Professional Competencies of School Heads and Their Impact on School Outcome, Organizational Culture, and Principals' Performance

Abstract

The primary aim of the study is to assess the impact of professional competencies of school heads (SHs) on school outcome, organizational culture, and principals’ performance. This study utilized a descriptive-correlational research method through standard questionnaires as primary data gathering tool, substantiated by extensive documentary analysis. The respondents of the study were the SHs and teachers in the public [government] elementary and junior high schools of DepEd Schools Division of City of Malolos for School Year 2018-2019. The findings of the study revealed that: (1) the SHs’ level of professional competencies are generally competent on the nature of their duties and functions as education leaders; (2) the SBM Level of Practice are generally Developing; (3) majority of teachers obtained Very Satisfactory performance; (4) majority of the SHs recorded Outstanding performance; (5) school’s organizational culture was high; (6) majority of the SHs are Principals’ Test passers; and (7) professional competencies of SHs generally have no significant impact on school outcome, school’s organizational culture, and principals’ performance. Combined significant impact of SHs’ professional competencies was only recorded on SBM practices as one of the three measures of school outcome as used in the study. Inputs on the existing policy guidelines based on the findings of the study may be necessary to strengthen the performance indicators of quality leadership among school heads that will further improve the quality of schools we have today.
Keywords - Professional Competencies, School Outcome, Organizational Culture, Principals’ Performance

Full text

Professional Competencies of School Heads and Their Impact on School Outcome,
Organizational Culture, and Principals’ Performance
A Dissertation Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
of Doctor of Philosophy in Education Major in Educational Leadership and Management
Joey R. Cabigao
La Consolacion University Philippines
May 2019

2
Abstract
The primary aim of the study is to assess the impact of professional competencies of
school heads (SHs) on school outcome, organizational culture, and principals’
performance. This study utilized a descriptive-correlational research method through
standard questionnaires as primary data gathering tool, substantiated by extensive
documentary analysis. The respondents of the study were the SHs and teachers in the
public [government] elementary and junior high schools of DepEd Schools Division of
City of Malolos for School Year 2018-2019. The findings of the study revealed that: (1)
the SHs’ level of professional competencies are generally competent on the nature of
their duties and functions as education leaders; (2) the SBM Level of Practice are
generally Developing; (3) majority of teachers obtained Very Satisfactory performance;
(4) majority of the SHs recorded Outstanding performance; (5) school’s organizational
culture was high; (6) majority of the SHs are Principals’ Test passers; and (7)
professional competencies of SHs generally have no significant impact on school
outcome, school’s organizational culture, and principals’ performance. Combined
significant impact of SHs’ professional competencies was only recorded on SBM
practices as one of the three measures of school outcome as used in the study. Inputs on
the existing policy guidelines based on the findings of the study may be necessary to
strengthen the performance indicators of quality leadership among school heads that will
further improve the quality of schools we have today.
Keywords - Professional Competencies, School Outcome, Organizational Culture,
Principals’ Performance

3
Introduction
There are various factors affecting the professional competencies of school heads.
These factors would include increasing demand on the administrative and instructional
role in ensuring school effectiveness as well as the quality of their performance. Even the
traditional pedagogical approaches on principal leadership did not provide sufficient
answer to a question concerning the competencies of an effective school manager.
Hoekstra (2014) in her study entitled Key Leadership Competencies Demonstrated by
Principals in Two Turnaround Schools presented in her findings that principals have the
competencies of developing others’ achievement, and impact and influence in their
journey to turn around failed schools.
In support with the study mentioned above, an earlier work of Sawyer (2010)
entitled Principal on the Rise: A Case Study of Leadership Practices was conducted
aiming to identify the effective leadership practices of an African-American principal in a
high achieving school. In the study, it identified various competencies of the principal
such as being a visionary, a builder of community and culture, a promoter of student
learning, a developer of teacher leadership, and as a facilitator of shared decision-making.
The most significant finding revolved around the principal emphasized the needs of the
learners above anything else before making any decisions.
Recently, the demands for qualified school heads had marked a tremendous
increase due to the limited numbers of qualifiers and passers of the Department of
Education’s (DepEd) Principals’ Test. This is the national qualifying assessment test used
by the DepEd to predict and determine the level of the capacity and readiness of aspiring
school heads in public schools.

4
The Principals’ Test covers the original seven dimensions compressed into four
that serve as the total of the responsibilities and roles of school leaders in public schools
(DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2010). Meanwhile, the roles and responsibilities of the school
leaders are considered endless. Their commitment and passion to serve extend even to the
point that they need to sacrifice their own families and principles in life. Knuth and Bank
(2006) believed that school principals are regarding the school as their own home, and
they are considering their school people as their families.
The same reason, why they are afraid to fail because they knew for sure that when
they did, it comes a great social cost to the learners and their respective families, at
significant economic and often political costs to the school community, and an extreme
personal cost to the principals themselves. This situation means that school leaders are
tasked, and somehow pressured, to do everything to perform their roles because failing
should not be part of how they handle their homes and families.
In one study conducted by Morrison (2005) on the Principal Leadership
Competencies in a Successful School Reform Effort, she investigated the relationship
between principal’s involvement in a system change effort and the successful
implementation of a building-based reform initiative. The study utilized the case study
method to target educational change effort from a systems approach and the role that the
principal is building plays in the implementation of this reform effort.
Furthermore, the school professional leadership competencies of school heads/
principals serve also as the success indicators of the schools. Having competent school
leaders would allow a particular school to achieve their target goals performance to
promote positive school outcomes. In a public [government] school setting, the school

5
heads as leaders and managers are empowered for the direct implementation and
evaluation of all the school projects and activities for a particular school year. These are
the plan of activities included in their Annual Improvement Plan (AIP) taken from the
School Improvement Plan (SIP) good for three years.
Through the School-Based Management (SBM) practices, the school performance
of the school heads are assessed, evaluated, and monitored. That for each of the practice
they would achieve it would reflect their capability and competency in doing their tasks
and performing their roles as efficient and effective leaders of the school. Also, school
leaders are also responsible for keeping the work environment safe and friendly.
It would include establishing the spirit of camaraderie and respect to each other
between the teachers-co-teachers and other school staff. This task is not quite easy for
school heads who are for sometimes need to be re-assigned to different schools, because
each school is an independent entity and has its own peculiarity, that there is this
particular organizational culture that has been earlier established even before they came
to the school.
According to Tsai (2018), organizational culture generally involves the belief that
can guide staff in knowing what to do and what not to do, including practices, values, and
assumptions about their work wherein the central values of an organization first starts
with its leadership, which will then evolve to a leadership style. This idea would simply
mean that organizational culture has been part of the school community even time
immemorial from what they have learned from their previous school leaders and
colleagues. In this premise, the school community has their understanding of what is
effective or not.

6
However, this level of understanding tends to vary depending upon how they
would accept change, and they would be willing to share their vision for the success of
the school with their new school leaders. In this study, the primary purpose is to assess
the impact of the professional competencies of school heads on the school outcome,
organizational culture, and principals’ performance of public [government] schools in
DepEd Schools Division of City of Malolos covering the School Year 2018-2019.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
The study is anchored on the overarching theory of Social Cognitive Theory (early
known as Social Learning Theory) pioneered by Bandura and as cited in Feng (2011).
This theory posited that the learning development of an individual is very much affected
by the triadic-reciprocal relationship between and among the individual social self,
immediate environment, and prior knowledge. From this theory, it can assume that school
heads are being bombarded and challenged with various factors that tend to influence
their leadership performance and their ability to functions as leaders to their subordinates.
Further, from this theory, it can be assured that the school heads’ choice of
instructional supervision and professional practices in leading and managing the schools
are affected by the emerging needs within their immediate working environment. At the
same time, their professional practice is influenced by how they process their
professional training simultaneously with their earlier acceptable beliefs system (prior
knowledge).
Also, the management behaviors they commonly used are based on their habitual
training that becomes part of their everyday manner of relating to their subordinates

7
(social self). Hence, this theory becomes helpful for the researcher to describe the
connections of the four variables and how these connections would produce varying
and/or triadic-reciprocal relationship, whether positive or negative (vice-versa).
Figure 1 presents the conceptual model used in assessing the impact of
professional competencies of school heads on school outcome, organizational culture,
and principals’ performance.
Professional competencies of school heads refer to their instructional supervision,
professional development practice, and management behavior. School outcome was
assessed in terms of SBM level of practices, teachers’ performance, and school heads’
performance.
Meanwhile, organizational culture was evaluated using the following dimensions
namely: (1) managing change; (2) achieving goals; (3) coordinating teamwork; (4)
building a strong culture; and (5) customer orientation. Another important dependent
variable is the principal’s performance in the Principals’ Test.

8
IV DV
Conceptual Model of the Study
Statement of the Problem
This study primarily aimed to assess the impact of professional competencies of
school heads on school outcome, organizational culture, and principals’ performance.
To achieve the general objective of the study, answers were sought on the
following specific questions:
Professional
Competencies of
School Heads
▪ Instructional
Supervision
▪ Professional
Development
Practice
▪ Management
Behavior
School Outcome
▪ School-Based
Management Practices
▪ Teachers’ Performance
▪ School Heads’
Performance
Organizational Culture
▪ Managing Change
▪ Achieving Goals
▪ Coordinating
Teamwork
▪ Building a Strong
culture
▪ Customer Orientation
Principals’ Performance

9
1. How may the level of professional competencies of school heads be described in
terms of:
1.1 Instructional Supervision;
1.2 Professional Development Practice; and
1.3 Management Behavior?
2. How may the school outcome be measured in terms of:
2.1 School-Based Management (SBM) Level of Practice;
2.2 Teachers’ Performance Rating (RPMS-IPCRF); and
2.3 School Heads’ Performance Rating (RPMS-OPCRF)?
3. How may the school’s organizational culture be described in terms of:
3.1 Managing change;
3.2 Achieving goals;
3.3 Coordinating teamwork;
3.4 Building a strong culture; and
3.5 Customer orientation?
4. What is the principals’ performance in terms of their ratings in the Principals’
Test?
5. Do school heads’ professional competencies impact significantly on the school
outcome?
6. Do school heads’ professional competencies impact significantly on the school’s
organizational culture?
7. Do school heads’ professional competencies impact significantly on the
principals’ performance?

