by Burns (1978). Burns defines transformational leadership as the ability to empower others with the purpose of bringing about a major change in the form, nature and function of some phenomenon. To put it simply, the theory itself distinguishes between ordinary transformational leaders who engage followers, focus on higher order intrinsic needs, and raise consciousness about the significance of specific outcomes and new ways in which those outcomes may be achieved. It fosters capacity development and brings higher levels of personal commitment amongst followers to organizational objectives.


35

According to Dannhauser (2007), transformational leadership occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interest of their employees, where they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group and when they stir employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group.

In an educational environment, school heads as transformational leaders play their roles as direction setter, change agent, spokesperson and coach all for developing an effective performance of public elementary school heads (Litfin, 2007). In effect, transformational leaders emphasize the actualization of positive values and beliefs of the followers (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).

On the other hand, Kelly & Johnson (2005) clarifies that partnership of leaders and their subordinates is essential in the concept of transformational leadership theory. Thus, perceptions of school heads cannot stand alone without any collaboration of teachers.

Hay (2006) concludes that through charisma, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspiration, and motivation, transformational leaders have great potential to promote performance beyond expectations and to effect enormous changes within individuals and organizations. The capacity for individual and organizational transformation should be accompanied by moral responsibility, for transformational leaders shape powerful social and institutional cultures; this may be either beneficial or unfair.

METHODOLOGY

Research designThe design used in this research was descriptive. In this study, the researcher

described in details the performance and practices of public elementary school heads in four (4) districts of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. Specifically, it utilized a survey technique, using a questionnaire, in gathering the data.

Research LocaleThis study was conducted in four (4) districts of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur

situated in Caraga Region, Philippines. It is a first class municipality, which was officially created through Republic Act 2650 on June 18, 1960 and is presently, the capital town of the Province of Agusan del Sur. Based on Community-Based Management System. Prosperidad has a total land area of 59,836.14 hectares. It is bounded in the North by the Municipality of Bayugan City, in the South by the Municipality of San Francisco, in the East by the Municipality of Lianga, Surigao del Sur and in the West by the Municipality of Talacogon.

The primary source of living of the residents in this municipality is farming. Prosperidad is divided into Four (4) school districts.


36

There are 41 public elementary schools but only 40 schools were included in the samples because the researcher inhibited himself as a respondent. The schools included in the samples by district were the following: Prosperidad I with eight schools namely: Awa Elementary School, Azpetia Elementary School, Doña Rosario Elementary School, East Prosperidad Central Elementary School, La Suerte Elementary School, Mapaga Elementary School, Maug Elementary School, and Putting Buhangin Elementary School; The Prosperidad II Districts has ten Schools namely: Asuncion Elementary School, La Purisima Elementary School, Mikit Elementary School, New Maasin Elementary School, Pakwan Elementary School, Sta. Irene Central Elementary School, Sta. Irene SPED LC, San Martin Elementary School, San Jose Elementary School and Sta. Maria Elementary School; The Prosperidad III District has nine schools namely: La Caridad Elementary School, Libertad Elementary School, Los Arcos Elementary School, Mabuhay Elementary School, Magsaysay Elementary School, Patin-ay Elementary School, Salvacion Elementary School, San Lorenzo Elementary School, Taonaga Elementary School. The Prosperidad District IV has Thirteen (13) schools namely: Aurora Elementary School, Bagnan Elementary School, Cordova Elementary School, La Fortuna Elementary School, Las Navas Elementary School, Lucena Elementary School, New Visayas Elementary School, San Agustin Elementary School, San Pedro Elementary School, San Rafael Elementary School, San Roque Elementary School, San Vicente Elementary School, and West Prosperidad Central Elementary School.

Research InstrumentThe research instrument used in this study was researcher-made survey questionnaires

intended for the school heads teachers and District supervisors of four (4) districts of Prosperidad. For the School Heads, teachers and district supervisor, questionnaires were based on the school heads authority, accountability and responsibility mandated in R.A. 9155.

The primary purpose of the questionnaires was to determine the performance of the school heads in leadership roles and leadership practices. It consisted of three parts namely: Respondent’s Profile, Leadership Roles and Leadership Practices. Leadership roles are further broken down into 1.) Direction setter 2.) Change agent 3.) Spokesperson, and 4.) Coach.