10
8. What policy guidelines can be recommended from the findings of the study as a
basis for improving the performance indicators of quality leadership among
school principals/ heads?
Hypothesis of the Study
The following Null Hypotheses (Ho) were tested at .05 level of significance:
Null Hypothesis (Ho): School heads’ professional competencies do not have a
significant impact on the school outcome.
Null Hypothesis (Ho): School heads’ professional competencies do not have a
significant impact on the school’s organizational culture.
Null Hypothesis (Ho): School heads’ professional competencies do not have a
significant impact on the principals’ performance.
Definition of Terms
The following key words were hereby defined both conceptually and
operationally:
Organizational Culture. This refers to the beliefs and values that have existed in
an organization for a long time, and to the views of the staff and the foreseen values of
their work that influenced their attitudes and behaviors (Lawal & Oguntuashe, 2012). In
this study, organizational culture was quantified using the five dimensions identified by
Sashkin & Rosenbach (2013) which include: (1) managing change; (2) achieving goals;
(3) coordinating teamwork; (4) building a strong culture; and (5) customer orientation.

11
Principals’ Performance. This refers to the recorded performance of the school
heads in the National Principals’ Test given by DepEd as a mechanism for selecting
school heads in the public education sector. The test is open to all interested applicants
for School Principal I positions. The National Educators Academy of the Philippines
(NEAP) administers and conducts the test in coordination with the Schools Divisions
Offices (SDOs) through the Regional Offices (ROs). The domains included in this exam
are stated under the (National Competency-Based Standards for School Heads
(NCBSSH) as enclosed in DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2010, covering seven key domains of
school heads’ competencies, such as: (1) school leadership; (2) instructional leadership;
(3) creating students-centered learning climate; (4) human resources management and
professional development; (5) parent-involvement and community partnership; (6) school
management and operations; and (7) personal and professional attributes and
interpersonal effectiveness.
Professional Competencies. This refers to the professional capabilities of the
school heads in terms of managing and leading school using various leadership styles
which are aligned to school heads professional training received. Professional
competencies, as used in the study, were described into three aspects such as (1)
instructional supervision; (2) professional development practice; and (3) management
behavior.
School Outcome. This refers to the positive outputs of the schools with regards to
achieving its target goals which would include school heads’ performance and teachers’
performance reaching the target standards for advanced, proficient, and poor performance
in their respective duties and responsibilities. In this study, school outcome was

12
described in terms of (1) SBM Level of Practice; (2) Teachers’ Performance; and (3)
School Heads’ Performance.
Scope and Delimitations of the Study
This study assessed the impact of professional competencies of school heads on
school outcome, organizational culture, and principals’ performance. The researcher used
descriptive-correlational research method in the conduct of this study. The school heads’
level of professional competencies was described in terms of instructional supervision
and professional development practices as well as management behaviors of school
heads. The variable school outcome was measured in terms of three factors; these are: (a)
SBM Level of Practice; (b) Teachers’ Performance Rating; and (c) School Heads’
Performance Rating. On the other hand, school’s organizational culture was described in
terms of five (5) functions, which include: (a) managing change; (b) achieving goals; (c)
coordinating teamwork; (d) building a strong culture; and (e) customer orientation.
The principals’ performance was described in terms of the school heads’
performance in the Principals’ Test, in terms of the seven domains of DepEd’s National
Competency-Based Standards for School Heads (NCBSSH) which include (a) School
Leadership; (b) Instructional Leadership; (c) Creating A Student-Centered Learning
Climate; (d) Human Resource Management and Professional Development; (e) Parent
Involvement and Community Partnership; (f) School Management and Operations; and
(g) Personal and Professional Attributes and Interpersonal Effectiveness, was reported
using the two-scale scheme Passer and Non-Passer. Data for the school heads’
performance in the Principals’ Test were based on the records requested and received

13
from the Human Resource Management Office of DepEd Schools Division Office of City
of Malolos to avoid intimidation among school head-respondents. The respondents of the
study were the school heads from the public [government] elementary and junior high
schools in DepEd Schools Division of City of Malolos. The study was conducted
covering the School Year 2018-2019. No other variables were included in the
interpretations and analyses of the data except the earlier variables considered in the
study.
Methods and Techniques Used
This study employed quantitative research design, particularly the descriptive-
correlational research method. It is descriptive as it is designed to provide a snapshot of
the current state of affairs and correlational because it is intended to discover
relationships among variables and to allow the prediction of future events from present
knowledge. According to Mertens (2005), the descriptive-correlational research method
is ideally used for the purpose of ascertaining the degree of relationship/ and or influence/
impact of one variable (IV) to the other variable (DV).
In this study, the researcher decided to utilize the descriptive-correlational
research method considering that the major concern of the study is to assess the impact of
professional competencies of school heads (IV) on the schools’ outcome, organizational
culture, and principals’ performance. As reiterated by Walinga (2012), this particular
research method is very suitable in creating a snapshot of the current state of affairs thus
provides a relatively complete picture of what is occurring at a given time and allows the
development of questions for further study. She also added that this method is best suited

14
in assessing the relationships between and among two or more variables as it allows
testing of expected relationships between and among variables and the making of
predictions.
The descriptive part of the research method was used to present the professional
competencies of the school heads, school outcome, and principals’ performance. The
correlation method was utilized to determine the impact of the independent variable
which was represented by the professional competencies of school heads and the three
dependent variables which were represented by school outcomes, organizational culture,
and principals’ performance.
Further, the adapted survey questionnaires for the professional competencies of
the school heads, SBM Level of Practice, and organizational culture were the survey
questionnaires used in the study. Other data source included the 2009 to 2017 Principals’
Test results and the SBM level of practices assessment form while the principals’
performance which was measured through the Principals’ Test will be based holistically
using their highest obtained general rating.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of this study were the school heads and teachers of the public
[government] elementary and junior high schools in DepEd Schools Division of City of
Malolos. Table 1 showed the summary and distribution of the population and respondents
of the study.
The first group of respondents of the study is the 55 public elementary and junior
high school heads taken from the ten districts. Random/cluster sampling was utilized in

15
determining the respondents. The second group of the respondents is all the public
[government] elementary and junior high school teachers in DepEd Schools Division of
City of Malolos.
Table 1
Respondents of the Study
District
School Heads
Teachers
N
N
n
1
4
107
27
2
8
411
103
3
5
103
25
4
7
127
32
5
6
129
32
6
4
171
43
7
7
110
28
8
5
145
36
9
4
117
30
10
5
78
19
Total
55
1,498
375
To determine the number of a sample from the given population, the study
employed stratified random sampling. Stratified random sampling is
a type of probability sampling technique to ensure that there is an equal
chance (probability) of selecting the representative of teachers from within a particular
stratum (school and district) of the population when creating the sample. Proportionate
stratification was considered where the sample size of each of the stratum (school/district
is proportionate to the population size of the same stratum.

16
Instruments of the Study
The study made use of the three types of adapted survey questionnaires as well as
the hard data requested from the Record Section of DepEd Schools Division Office of
City of Malolos.
The first adapted instrument was used to measure the professional competencies
of the school heads. The survey questionnaire is adapted from the study conducted by
Goden et al. (2016) titled Influence of School Heads’ Instructional Competencies on
Teachers’ Management from Leyte Division. The study has been peer-reviewed and was
published in the International Journal of Engineering Sciences and Research Technology
with ISSN: 2277-9655. The survey questionnaire is composed of 26 items divided into
three components, such as the (1) instructional practice and (2) professional development
practice of school heads as well as their (3) management behaviors. The item can be
answered using the five-point Likert scale, where No. 5 as the highest interpreted as Very
Competent and No. 1 as the lowest, interpreted as Not Competent. The survey
questionnaire was designed to assess the level of professional competencies of school
heads based on their instructional and school leadership practices. The survey
questionnaire was computed with high Cronbach’s alpha, which is equal to .082 to .091,
respectively. The resulted Cronbach’s alpha coefficients indicate that there is a high
degree of internal consistency between items.
The second adapted instrument is the Revised SBM Assessment Tool embodied
in DepEd No. 83, s. 2012. It was a 22-item questionnaire subdivided into the four SBM
principles namely: (1) school leadership; (2) curriculum and instruction; (3)
accountability and continuous improvement; and (4) management of resources.

17
Respondents were asked to describe each indicator using a five-point Likert Scale with 5
as the highest with a verbal interpretation of Advanced and 1 with a verbal interpretation
of Not Operating. This survey questionnaire was used to validate the level of
understanding of the respondents with regards to the level of SBM practices they
obtained by domain.
The third adapted survey questionnaire is the Organizational Culture Assessment
Questionnaire (QCAQ) developed by Sashkin & Rosenbach (2013). The questionnaire
was developed to emphasize the relevance of culture as a system in leading and managing
an organization. The questionnaire is composed of five dimensions to wit: (1) managing
change; (2) achieving goals; (3) coordinating teamwork; (4) building a strong culture; and
(5) customer orientation. Each of the functions is supported by the values and beliefs that
are commonly valued and appreciated by the organization's members. The 30-item
assessment questionnaire will be answered using the Five-point Likert Scale. Each item
will be interpreted using the description such as Very High to Very Low. The
questionnaire was also reported to have a high level of Cronbach’s alpha which is
between 0.81 to 0.94.
Data Gathering Procedure
Throughout the study, the researcher adhered to the salient provisions of Republic
Act 10173, otherwise known as Data Privacy Act of 2012, which is generally the “free
flow of information to promote innovation and growth” (Chapter 1, Section 2) while
protecting the users’ fundamental rights to privacy.

18
A request letter to conduct the study was prepared by the researcher and duly
noted by the researcher’s adviser, who at the same time, the Dean of the Graduate School
of La Consolacion University Philippines (LCUP). It was personally submitted by the
researcher to the Office of the Schools Division Superintendent of DepEd Schools
Division Office of City of Malolos for approval.
Another letter of request was sent to the Office of the Schools Division
Superintendent to request data on the following: (1) list of elementary and junior high
schools and school heads with number of teachers for School Year 2018-2019; (2) SBM
Level of Practice for the previous school year; (3) OPCRF rating of school heads for the
previous school year; and (4) Principals’ Test results for 2013, 2015, and 2016. Said data
were purposely requested to the Office of the Schools Division Superintendent to validate
the accuracy of the respondents’ responses on the questionnaires given to them.
Some variables of the study which are included in the classifications of sensitive
personal information per RA 10173 were reiterated by DepEd Schools Division Office of
City of Malolos in a particular communication (see Appendix B, part 2) in response to the
request letter of the researcher to acquire data on SBM Level of Practice, OPCRF Rating
of School Heads, and Principals’ Test Results. DepEd Malolos explicitly stated that such
data might only be released with the prior written consent of the concerned school heads.
Consent of the data, per RA 10173, Chapter 1, Section 1, is defined as “any freely
given, specific, informed indication of will, whereby the data subject agrees to the
collection and processing of personal information about and/or relating to him or her.”
The law further states that the consent shall be evidenced by written, electronic, or

19
recorded means, and it may also be given on behalf of the data subject by an agent
specifically authorized by the data subject to do so.
Since the said data on SBM Level of Practice and OPCRF Rating of School
Heads could easily be generated with the survey questionnaires of the study, the
researcher had made follow up request letter (see Appendix D) to acquire data on
Principals’ Test Results with utmost consideration of school heads’ identity. The
acquired summary of Principals’ Test Results was utilized in validating the responses of
the school heads, whether they are Passers or Non-Passers of the said examination.
Upon approval of the Office of the Schools Superintendent of DepEd Schools
Division of City of Malolos to conduct the study, a courtesy letter for school heads of all
the participating schools in this study was prepared and presented during the distribution
of questionnaires. Those questionnaires were personally distributed by the researcher
either by hand carry to the school principal’s offices of the different public [government]
elementary and junior high schools or sent via electronic mail/messenger.
The accomplished survey instruments as part of the study were checked,
classified, tallied, tabulated, analyzed, and processed on the bases of the research design
earlier stated in this chapter, and preparation for the oral/final presentation for
dissertation evaluators/panelists later on.
Data Processing and Statistical Treatment
The data gathered for the study were tallied and computed using the Microsoft
excel while for the statistical treatment of the data, the researcher asked the assistance of
the LCUP-Research Director’s Office (RDO) statistician. The statistical treatment of the

20
data was processed using the Statistical Packages for Social Science (SPSS). The
following statistical measures were utilized in analyzing and interpreting the data.
1. The professional competencies of the school heads were described using
frequency counts and weighted means and were quantified using the following scaled:
Scale
Range
Descriptive Interpretation
5
4.50 – 5.00
Very Competent
4
3.50 – 4.49
Competent
3
2.50 – 3.49
Slightly Competent
2
1.50 – 2.49
Poorly Competent
1
1.00 – 1.49
Not Competent
2. The school outcome was presented using the standard assessment guidelines of
DepEd for SBM level of practices, RPMS-IPCRF for teachers and RPMS-OPCRF for
school heads, and was classified using frequency counts and percentage. SBM was
further quantified using the following scale:
Scale
Range
Descriptive Interpretation
5
4.50 – 5.00
Advanced
4
3.50 – 4.49
Maturing
3
2.50 – 3.49
Developing
2
1.50 – 2.49
Beginning
1
1.00 – 1.49
Not Operating
3. The organizational culture was described using frequency counts and weighted
mean. This was quantified using the following scale:
Scale
Range
Descriptive Interpretation
5
4.50 – 5.00
Very High
4
3.50 – 4.49
High
3
2.50 – 3.49
Average
2
1.50 – 2.49
Low
1
1.00 – 1.49
Very Low

21
4. The principals’ performance in the Principals’ Test was described using
frequency counts and percentage following the standard guidelines for assessing the
performance of the qualified school principals.
5. The impact of the professional competencies of the school heads to the school
outcome, organizational culture, and principals’ performance in the Principals’ Test was
determined using correlation and regression analysis.
Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data
Professional Competencies of School Heads
As used in this study, professional competencies of school heads refer to the
professional capabilities of the school heads in terms of managing and leading school
using various leadership styles which are aligned to school heads professional training
received. Professional competencies of school leaders are very important to assess in
determining the possibilities of improving the school’s practices. As stated in the study
of Hoekstra (2014), select demonstrated competencies of school heads have a positive
impact and positive influence in turning failed schools to a better one. With this premise,
looking closely on the school heads’ professional competencies is a noble initiative for
improvement of the current practice of education, especially in the basic education
curriculum.
The level of professional competencies of school heads is quantified in this study
in terms of (1) instructional supervision; (2) professional development practice; and (3)
management behavior.

22
Table 2
Professional Competencies in Terms of Instructional Supervision
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
1. School Head assists teachers in lesson planning.
3.95
Competent
2. SH assists teachers in developing/selecting instructional
materials.
3.91
Competent
3. SH helps teachers to evaluate curricula and suggest changes
to meet the students’ needs.
3.89
Competent
4. SH encourages teachers to use appropriate methods of
teaching.
3.98
Competent
5. SH assists teachers in evaluating student performance.
3.84
Competent
6. SH advises teachers about new developments in teaching.
3.95
Competent
7. SH conducts meetings with teachers to review progress.
4.00
Competent
8. SH communicates with administrators about instructional
concerns.
3.89
Competent
9. SH communicates with teachers about instructional
concerns.
4.02
Competent
10. SH promotes the exchange of ideas and materials among
teachers.
3.89
Competent
Average
3.93
Competent
Instructional supervision deals with actions relative to instructional leadership
such as assessment for learning, development, and implementation of curriculum,
instructional supervision, and technical assistance that school heads take or delegate to
others to promote good teaching and high-level learning among learners (DepEd Order
No. 32, s. 2010).
Table 2 revealed that the school heads’ level of professional competencies in
terms of instructional supervision recorded a mean rating of 3.93 interpreted as
Competent. All indicators recorded a mean within the range of Competent level.
The findings indicate that the school head-respondents of the study possess the
necessary competencies in the curriculum implementation in their respective stations.

23
The three indicators which recorded the highest means are: (1) SH communicates with
teachers about instructional concerns, 4.02, Competent; (2) SH conducts meetings with
teachers to review progress, 4.00, Competent; and (3) SH encourages teachers to use
appropriate methods of teaching, 3.98, Competent. On the other hand, the indicators
which recorded the lowest means are: (1) SH assists teachers in evaluating student
performance, 3.84, Competent; (2) SH promotes the exchange of ideas and materials
among teachers, 3.89, Competent; and (3) SH helps teachers to evaluate curricula and
suggest changes to meet the students’ needs, 3.89, Competent.
The significance of instructional supervision was once highlighted by Habtamu
(2013) in his study, which found out that school heads with relatively low instructional
leadership practices exhibited minimum result in school improvement. The study also
affirmed the premise that those which were rated moderate in instructional leadership
practices were also found to be moderate in school improvement ratings. His study also
found out that schools which were rated top in instructional leadership practices were
also rated high in the school improvement endeavor. Thus, confirming the direct and
positive relationship between instructional leadership and school performance.
In Table 3, it can be gleaned that the Professional Development Practice
competencies of the school heads are generally described as Competent with a mean of
3.89. This finding indicates that the school heads are capacitated enough in implementing
necessary initiatives in the continuous development of their people in schools. Highest
means were recorded in the school heads’ competencies in directing all supervisory
activities for the teachers’ improvement (4.00, Competent); evaluating the performance
of teachers (3.98, Competent); facilitating teachers’ access to professional resources

24
(3.96, Competent); and encouraging teachers’ professional growth (3.96, Competent). On
the other hand, the following competencies recorded the lowest means: evaluating
teachers only through their classroom performance (3.60, Competent); conducting
orientation activities for new teachers (3.84, Competent); and using more than one source
in evaluating teachers (3.87, Competent).
Table 3
Professional Competencies in Terms of Professional Development Practice
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
1. SH directs all supervisory activities for the teachers’
improvement.
4.00
Competent
2. SH helps to facilitate teachers’ access to professional
resources.
3.96
Competent
3. SH evaluates the performance of teachers.
3.98
Competent
4. SH uses evaluation as a means for development.
3.91
Competent
5. SH evaluates teachers only through their classroom
performance.
3.60
Competent
6. SH uses more than one source in evaluating teachers.
3.87
Competent
7. SH provides feedback and offers suggestions for
instructional improvement.
3.89
Competent
8. SH encourages teachers’ professional growth.
3.96
Competent
9. SH conducts in-service programs to improve the
performance of teachers.
3.91
Competent
10. SH conducts orientation activities for new teachers.
3.84
Competent
Average
3.89
Competent
In the academe, Professional Development refers to the continuous professional
development given to school heads, teachers, and all other personnel to comply and be
competent with the required competency guidelines and professional qualifications
expected.
For the schools to become effective, Arong & Ogbadu (2010) suggested that they
should look for opportunities that would enhance the professional competencies of their

25
teachers. Continuous development programs for teachers are necessary to keep them
abreast of the needs and calls of the present time, especially in this high technology-
driven era.
Bredeson & Johansson (2000) cited the significant role of the school heads on the
professional growth of teachers. According to their study, school principals exercise
significant influence on teacher professional development. Four areas were identified
where principals have the opportunity to have a substantial impact on teacher learning,
these include: (1) the principal as an instructional leader and learner; (2) the creation of a
learning environment; (3) direct involvement in the design, delivery, and content of
professional development; and (4) the assessment of professional development outcomes.
Table 4 revealed that the level of Professional Competencies of school heads in
terms of Management Behavior is described as generally Competent with a mean of 3.84.
This rating means that the school heads are exemplifying acceptable degrees of
competencies in terms of their managerial skills. Among the 26 indicators, the items that
recorded the highest means are: setting a personal example of what he/she expects of
others (3.96, Competent), supporting the decisions that people make on their own (3.96,
Competent), publicly recognizing people who exemplify commitment to shared values
(3.96, Competent), is clear about his/her philosophy of leadership (3.93, Competent),
praising people for a job well done (3.93, Competent), talking about future trends that
will influence how school work gets done (3.93, Competent), and asking “What can we
learn?” when things don’t go as expected (3.93, Competent). Lowest means are recorded
on the following indicators: seeking out challenging opportunities that test his/ her own
skills and abilities (3.73, Competent), spending time and energy making certain that the