Conversely, Part II comprises leadership practices patterned from Jerry & Associates (2001); Miletkov (2004) that include 1.) Establishing direction, 2.) Aligning people, and 3.)Motivating and inspiring people.

The research instruments were validated by the three (3) research experts in the field of management of Philippine Normal University-Agusan.

Research RespondentsThe respondents of the study were the 40 school heads and 193 teachers and

four district supervisors of the Districts of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. This study


37

focused on the performance and practices of the school heads, self-evaluation of these school heads on their leadership roles and practices, teachers, and district supervisors’ evaluation on the leadership roles and practices of the school heads.

Table 3.1 showed the distribution of school heads and teacher-respondents of which 54 teachers from district one, 42 teachers from district two, 52 teachers from district three and 45 teachers from district four.

Table 1. Distribution of School Heads and Teacher-Respondents of Prosperidad Districts

Name of Districts No.of SchoolHead No. of Teachers Percentage No.of Sample

per School

Prosperidad I 8 105 28.00 54

Prosperidad II 10 81 21.60 42

Prosperidad III 9 103 27.47 52

Prosperidad IV 13 86 22,93 45

Total 40 375 100 193

Sampling ProcedureTo gather representative samples of this study, the following procedures were

observed:Population survey was used to gather information related to the performance

and practices of public Elementary school heads. Sample survey was used to gather information related to school heads’ leadership roles and practices as perceived by the teachers. Using Slovin’s Formula, there were one hundred ninety-three (193) teachers who were utilized as respondents of the study. They were selected through a simple random sampling procedure. Please see the distribution of teacher-respondents for each school head in Table 3.1 on page 45.

Furthermore, this study employed a purposive sampling technique in the selection of respondents since there were criteria to be observed. First, the school heads should have an administrative experience of at least two years in his/her school during the conduct of this study. Second, the teacher-respondents should be the teachers who were under the supervision of the school heads with at least two years in service. Third, the District Supervisors must be those of the four districts of Prosperidad.

Data Gathering ProcedureThe researcher prepared a list of school heads, teachers and district supervisors in

the public elementary schools of four Districts of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. Then, he asked permission from the Schools Division Superintendent to conduct the study on the Performance of leadership roles and practices of the public elementary school heads in Four (4) Districts of Prosperidad. Following the approval of the Schools Division Superintendent, the researcher sent a letter to the District Supervisors of the


38

said districts to ask permission to conduct the study. After getting the permission from the District Supervisors, the researcher sent a letter to the school heads to inform their teachers of the intention of the study and their contributions in gathering empirical data as the subjects of the study.

To ensure the validity and reliability of the instruments used in gathering the data, questionnaires were subjected to a validation process by the experts in Educational Management. To test the reliability, a pilot testing was conducted to five school heads and five teachers, in the other district, who were excluded in the study.

After having done all the procedures, the researcher did the actual data gathering by distributing personally the questionnaires and retrieving them after one week. After the retrieval of the questionnaires, data were tallied, presented and interpreted.

Treatment of Data To facilitate the statistical analysis of data, the following statistical tools were used:

Percentage, Mean, Multivariate F-test, and F-Test.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 2. Summary of the leadership performance of public elementary school heads of Prosperidad