26
people he/she works with adhere to the principles and standards that they have agreed on
(3.73, Competent), describing a compelling image of what our future could be like (3.71,
Competent), making it a point to let people know about his/her confidence in their
abilities (3.69, Competent), and appealing to others to share an exciting dream of the
future (3.69, Competent).
Table 4
Professional Competencies in Terms of Management Behavior
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
1. Sets a personal example of what he/she expects of others
3.96
Competent
2. Talks about future trends that will influence how school
work gets done
3.93
Competent
3. Seeks out challenging opportunities that test his/ her own
skills and abilities
3.73
Competent
4. Develops cooperative relationships among the people he/she
works with
3.87
Competent
5. Praises people for a job well done
3.93
Competent
6. Spends time and energy making certain that the people
he/she works with adhere to the principles and standards
that they have agreed on
3.73
Competent
7. Describes a compelling image of what our future could be
like
3.71
Competent
8. Challenges people to try out new and innovative ways to do
their work
3.82
Competent
9. Actively listens to diverse points of view
3.75
Competent
10. Makes it a point to let people know about his/her confidence
in their abilities
3.69
Competent
11. Follows through on promises and commitments he/she
makes
3.82
Competent
12. Appeals to others to share an exciting dream of the future
3.69
Competent
13. Searches outside the formal boundaries of his/her
organization for innovative ways to improve what they do
3.76
Competent
14. Treats others with dignity and respect
3.89
Competent
15. Makes sure people are creatively rewarded for their
contributions to success of projects
3.84
Competent
16. Asks for feedback on how his/her actions affect other
people’s performance
3.80
Competent

27
17. Shows how their long-term interests can be realized by
enlisting in a common vision
3.84
Competent
18. Asks “What can we learn?” when things don’t go as
expected
3.93
Competent
19. Supports the decisions that people make on their own
3.96
Competent
20. Publicly recognizes people who exemplify commitment to
shared values
3.96
Competent
21. Builds consensus around a common set of values for
running the organization
3.89
Competent
22. Paints the “big picture” of what the school aspires to
accomplish
3.89
Competent
23. Makes certain that the organization set achievable goals,
make concrete plans, and establish measurable milestones
for the projects and programs that we work on
3.87
Competent
24. Gives people a great deal of freedom and choice in deciding
how to do their work
3.84
Competent
25. Finds ways to celebrate accomplishments
3.82
Competent
26. Is clear about his/her philosophy of leadership
3.93
Competent
Average
3.84
Competent
School Outcome
School outcome in this study referred to School-Based Management (SBM) Level
of Practice, Teachers’ Performance Rating (RPMS-IPCRF), and School Heads’
Performance Rating (RPMS-OPCRF).
School-Based Management (SBM) Level of Practice. This SBM level of practice
was measured in this study using its four principles, namely: (1) School Leadership; (2)
Curriculum and Instruction; (c) Accountability and Continuous Improvement; and (d)
Management of Resources. Each principle is measured separately to determine either the
strengths or areas of improvement of respondent-schools in their level of practice.

28
Table 5
School-Based Management in Terms of School Leadership
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
1. In place is a Development Plan (e.g. SIP) developed
collaboratively by the stakeholders of the school and
community.
3.33
Developing
2. The development plan (e.g. SIP) is regularly reviewed by the
school community to keep it responsive and relevant to
emerging needs, challenges and opportunities.
3.18
Developing
3. The school is organized by a clear structure and work
arrangements that promote shared leadership and governance
and define the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders.
3.24
Developing
4. A leadership network facilities communication between and
among school and community leaders for informed decision-
making and solving of school-community wide-learning
problems.
3.18
Developing
5. A long program is in operation that addresses the training
and development needs of school and community leaders.
3.27
Developing
Average
3.24
Developing
School Leadership as the first domain of SBM emphasizes that effective school
leaders collaboratively create a vision and establish a climate for teachers, non-teaching
personnel, and learners to reach their highest level of achievement. They follow the
leadership framework of transformational leadership, which is the owning, co-owning,
and co-creating framework. They use database and analysis of best practices in
education, society, and country to be responsive and proactive in changing schools to
prepare children for the future in which they will live (DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2010).
Table 5 revealed that the SBM Level of Practice of the schools included in the
study in terms of the first principle (School Leadership) is in Developing level with a
mean of 3.24. This level means that the schools on this stage are currently implementing
practices relative to it that calls for further development to properly address the gaps
between the delivery of services and the actual needs of the clienteles. The indicator that

29
marked the highest mean (3.24, Developing) is the school’s organization of having a
clear structure and work arrangements that promote shared leadership and governance
and define the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders. Two indicators marked the
lowest means of 3.18 (Developing) and these are: (a) the development plan (e.g., SIP) is
regularly reviewed by the school community to keep it responsive and relevant to
emerging needs, challenges and opportunities, and (b) a leadership network facilities
communication between and among school and community leaders for informed
decision-making and solving of school-community wide-learning problems.
The concept Curriculum and Instruction generally refers to the prescribed sets of
competencies intended to be delivered through appropriate pedagogical strategies and
instructional materials to achieve the desired outcomes.
Table 6 showed the SBM Level of Practice in terms of Curriculum and
Instruction, and it was described as Developing with a general mean of 3.16. Thus, the
school-respondents are generally practicing the basic practices of SBM with attempts to
further enhance the areas regarding the effective implementation of the prescribed
curriculum and teaching.
Table 6
School-Based Management in Terms of Curriculum and Instruction
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
1. The curriculum provides for the development needs of all
types of learners in the school community.
3.31
Developing
2. The implemented curriculum is localized to make it more
meaningful to the learners and applicable to life in the
community
3.18
Developing
3. A representative group of school and community
stakeholders develop the methods and materials for
developing creative thinking and problem-solving.
3.09
Developing

30
4. The learning systems are regularly and collaboratively
monitored by the community using appropriate tools to
ensure the holistic growth and development of the learners
and the community.
3.02
Developing
5. Appropriate assessment tools for teaching and learning are
continuously reviewed and improved, and assessment
results are contextualized to the learner and local situation
and the attainment of relevant life skills.
3.15
Developing
6. Learning managers and facilitators (teacher, administrator,
and community members) nature values and environment
that are protective of all children and demonstrate behaviors
consistent to the organization’s vision, mission, and goals.
3.15
Developing
7. Methods and resources are learner and community-friendly,
enjoyable, safe, inclusive, and accessible and aimed at
developing self-directed learners. Learners are equipped
with essential knowledge, skills, and values to assume
responsibility and accountability for their own learning.
3.20
Developing
Average
3.16
Developing
Among the five indicators, the highest mean of 3.31 (Developing) was recorded
by the item regarding the curriculum that provide the development needs of all types
learners in the school community and the lowest mean of 3.02 (Developing) regarding the
learning systems that are regularly and collaboratively monitored by the community
using appropriate tools to ensure the holistic growth and development of the learners and
the community.
Table 7
School-Based Management in Terms of Accountability and Continuous Improvement
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
1. Roles and responsibility of accountable person/s and
collective body/ies are clearly defined and agreed upon by
community stakeholders.
3.16
Developing
2. Achievement of goals is recognized based on a
collaboratively develop performance accountability system;
gaps are addressed through appropriate action.
3.20
Developing
3. The accountability system is owned by the community and
is continuously enhanced to ensure that management
3.20
Developing

31
structures and mechanism are responsive to the emerging
learning needs of the community.
4. Accountability assessment criteria and tools, feedback
mechanism, and information collection and validation
techniques and processes are inclusive and collaboratively
develop and agreed upon.
3.13
Developing
5. Participatory assessment of performance is done regularly
with the community. Assessment results and lessons
learned serve as basis for feedback, technical assistance,
and recognition and plan adjustments.
3.16
Developing
Average
3.17
Developing
Accountability refers to the organizations’ commitment to delivering the
mandated quality services within the bounds of highest responsibility and integrity.
Meanwhile, Continuous Improvement refers to the never-ending pursuit of seeking
quality condition, believing that time connotes new needs, thus a challenge to move
forward each new day to cope with the ever-changing needs.
In terms of Accountability and Continuous Improvement in the SBM Level of
Practice, Table 7 presented that the general description is Developing with a recorded
mean of 3.17. This level means that the school-respondents are practicing activities
involving internal and external stakeholders in the implementation up to the evaluation of
school programs, projects, and advocacies. It is also a good manifestation that the
respondent-schools are in the attempt of refining its current practices to continuously
improve its delivery of services to various clienteles. Highest means were recorded by the
two indicators, which are: the achievement of goals is recognized based on a
collaboratively develop performance accountability system; gaps are addressed through
appropriate action (3.20, Developing), and the accountability system is owned by the
community and is continuously enhanced to ensure that management structures and
mechanism are responsive to the emerging learning needs of the community (3.20,

32
Developing). The indicator that marked the lowest is the accountability assessment
criteria and tools, feedback mechanism, and information collection and validation
techniques and processes are inclusive and collaboratively develop and agreed upon
(3.13, Developing).
Management of Resources deals with the maximized use of available provisions
in one’s organization. In the education set up, resources refer to both human and capital
resources. Human resources mean the labor force, which includes school leaders,
teachers, and other personnel. Capital resources involve structures, equipment, furniture,
and others. Financial resources serve as the third one, which generally refers to funds of
various sources.
Table 8 showed the SBM Level of Practice in terms of Management of Resources.
It is generally described as Developing with a mean of 3.23, which means that the
respondent-schools are currently practicing activities maximizing the organizational
resources, of all possible forms, within the acceptable standards set by the higher
authorities. The indicator that marked the highest individual mean is the regular resource
inventory collaboratively undertaken by learning managers, learning facilitators, and
community stakeholders as basis for resource allocation and mobilization (3.38,
Developing). The lowest mean of 3.18 (Developing) was shared by three indicators,
namely: (1) regular dialogue for planning and resource programming, that is accessible
and inclusive, continuously engage stakeholders and support implementation of
community education plans; (2) in place is a community-developed resource management
system that drives appropriate behaviors of the stakeholders to ensure judicious,
appropriate and effective use of resources; and (3) regular monitoring, evaluation, and

33
reporting processes of resource management are collaboratively developed and
implemented by the learning managers, facilitators, and community stakeholders.
Table 8
School-Based Management in Terms of Management of Resources
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
1. Regular resource inventory is collaboratively undertaken by
learning managers, learning facilitators, and community
stakeholders as basis for resource allocation and
mobilization.
3.38
Developing
2. A regular dialogue for planning and resource programming,
that is accessible and inclusive, continuously engage
stakeholders and support implementation of community
education plans.
3.18
Developing
3. In place is a community-developed resource management
system that drives appropriate behaviors of the stakeholders
to ensure judicious, appropriate, and effective use of
resources.
3.18
Developing
4. Regular monitoring, evaluation, and reporting processes of
resource management are collaboratively developed and
implemented by the learning managers, facilitators, and
community stakeholders.
3.18
Developing
5. There is a system that manages the network and linkages
which strengthen and sustain partnership for improving
resource management.
3.20
Developing
Average
3.23
Developing
Relative to the management of school resources, a study conducted by O’Shea
(2005) found out that school heads should be good enough in finding resources to support
on-going improvement in their buildings as part of the school’s physical facilities
improvement. Furthermore, the study pointed out that the balance between management
of resources and instructional supervision must be maintained to promote improved

34
learner achievement and consistently to raise the physical condition of the school without
neglecting the academic performance of its learners.
Teachers’ Performance Rating. The rating of teachers’ performance in
government schools is captured utilizing the Individual Performance Commitment and
Review Form (IPCRF-Teachers). It is a systematic approach for consistent and
continuous work improvement. Just the same way teachers grade learners and give them
feedback to improve their performance, the IPCRF gives all employees a means to gauge
their performance and seek improvement (DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015).
Table 9
Teachers’ Performance Rating as Grouped into 55 Respondent Schools
Indicators
Frequency
Percentage
4.500 - 5.00 (Outstanding)
2
3.70
3.500 - 4.499 (Very Satisfactory)
53
96.30
2.500 - 3.499 (Satisfactory)
0
0.00
1.500 - 2.499 (Unsatisfactory)
0
0.00
1.000 - 1.499 (Poor)
0
0.00
Total
55
100.00
Teachers’ Performance Ratings are presented in this study by computing the mean
scores of the teacher-respondents per school, thus having 55 groups in assessing teachers’
performance in the workplace. Table 9 shows that the majority of the teachers obtained a
rating of Very Satisfactory (96.30%) and a little percentage (3.70%) within the
Outstanding performance range. The data mean that the big majority of teachers are

35
performing their tasks in the workplace exceeding expectations set by the Department of
Education, that all goals, objectives, and targets are achieved above the established
standards (DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015).
School Heads’ Performance Rating. School Heads’ Performance Rating is
measured using the so-called Office Performance Commitment and Review Form
(OPCRF). Per DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015, it is an office performance rating, too, and is
a shared undertaking between the head of agency and the employees that allows an open
discussion of job expectations, key result areas, objectives, and how this aligns to the
overall department goals. The school heads OPCRF provides a venue for agreement on
standards of performance and behaviors which lead to professional and personal growth
in the organization.
Table 10 presents that the greater majority of the school head-respondents are
performing within the Outstanding level (81.80%) and only a few marked a Very
Satisfactory performance (18.20%). These figures mean that most of the school heads’
performance represents an extraordinary level of achievement and commitment in terms
of quality and time, technical skills and knowledge, ingenuity, creativity, and initiative.
As DepEd describes it, employees with outstanding performance level are demonstrating
exceptional job mastery in all major areas of responsibility. Employee achievements and
contributions to the organization are of marked excellence.

36
Table 10
School Heads’ Performance Rating
Indicators
Frequency
Percentage
4.500 - 5.00 (Outstanding)
45
81.80
3.500 - 4.499 (Very Satisfactory)
10
18.20
2.500 - 3.499 (Satisfactory)
0
0.00
1.500 - 2.499 (Unsatisfactory)
0
0.00
1.000 - 1.499 (Poor)
0
0.00
Total
55
100.00
School’s Organizational Culture
Organizational Culture is defined as the beliefs and values that have existed in an
organization for a long time and to the beliefs of the staff and the foreseen values of their
work that influenced their attitudes and behaviors (Lawal & Oguntuashe, 2012). In a
similar note from the words of Tsai (2018), organizational culture is the belief that can
guide staff in knowing what to do and what not to do, including practices, values, and
assumptions about their work, wherein the central values of an organization first start
with its leadership, which will then evolve to a leadership style. In this study,
organizational culture is quantified into five dimensions (Sashkin & Rosenbach, 2013) to
wit: (1) managing change; (2) achieving goals; (3) coordinating teamwork; (4) building a
strong culture; and (5) customer orientation. Each of the functions is supported by the
values and beliefs that are commonly valued and appreciated by the organization's
members.

37
Table 11
School’s Organizational Culture in Terms of Managing Change
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
1. People are flexible and adaptable when changes are
necessary.
3.96
High
2. People feel that most change is the result of pressures
imposed from higher up in the organization.
3.41
Average
3. People are always looking for new ways to better serve
clients and customers.
3.94
High
4. People have access to timely and accurate information
about what's really happening in the organization and why.
3.83
High
5. People believe that their concerns and anxieties during
periods of change are heard and taken into consideration.
3.70
High
Average
3.77
High
Managing Change pertains to the action of the organization to adapt and deal
effectively with changes in its environment (Sashkin & Rosenbach, 2013). It reflects the
organizational reactions on the diversities of the elements surround it.
Table 11 showed that the school’s organizational culture in terms of managing
change is generally in the High per responses of the teacher-respondents, with a mean of
3.77. This level means that the people in school are capable of adapting to the changes
introduced in schools as time pass by. The highest individual mean was recorded by the
indicator of having flexible and adaptable people when changes are necessary (3.96,
High) while the lowest individual mean was noted by the indicator of having people feel
that most change is the result of pressures imposed from higher up in the organization
(3.41, Average).
Schools are highly expected by the public to be an institution ready to face the
challenges of time. The education sector should always set its best foot forward in
adopting to various changes that the time dictates without compromising the quality of

38
services it delivers to its clienteles, in this premise, it will gain trust as a strong
organization capable of molding future holistic individuals. In the study of Sandoval
(2001), it is noted that parents are pulling out their children from schools because they
seem the schools so static, cited lack of future progress of their children in schools, in
addition to the teachers being poorly trained to teach learners with special needs. The
study suggested that to save schools from such dilemma, school accomplishments,
achievements, and advocacies should be communicated well to the majority of school
stakeholders in a regular period.
Table 12
School’s Organizational Culture in Terms of Achieving Goals
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
1. Individuals and teams have clearly defined goals that relate
to the goals and mission of the business.
3.97
High
2. People and teams are often expected to reach goals which
they believe are unattainable.
3.59
High
3. Everyone knows and understands our business objectives
and priorities.
4.16
High
4. Individuals and teams are measured and rewarded
according to how well goals are achieved.
3.79
High
5. Individuals, teams, and functional areas often have
incompatible goals.
3.41
Average
Average
3.79
High
Achieving Goals refers to the unit’s action in aiming to achieve the organizational
goals for clients or customers important to promote school success (Sashkin &
Rosenbach, 2013). It serves as the guiding light of an organization on what to
accomplish to serve the purpose of the collective actions.

39
In terms of achieving goals, as showed in Table 12, the school’s organizational
climate according to the teacher-respondents is generally High with a computed mean of
3.79. This level means that the school is performing within the acceptable standards in
pursuit of accomplishing the task to reach its goals for the academe. Among the five
indicators, the highest mean of 3.97 (High) was recorded in the statement that individuals
and teams have clearly defined goals that relate to the goals and mission of the business,
while the lowest mean of 3.41 (Average) was recorded for the premise that individuals,
teams, and functional areas often have incompatible goals.
Coordinated Teamwork aims to produce long term organizational survival
depending upon the efforts of individuals and groups within the organization which are
tied up together with one goal and one vision for the organization (Sashkin & Rosenbach,
2013). It holds the premise ‘no man is an island’, that we need one another to achieve
better results in all life’s endeavors.
School’s organizational culture in terms of coordinating team as shown in Table
13 revealed that it is in the High with a mean of 3.72. This level implies that the school
values and practices collaborative initiatives to attain its goals and vision. Among the
nine indicators, the highest means were recorded by the premises that (1) people believe
in teamwork, the "what's in it for us" approach rather than "what's in it for me” [4.17,
High] and (2) managers at all levels work together as a team to achieve results for the
organization [4.07, High]. On the other hand, lowest means were recorded by the
indicators: (1) people lack the interpersonal and technical skills they need to work
effectively in teams [2.97, Average] and (2) teams often lack the authority needed to get
the job done effectively [3.01, Average].