School Head ID number

Leadership RolesMeanA. Direction Setter B. Change

AgentC. Spokesperson D. Coach

1 4.00 4.00 4.20 4.23 4.12

2 4.37 4.10 4.08 4.10 4.16

3 4.34 4.19 4.32 4.32 4.29

4 4.50 4.37 4.47 4.27 4.40

5 4.00 4.10 3.88 4.08 4.01

6 4.56 4.49 4.55 4.71 4.58

7 3.57 3.48 3.43 3.45 3.48

8 3.60 3.40 3.35 3.75 3.52

9 4.33 3.97 4.00 4.43 4.19

10 3.93 3.93 3.93 4.30 4.03

11 4.44 4.48 4.48 4.74 4.54

12 4.57 4.56 4.57 4.57 4.57

13 4.03 3.93 3.90 4.07 3.99

14 4.30 4.28 4.31 4.36 4.31

15 3.52 3.38 3.38 3.64 3.47

16 4.50 4.50 4.35 4.50 4.46


39

17 4.05 3.88 3.75 3.93 3.89

18 4.40 4.27 4.42 4.52 4.40

19 4.00 3.90 4.13 3.96 3.99

20 3.36 3.44 3.40 3.16 3.34

21 4.51 4.44 4.47 4.50 4.48

22 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.57

23 4.58 4.37 4.73 4.69 4.59

24 3.83 3.86 4.07 3.97 3.93

25 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.57

26 4.09 3.94 3.97 3.99 4.00

27 4.30 4.37 4.35 4.40 4.34

28 3.73 3.83 3.83 3.57 3.74

29 3.85 3.83 3.93 3.95 3.88

30 3.35 3.45 3.45 3.48 3.43

31 3.45 3.00 3.65 3.45 3.39

32 4.35 4.05 4.33 4.20 4.23

33 3.65 3.58 3.60 3.85 3.67

34 4.09 3.90 3.99 3.94 3.98

35 4.45 4.43 4.45 4.45 4.45

36 3.85 3.73 3.78 3.68 3.76

37 4.35 4.18 4.21 4.27 4.25

38 4.00 3.81 3.91 3.89 3.91

39 4.49 4.34 4.51 4.59 4.48

40 4.23 4.07 4.04 4.19 4.13

Total 4.15 4.05 4.12 4.16 4.12

F 2.423 2.524 2.413 2.884 2.678

P value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Table 2 shows School the Head no. 1, obtains the following ratings of 4.00, 4.00, 4.20, and 4.23 for the items Direction Setter, Change Agent, Spokesperson, and Coach, respectively. His mean rating of 4.12 indicates that his leadership performance is “effective”. Similar performances are displayed by other school heads except for School Heads no. 7, 8, 15, 20, 22, 25, 30, and 31 who displayed “somewhat effective” ratings.

Table 4.9 also showed that when the respective ratings for Direction Setter of the 40 school heads are compared, a significant difference is observed. This is indicated by the F value of 2.423 which falls into the critical region or by the P value of 0.000 which is less than the level of significance (α =.05).


40

Similar observations of significant differences are also noted for Change Agent, Spokesperson, and Coach as shown by their respective P values (shown in the last row of Table 4.9), which are all less than the level of significance (α =.05).

Thus, the overall performance (mean ratings) of the 40 school heads on their leadership roles differ considerably from each other.

Comparison of Performance of School HeadsAs noted in the previous findings (Tables 4.5 to 4.9), leadership performance of

the 40 school heads differed considerably. In order to understand the possible reasons for these observed differences, comparisons of the mean ratings of the respondents were done using their profile (gender, years of administrative experience, type of school managed, and highest educational attainment) as the bases for comparisons. Multivariate analysis was done. The results are presented in the following Tables 4.10 to 4.28.

By Gender. Using gender as the independent variable, the performance of the school heads in their roles as Direction Setter, Change Agents, Spokespersons, and Coaches are then compared. Results of these analyses are shown in Tables 4.10 to 4.4

As Direction Setter. Table 4.10 shows the multivariate analysis of the ratings of school heads as direction setters using five indicators (A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5).

As shown in the said table, in A1 (Setting the mission, vision, goals and objectives of the school) male school heads obtained a mean rating of 4.04 while their female counterparts obtained a mean rating of 4.33. F-test MANOVA (multivariate analysis of variance) showed a P value of 0.001. This value implies that the female school heads perform better than their male counterparts in A1.

Similar observations are noted for A2, A3, and A4 where the female consistently rated high compared to their male counterparts. It is only in A5 (Establishing a vision so compelling that everyone in the organization will want to help make it happen) where male and female school heads did not differ significantly as indicated by the P value of 0.183, which is greater than 0.05 (the level of significance).

Table 3. Summary of leadership roles of male and female public elementary school heads of Prosperidad

Leadership RoleGender

Mean F P valueMale Female

A. Direction Setter 4.0417 4.2392 4.1524 5.971 0.015

B. Change Agent 3.9633 4.1261 4.0546 4.198 0.041

C. Spokesperson 4.0142 4.2059 4.1216 5.165 0.024

D. Coach 4.0533 4.2425 4.1593 5.466 0.020

Mean 4.0178 4.2025 4.1213 5.554 0.019


41

As shown in Table 3, the female consistently scored higher than their male counterparts in all the four roles. These observed high ratings of the female over the male are significant as supported by the respective P values of 0.015, 0.041, 0.024, and 0.020.