40
Table 13
School’s Organizational Culture in Terms of Coordinating Team
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
1. Teams often lack the authority needed to get the job done
effectively.
3.01
Average
2. People value and make use of one another's unique
strengths and different abilities.
3.80
High
3. People believe in teamwork, the "what's in it for us"
approach rather than "what's in it for me."
4.17
High
4. People have a clear idea of why and how to proceed
throughout the process of change.
3.95
High
5. People lack the interpersonal and technical skills they need
to work effectively in teams.
2.97
Average
6. Individuals and teams participate in defining specific goals.
3.72
High
7. People believe they can influence and affect their work
place through their ideas and involvement.
3.79
High
8. People believe in working together collaboratively,
preferring cooperation over competition.
3.96
High
9. Managers at all levels work together as a team to achieve
results for the organization.
4.07
High
Average
3.72
High
Building a Strong Culture aims to promote the importance of remembering that
stability is not the same as effectiveness. This domain of organization culture symbolizes
the strength of the culture to survive the length of time (Sashkin & Rosenbach, 2013).
Sustainability is the essence of this matter to perpetuate the existence of the organization
and to cover the vast series of generations to come.
Table 14 showed that the school’s organizational culture in terms of building a
strong culture according to the teacher-respondents’ perception is in the High, recording
a mean of 3.60. This finding reveals that the schools are doing acceptable actions to make
the schools’ advocacies remarkable on the eyes of its stakeholders and of the public as
well. Highest individual means were recorded by the indicators: (1) everyone strongly
believes in a set of shared values about how people should work together to solve

41
common problems and reach mutual objectives [3.93, High] and (2) we constantly stretch
our goals, to continuously improve [3.81, High]. Lowest means were noted by the
indicators: (1) people sometimes compromise company policies or principles to reach
operational goals [3.40, Average] and (2) people believe that change happens too quickly
and causes too much disruption [3.00, Average].
Table 14
School’s Organizational Culture in Terms of Building a Strong Culture
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
1. People sometimes compromise company policies or
principles to reach operational goals.
3.40
Average
2. People believe that change happens too quickly and causes
too much disruption.
3.00
Average
3. People know what's expected of them and understand their
impact on other people, teams and functions.
3.71
High
4. Business decisions are most often made on the basis of
facts, not just perceptions or assumptions.
3.75
High
5. We constantly stretch our goals, to continuously improve.
3.81
High
6. Everyone strongly believes in a set of shared values about
how people should work together to solve common
problems and reach mutual objectives.
3.93
High
Average
3.60
High
Customer Orientation aims to promote the importance of valuing customer
satisfaction function in organizational success (Sashkin & Rosenbach, 2013). Delivering
quality services based on the mandated and/or expected standards is given a premium on
this particular domain.
School’s organizational culture in terms of customer orientation, in Table 15,
recorded a general mean of 3.69 interpreted as High. This level means that the teacher-
respondents believe that their schools are satisfactorily meeting the expectations of their

42
stakeholders in terms of the quality of services they are delivering to them. The indicator
stating that the school is giving the highest priority and support to meeting the needs of
clients and customers and to solving their problems marked the highest mean of 4.28
(High) while the indicator saying people often see customer and client problems as
someone else's responsibility recorded the lowest mean of 2.86 (Average).
Table 15
School’s Organizational Culture in Terms of Customer Orientation
Indicators
Mean
Interpretation
1. We give the highest priority and support to meeting the
needs of clients and customers and to solving their
problems.
4.28
High
2. Our policies and procedures help us to provide the service
our customers want and need.
3.89
High
3. People often see customer and client problems as someone
else's responsibility.
2.86
Average
4. Employees who do the best job of serving customers are
more likely than other employees to be recognized or
rewarded.
3.71
High
5. When customers have problems with the products or
service they receive, those problems are almost always
resolved to their satisfaction.
3.71
High
Average
3.69
High
Principals’ Performance
Principals’ Test refers to a mechanism for selecting school heads in the public
education sector, which was initiated in the year 2009 coined as the National Qualifying
Examination for Principals (NQEP). At present, DepEd’s NEAP administers and
conducts the test in coordination with the Schools Divisions Offices (SDOs) through the
Regional Offices (ROs). The domains included in this examination are stated under the
National Competency-Based Standards for School Heads (NCBSSH) as enclosed in

43
DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2010, covering seven key domains of school heads’
competencies, such as: (1) school leadership; (2) instructional leadership; (3) creating
student-centered learning climate; (4) human resources management and professional
development; (5) parent-involvement and community partnership; (6) school
management and operations; and (7) personal and professional attributes and
interpersonal effectiveness.
Table 16
Principals’ Performance in the Principals’ Test
Indicators
Frequency
Percentage
Passer
33
60.00
Non-Passer
22
40.00
Total
55
100.00
In this study, the performance of the school head-respondents is quantified using
the two-scale Passed or Failed. School principals who are already Principal-item holders
before the administration of the Principals’ Test in 2009 were classified as Passers for
this study. Table 16 presented that the bigger majority of the school heads are Passers
(60%) and less than half are Non-Passers (40%). These two percentages show that most
of the school head-respondents are currently exhibiting among themselves in their
respective stations the competencies as school leaders and managers within the bound of
the NCBSSH of DepEd.

44
Impact of School Heads’ Professional Competencies on School Outcome
On this part, the impact of school heads’ professional competencies namely: (1)
Instructional Supervision; (2) Professional Development Practice; and (3) Management
Behavior were tested on the school outcome. School Outcome as used in this study refers
to the positive outputs of the schools with regards to achieving its target goals which
would include SBM Level of Practice, school heads’ performance, teachers’
performance, and school heads’ performance in the Principals’ Test reaching the target
standards for advanced, proficient, and poor performance in their respective duties and
responsibilities. The null hypothesis, which states that school heads’ professional
competencies, do not have a significant impact on the school outcome was tested as per
the specific dimension of the school outcome.
School Heads’ Professional Competencies and School-Based Management
Practices. SBM is very significant (Conley, 1993) as it serves as more than an enabling
mechanism for other institutional goals to materialize. He clearly stated that educational
restructuring, such as SBM, needs to dovetail with the goals of systemic reform. To
determine the impact of school heads’ professional competencies on the SBM practices
of the schools, the data were subjected to correlation and regression analysis, and the data
gathered is summarized in Table 17. The null hypothesis stating that the school heads’
professional competencies do not have a significant impact on the school outcome in
terms of SBM Practice was tested.
Results of the correlation and regression analysis revealed that all the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies are correlated with the SBM
practices of the schools in varying extent. This was shown by the obtained coefficients

45
which are non-zero. The three dimensions correlated positively which means that in
general, the higher the level of the instructional supervision skills (B = 0.50) of the school
heads, the better the professional development practice (B = 0.32) skills, and the higher
the management behavior (B = 0.11), the higher the SBM level of practices of the
schools. No variable recorded a negative coefficient. This figure means that all the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies are producing sound impacts on
the SBM practices of the schools.
A closer look at the obtained coefficients, one could glean that of the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies, none were recorded with
associated probability less than the significance level set at .05. These coefficients mean
that three dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies correlated to SBM
level of practices but not to a significant extent.
To determine the magnitude of the influence of the predictor variables on the
SBM practices of schools, the data were subjected to regression analysis, and the results
are summarized in Table 17. Results of the regression run indicate that for every unit
increase in the manifestation of instructional supervision skills, professional development
practice skills, and management behavior skills, the SBM level of practices can be
expected to increase by 0.50, 0.32, and 0.11 respectively. The findings also revealed that
the three dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies are not significant
factors in determining the SBM level of practices of schools. Analysis of the obtained
Beta Coefficients would indicate that among the three dimensions of school head’s
professional competencies, instructional supervision appeared to be the best predictor of
SBM level of practices.

46
The results of the analysis of variance of the regression of the school heads’
professional competencies on the SBM level of practices of schools revealed an F-ratio of
11.21 with associated probability equal to .000. This figure means that the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competence have an impact on the SBM level
of practices of schools to a significant extent. The null hypothesis, therefore, is hereby
rejected. It may be safely concluded that the school heads’ professional competencies
exert significant combined impact on the SBM practices of the schools.
Table 17
Regression Analysis of Professional Competencies on School-Based Management Level
of Practice
Variables
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
(Constant)
0.417
0.494
0.844
0.403
1. Instructional Supervision
0.497
0.334
0.441
1.489
0.143
2. Professional Development Practice
0.317
0.471
0.294
0.673
0.504
3. Management Behavior
0.106
0.454
0.097
0.234
0.816
R-squared = .397
F-value = 11.213
p-value = .000
alpha = 0.05
These findings truly emphasize the importance of school heads’ empowerment in
the school level for its delivery of quality services and addressing the gaps in the
grassroots level. The insights of Wohlstetter (1995) on SBM reflect the inevitable role

47
that the school heads are playing in their respective stations, having SBM as a political
reform that transfer power (authority) over budget, personnel, and curriculum to
individual schools.
Moreover, Goden et al. (2016) reiterated that the management behaviors of the
school heads are also essential to ensure how they would effectively communicate the
vision and mission of the school to its stakeholders to continuously sustain the smooth
sailing flow of the school leading to quality school performance and school outcomes.
The findings of the study also confirm the idea of Adeyemi (2010) that school leaders
and managers play the vital role in the successful implementation of the plans and
projects of the school which are all aligned to the organizational thrust.
In another study of Ga & Daudb (2014) on the implementation of SBM, results
showed that school principals subjected to the study possessed a high level of setting
school vision and mission using human resource management. Correlation results have
also shown that the more effective the principal performed his/her role, the more to
expect effective school vision and mission implementation and the more efficient human
resource management can be managed, noting a positive direct relationship.
School Heads’ Professional Competencies and Teachers’ Performance. To
determine the impact of school heads’ professional competencies on teachers’
performance rating, the data were subjected to correlation and regression analysis, and
the data gathered is summarized in Table 18. The null hypothesis which states that
school heads’ professional competencies do not have a significant impact on the school
outcome in terms of teachers’ performance was tested.

48
Results of the correlation and regression analysis revealed that all the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies are correlated with the teachers’
performance in varying extent. This analysis was shown by the obtained coefficients
which are non-zero. The three dimensions correlated positively which means that in
general, the higher the level of the instructional supervision skills (B = 0.01) of the school
heads, the better the professional development practice (B = 0.05) skills, and the higher
the management behavior (B = 0.07), the higher the teachers’ performance rating. No
variable recorded a negative coefficient. This coefficient means that all three dimensions
of school heads’ professional competencies are producing sound impacts on the
teachers’ performance.
Looking closely on the obtained coefficients, one could glean that of the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies, none were recorded with
associated probability less than the significance level set at .05. These computed
coefficients mean that the three dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies
correlated to teachers’ performance rating but not to a significant extent.
To determine the magnitude of the influence of the predictor variables on the
teachers’ performance, the data were subjected to regression analysis, and the results are
summarized in Table 18. Results of the regression run indicate that for every unit
increase in the manifestation of instructional supervision skills, professional development
practice skills, and management behavior skills, the teachers’ performance rating can be
expected to increase by 0.01, 0.05, and 0.07 respectively. The findings also revealed that
the three dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies are not significant
factors in determining the teachers’ performance. Analysis of the obtained Beta

49
Coefficients would indicate that among the three dimensions of school head’s
professional competencies, management behavior appeared to be the best predictor of
teachers’ performance.
The results of the analysis of variance of the regression of the school heads’
professional competencies on the teachers’ performance revealed an F-ratio of 0.24 with
associated probability equal to 0.87. This figure means that the three dimensions of
school heads’ professional competence have an impact on the teachers’ performance but
not to a significant extent. The null hypothesis, therefore, cannot be rejected. It may be
safely concluded that the school heads’ professional competencies do not exert a
significant combined impact on the teachers’ performance rating.
Table 18
Regression Analysis of Professional Competencies on Teachers’ Performance Rating
Variables
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
(Constant)
4.179
0.157
26.592
0
1. Instructional Supervision
0.006
0.106
0.022
0.058
0.954
2. Professional Development Practice
0.045
0.15
0.169
0.303
0.763
3. Management Behavior
0.069
0.145
0.252
0.477
0.636
R-squared = .014
F-value = .240
p-value = .868
alpha = 0.05
Findings of this study negate the generalization of Goden et al. (2016) that the
school heads’ professional competencies are reflected through how they managed and led

50
the professional growth of teachers and the whole school community as well, and the
result of the study of Riswan (2014) stating that improvement of the leadership
competencies of the school principal, can increase the job performance of teacher
partially. As Riswan (2014) said in full note, the improvement of the leadership of the
principal, culture of organization, competency of teacher and job satisfaction can increase
the job performance of teacher partially and can describe for 86.90% simultaneously.
School Heads’ Professional Competencies and School Heads’ Performance
Rating. To determine the impact of school heads’ professional competencies on their
performance rating, the data were subjected to correlation and regression analysis, and
the data gathered is summarized in Table 19. The null hypothesis, which states that
school heads’ professional competencies do not have a significant impact on the school
heads’ performance, was tested.
Results of the correlation and regression analysis revealed that all the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies are correlated with the school
heads’ performance in varying extent. This analysis was shown by the obtained
coefficients which are non-zero. The three dimensions correlated positively which means
that in general, the higher the level of the instructional supervision skills (B = 0.04) of the
school heads, the better the professional development practice (B = 0.27) skills, and the
higher the management behavior (B = 0.27), the higher the school heads’ performance
rating. No variable recorded a negative coefficient. These obtained coefficients mean
that all three dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies are producing
sound impacts on the school heads’ performance.

51
Taking into account the obtained coefficients, one could glean that of the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies, none were recorded with
associated probability less than the significance level set at .05. The obtained coefficients
mean that the three dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies correlated to
school heads’ performance rating but not to a significant extent.
To determine the magnitude of the influence of the predictor variables on the
school heads’ performance, the data were subjected to regression analysis, and the results
are summarized in Table 19. Results of the regression run indicate that for every unit
increase in the manifestation of instructional supervision skills, professional development
practice skills, and management behavior skills, the school heads’ performance rating can
be expected to increase by 0.04, 0.27, and 0.27 respectively. The findings also revealed
that the three dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies are not significant
factors in determining the school heads’ performance rating. Analysis of the obtained
Beta Coefficients would indicate that among the three dimensions of school head’s
professional competencies, both professional development practice and management
behavior appeared to be the best predictors of school heads’ performance rating.
The results of the analysis of variance of the regression of the school heads’
professional competencies on the school heads’ performance rating revealed an F-ratio of
1.18 with associated probability equal to 0.33. This analysis means that the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competence have an impact on the school
heads’ performance rating but not to a significant extent. The null hypothesis, therefore,
cannot be rejected. It may be safely concluded that the school heads’ professional

52
competencies do not exert a significant combined impact on the school heads’
performance rating.
Table 19
Regression Analysis of Professional Competencies on School Heads’ Performance
Rating
Variables
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
B
Std.
Error
Beta
t
Sig.
(Constant)
4.777
0.174
27.388
0
1. Instructional Supervision
0.035
0.118
0.109
0.294
0.770
2. Professional Development Practice
0.271
0.166
0.889
1.632
0.109
3. Management Behavior
0.271
0.161
0.87
1.688
0.097
R-squared = .065
F-value = 1.177
p-value = .328
alpha = 0.05
The results of the analysis of variance of the regression of the school heads’
professional competencies on the school heads’ performance rating revealed an F-ratio of
1.18 with associated probability equal to 0.33. This analysis means that the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competence have an impact on the school
heads’ performance rating but not to a significant extent. The null hypothesis, therefore,
cannot be rejected. It may be safely concluded that the school heads’ professional
competencies do not exert a significant combined impact on the school heads’
performance rating.
According to Hartijasti & Afzal (2016) on their study entitled Leadership
Competencies of School Principals: The Case of Urban and Rural Private Schools in

53
Pakistan, competencies of the school heads are very important in driving the results of
the schools. The study found out that despite having strong personal characters, the
school heads who were subjected in the study lacked professional competencies in the
performance of their duties, thus, one of the reasons why many private schools fail to
retain students to complete a full cycle of basic education.
Impact of School Heads’ Professional Competencies on School’s Organizational
Culture
To determine the impact of school heads’ professional competencies on school’s
organizational commitment, the data were subjected to correlation and regression
analysis, and the data gathered is summarized in Table 20. The null hypothesis states that
school heads’ professional competencies do not have a significant impact on the school’s
organizational culture was tested.
Results of the correlation and regression analysis revealed that all the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies are correlated with the school’s
organizational culture to varying extent. This analysis was shown by the obtained
coefficients which are non-zero. The three dimensions correlated positively which means
that in general, the higher the level of the instructional supervision skills (B = 0.04) of the
school heads, the better the professional development practice (B = 0.07) skills, and the
higher the management behavior (B = 0.11), the higher the school’s organizational
culture. No variable recorded a negative coefficient. This analysis means that all the
three dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies are producing sound
impacts on the school’s organizational culture.

54
Looking closely on the obtained coefficients, one could glean that of the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies, none were recorded with
associated probability less than the significance level set at .05. These coefficients mean
that the three dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies correlated to
school’s organizational culture but not to a significant extent.
Table 20
Regression Analysis of Professional Competencies on School’s Organizational Culture
Variables
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
B
Std.
Error
Beta
t
Sig.
(Constant)
3.305
0.183
18.048
0
1. Instructional Supervision
0.038
0.124
0.114
0.309
0.758
2. Professional Development Practice
0.067
0.175
0.208
0.382
0.704
3. Management Behavior
0.111
0.169
0.339
0.657
0.514
R-squared = .063
F-value = 1.136
p-value = .343
alpha = 0.05
To determine the magnitude of the influence of the predictor variables on the
school’s organizational culture, the data were subjected to regression analysis, and the
results are summarized in Table 20. Results of the regression run indicate that for every
unit increase in the manifestation of instructional supervision skills, professional
development practice skills, and management behavior skills, the school’s organizational
culture can be expected to increase by 0.04, 0.07, and 0.11 respectively. The findings
also revealed that the three dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies are
not significant factors in determining the school heads’ performance rating. Analysis of

55
the obtained Beta Coefficients would indicate that among the three dimensions of the
school head’s professional competencies, management behavior appeared to be the best
predictor of school’s organizational culture.
The results of the analysis of variance of the regression of the school heads’
professional competencies on the school’s organizational culture revealed an F-ratio of
1.14 with associated probability equal to 0.34. This analysis means that the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competence have an impact on the school’s
organizational culture but not to a significant extent. The null hypothesis, therefore,
cannot be rejected. It may be safely concluded that the school heads’ professional
competencies do not exert a significant combined impact on the school’s organizational
culture. The findings of the study posed a challenge to the results of the study of Tsai
(2018) revealing that organizational cultures are significantly (positively) correlated with
leadership behavior and job satisfaction, and leadership behavior was significantly
(positively) correlated with job satisfaction. In his study, organizational cultures of the
schools and the leadership behaviors (competencies) of the school heads are significantly
positively related to one another.
Impact of School Heads’ Professional Competencies on Principal’s Performance
To determine the impact of school heads’ professional competencies on
principals’ performance in the Principals’ Test, the data were subjected to correlation and
regression analysis, and the data gathered is summarized Table 21. The null hypothesis
states that school heads’ professional competencies do not have a significant impact on
the principal’s performance in the Principals’ Test was tested.