The mean rating of the female (4.2025) is significantly higher than that of the male (4.0178) as supported by the P value of 0.019. In other words, the female school heads generally do better than their male counter-parts in performing their leadership roles.

This finding supports the finding of Eagly (2003) that women are “more effective than men in educational, governmental, and social service organization.

Comparison of Performance of the School HeadsClassified by Years of Administrative Experience. Using Years of Administrative

Experience (YAE) as the independent variable, the performance of the school heads in their roles as Direction Setter, Change Agents, Spokespersons, and Coaches are then compared. Results of these analyses are shown in Tables 4.15 to 4.19.

As Direction Setter. Table 4.15 shows the multivariate analysis of the ratings of school heads as direction setters using five indicators A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the findings, the following conclusions are drawn.1. Female school heads generally do better than their male counterparts in

performing the leadership role as (a) Direction Setter, (b) change agent, (c) spokesperson, and (d) coach.

2. School heads who are assigned in big schools generally do better than those assigned in small schools in performing the leadership role as (a) Direction Setter,(b) change agent, (c) spokesperson, and (d) coach.

3. Experienced school heads generally do better than those who are relatively new to the position as school head in performing the leadership role as (a) Direction Setter,(b) change agent, (c) spokesperson, and (d) coach.

4. School heads who have earned advanced degrees in educational management generally do better than those who have not earned any advance degrees in performing the leadership role as (a) Direction Setter,(b) change agent, (c) spokesperson, and (d) coach.

5. Female school heads generally do better than their male counterparts in doing the leadership practices like (a) Establishing direction, (b) Aligning people, and (c) motivating and inspiring people.

6. School heads who are assigned in big schools generally do better than those assigned in small schools in performing the leadership practices like (a) Establishing direction,(b) Aligning people, and (c) motivating and inspiring people.


42

7. Experienced school heads generally do better than those who are relatively new to the position as school head in performing the leadership practices like (a) Establishing direction,(b) Aligning people, and (c) motivating and inspiring people.

8. School heads who have earned advanced degrees in educational management generally do better than those who have not earned any advance degrees in performing the leadership practices like (a) Establishing direction,(b) Aligning people, and (c) motivating and inspiring people.

RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of the conclusions, the following recommendations are made: 1. Opportunities for leadership should be equal to both male and female teachers. 2. Teachers who have been in the service for a long span of time and have acquired

advanced degrees in educational management should be given priority for promotion.

3. School heads who were assigned in small schools shall be re-assigned or promoted to big schools to give them opportunity to experience problems and tasks not ordinarily met in small schools.

4. Training programs for relatively new school heads and for those who are assigned in small schools should be put in place to prepare them to meet the challenges ahead.

5. Further study will be made correlating the results of this study with the posttest of the School-Based Management (SBM) evaluation.

LITEARTURE CITED

Albareda, L., Lozano, J. M., Tencati, A., Midttun, A., & Perrini, F. (2008). The changing role of governments in corporate social responsibility: drivers and responses. Business ethics: a European review, 17(4), 347-363. Retrieved on June 18, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2P3Nq5G

Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2009). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for stress management in healthy people: a review and meta-analysis. The journal of alternative and complementary medicine, 15(5), 593-600. Retrieved on June 19, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2DA7Z0w

Dannhauser, Z. (2007). The relationship between servant leadership, follower trust, team commitment and unit effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch). Retrieved on July 18, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2HipYeK


43

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The leadership quarterly, 14(6), 807-834. Retrieved on June 20, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2ZgtLPM

Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family court review, 46(3), 476-499. Retrieved on June 19, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2Z7qdEn

Hay, I. (2006). Transformational leadership: Characteristics and criticisms. E-journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership, 5(2). Retrieved on July 8, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2zf2H8N

Litfin, G. (2007). The successful leadership strategies of new principals in turnaround middle school settings: The first 90 days. University of Southern California. Retrieved on July 9, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2zbfGss

Monje, J. D., Orbeta Jr, A. C., Francisco-Abrigo, K. A., & Capones, E. M. (2019). ‘Starting Where the Children Are’: A Process Evaluation of the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education Implementation. Retrieved on July 10, 2019 from https://bit.ly/2Z5oyyX

performance and practices among public elementary school...

Documents