56
Results of the correlation and regression analysis revealed that all the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies are correlated with the
principal’s performance in the Principals’ Test in varying extent. This analysis was
shown by the obtained coefficients which are non-zero. The three dimensions correlated
positively which means that in general, the higher the level of the instructional
supervision skills (B = 0.06) of the school heads, the better the professional development
practice (B = 0.14) skills, and the higher the management behavior (B = 0.16), the higher
the principal’s performance in the Principals’ Test. No variable recorded a negative
coefficient. These coefficients mean that all three dimensions of school heads’
professional competencies are producing sound impacts on the principals’ performance
in the Principals’ Test.
Looking closely on the obtained coefficients, one could glean that of the three
dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies, none were recorded with
associated probability less than the significance level set at .05. These coefficients mean
that the three dimensions of school heads’ professional competencies correlated to
principal’s performance in the Principals’ Test but not to a significant extent.
To determine the magnitude of the influence of the predictor variables on the
principal’s performance in the Principals’ Test, the data were subjected to regression
analysis, and the results are summarized in Table 21. Results of the regression run
indicate that for every unit increase in the manifestation of instructional supervision
skills, professional development practice skills, and management behavior skills, the
principal’s performance in the Principals’ Test can be expected to increase by 0.06, 0.14,
and 0.16 respectively. The findings also revealed that the three dimensions of school

57
heads’ professional competencies are not significant factors in determining the
principal’s performance in the Principals’ Test. Analysis of the obtained Beta
Coefficients would indicate that among the three dimensions of school head’s
professional competencies, management behavior appeared to be the best predictor of
principal’s performance in the Principals’ Test.
The results of the analysis of variance of the regression of the school heads’
professional competencies on the principal’s performance in the Principals’ Test revealed
an F-ratio of 921 with associated probability equal to 0.44. This analysis means that the
three dimensions of school heads’ professional competence have an impact on the
principal’s performance in the Principals’ Test but not to a significant extent. The null
hypothesis, therefore, cannot be rejected. It may be safely concluded that the school
heads’ professional competencies do not highly exert a significant combined impact on
the principals’ performance in the Principals’ Test.
In a recent study conducted by Ceralde (2015) in the six schools divisions in the
province of Pangasinan, 101 Principals’ Test passers of the 2013 edition were evaluated.
The profile variables such as sex, position before the test, highest educational attainment,
specialization, years in the service, experience in managing school, attitude towards
teaching, emotional intelligence, motivational orientations, and learning strategies were
put into test if these are contributory factors in passing the test. The findings of the study
revealed that the said profile variables but do not significantly predict performance in this
test. Likewise, in this study conducted in DepEd Schools Division of City of Malolos,
findings revealed, too, that School Heads’ Professional Competencies such as
Instructional Supervision, Professional Development Practice, and Management Behavior

58
have no significant impact on the results of the Principals’ Test and the said competencies
also not predict the performance on the examination.
Table 21
Regression Analysis of Professional Competencies on Principal’s Performance on
Principals’ Test
Variables
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
(Constant)
0.963
0.154
6.242
0
1. Instructional Supervision
0.057
0.104
0.205
0.55
0.584
2. Professional Development Practice
0.140
0.147
0.523
0.954
0.345
3. Management Behavior
0.155
0.142
0.568
1.093
0.279
R-squared = .051
F-value = 921
p-value = .438
alpha = 0.05
Recommended Policy Guidelines from the Findings of the Study
From the aforementioned results and discussion of the impact of the essential
variables of the study to one another, the following premises are hereby recommended to
form policy guidelines for the purpose of improving the performance indicators of quality
leadership among school principals/ heads.
▪ On Professional Competencies of School Heads and School-Based
Management (SBM) Level of Practice. This study disclosed that school heads’
professional competencies had combined significant impact on SBM Level of
Practice. Furthermore, the study found out that school heads’ professional
competencies formed a very significant set of predictors for the SBM Level of

59
Practice of the schools. In line with these findings, since professional
competencies of school heads are good predictors in the improvement of SBM
Level of Practice, continuous capacity-building programs, such as trainings,
seminar, workshops, and the like, for school heads on matters related to: (1)
Instructional Supervision; (2) Professional Development Practice; and (3)
Management Behavior are suggested to develop and implement in order to ensure
effective implementation of SBM principles in government schools.
▪ On Professional Competencies of School Heads and Teachers’ Performance
Rating. Findings of the study revealed a deviation from the usual studies stating
the direct positive relationship between school heads’ performance and teachers’
performance. This study revealed that professional competencies of school heads
have an impact on the performance rating of teachers but not to a significant
extent, and those professional competencies formed not a significant set of
predictors for teachers’ performance rating. In this regard, teachers’ development
programs such as In-Service Trainings (In-SeT) for Teachers, Learning Action
Cells (LACs), and other capacity-building initiatives should not be anchored
solely on the school heads’ standards. Development programs should be
conceptualized on the actual needs of the teachers in the field and not dependent
on what just the school heads deem necessary. Teachers in the 21st century are
armed with necessary teaching skills, which made them dependent on the
performance of their immediate superiors.
▪ On Professional Competencies of School Heads and School Heads’
Performance Rating. The study found out that the school heads’ professional

60
competencies have an impact on school heads’ performance rating but not to a
significant extent, and it formed a not significant set of predictors of the
performance rating. On these premises, enhancement programs for school heads
shall be planned and implemented without leaning much on how they perform in
their respective stations. Their performance rating should not be used as a sole
basis in determining the training and development needs of the school heads, but
rather look into other factors that might further help school heads in becoming
better education leaders and managers.
▪ On Impact of School Heads’ Professional Competencies on School’s
Organizational Culture. Results of the study showed that school head’s
professional competencies have an impact on the school’s organizational culture
but not to a significant extent. It also formed not a significant set of predictors
for the school’s organizational climate. On these grounds, improving the school’s
organizational culture shall not be solely attributed to the competencies of the
school heads. Other variables in the school setting should be considered to attain
development and/or enhancement of the prevailing conditions. However,
continuous capacity-building programs for school heads as stewards of their
organization should not be neglected considering the findings of this study.
▪ On Impact of School Heads’ Professional Competencies on School Heads’
Performance in Principals’ Test. Findings of the study revealed that the school
head’s professional competencies have an impact on the Principals’ Test
performance but not to a significant extent. It was also found out that the impact
of the two sets of variables are highly not significant to one another, and not a

61
significant set of predictors for the school heads’ performance in the Principals’
Test. These findings should be taken seriously into consideration in the
development programs for schools, that school heads programs should not be
based on their performance in the Principals’ Test. Equal opportunities for
development programs and initiatives should be given to school heads whether
they are passers on non-passers of the said qualifying examination.
Summary of Findings
Problem 1: School Heads’ Level of Professional Competencies
The level of professional competencies, in terms of instructional supervision,
professional development practice, and management behavior, of the school heads in the
public [government] elementary and junior high schools in DepEd Schools Division of
City of Malolos are generally Competent as indicated by the average values of 3.93, 3.89,
and 3.84, respectively.
Problem 2: School Outcome
School-Based Management (SBM) Level of Practice. The SBM Level of
Practices of the elementary and junior high schools in DepEd Schools Division of City of
Malolos are generally Developing in terms of the four SBM principles namely School
Leadership (3.24), Curriculum and Instruction (3.16), Accountability and Continuous
Improvement (3.17), and Management of Resources (3.23).
Teachers’ Performance Rating. The majority of teachers in the elementary and
junior high schools in DepEd Schools Division of City of Malolos obtained a rating of

62
Very Satisfactory (96.30%), and the remaining percentage (3.70%) obtained an
Outstanding performance.
School Heads’ Performance Rating. The greater majority of the school heads in
the elementary and junior high schools in DepEd Schools Division of City of Malolos are
performing within the Outstanding level (81.80%), and only a few marked a Very
Satisfactory performance (18.20%).
Problem 3: School Organizational Culture
The established organizational culture of the elementary and junior high schools
in DepEd Schools Division of City of Malolos was high in terms of managing change
(3.77), Achieving Goals (3.79), Coordinating Teamwork (3.72), Building A Strong
Culture (3.60), and Customer Orientation (3.69).
Problem 4: Principals’ Performance in the Principals’ Test
The majority of the school heads of the elementary and junior high schools in
DepEd Schools Division of City of Malolos are passers (33 school heads, 60%) and less
than half are non-passers (22 school heads, 40%).
Problem 5: Impact of School Heads’ Professional Competencies on School
Outcome
Impact of School Heads’ Professional Competencies on School-Based
Management Level of Practice. Results of the regression analysis revealed that
professional competencies of school heads obtained B coefficients of 0.50, 0.32, and
0.11, respectively, with computed associated probabilities (0.14; 0.50; and 0.82) higher
than the significance level set at .05. The computed F-ratio of 11.21, which was found
significant at .05 alpha indicates that professional competencies of school heads formed

63
a significant set of predictors for the SBM Level of Practices of the schools. The
findings showed that professional competencies of school heads have combined
significant impact on SBM Level of Practice.
Impact of School Heads’ Professional Competencies on Teachers’
Performance. Results of the regression analysis revealed that professional competencies
of school heads obtained B coefficients of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.07, respectively, and
produced computed associated probabilities (0.95; 0.76; and 0.64) higher than the
significance level set at .05. The findings indicate that professional competencies of
school heads have no significant impact on the performance rating of teachers. The
obtained F-ratio of 0.24, which was found not significant at .05 alpha indicates that
professional competencies of school heads, too, formed not a significant set of predictors
for teachers’ performance rating.
Impact of School Heads’ Professional Competencies on School Heads’
Performance Rating. Results of the regression analysis revealed that professional
competencies of school heads produced B coefficients of 0.05, 0.27, and 0.27,
respectively, with computed associated probabilities (0.77, 0.11, and 0.10) higher than
the significance level set at .05. The findings indicate that professional competencies of
school heads have no significant impact on school heads’ performance rating. The F-
ratio of 1.178, which was found not significant at .05 alpha indicates that professional
competencies of school heads formed a not significant set of predictors of school heads’
performance rating.
Problem 6: Impact of School Heads’ Professional Competencies on School’s
Organizational Culture

64
Results of the regression analysis revealed that professional competencies of
school heads produced B coefficients of 0.04, 0.07, and 0.11, respectively, with
computed associated probabilities (0.76, 0.70, and 0.51) all higher than the significance
level set at .05. The findings indicate that professional competencies of school heads
have no significant impact on the school’s organizational culture. The obtained F-ratio
of 1.14, which was found not significant at .05 alpha indicates that professional
competencies of school heads formed a not significant set of predictors for the school’s
organizational climate.
Problem 7: Impact of School Heads’ Professional Competencies on the
Principals’ Performance
Results of the regression analysis revealed that professional competencies of
school heads produced B coefficients of 0.06, 0.14, and 0.16, respectively, with
computed associated probabilities (0.58, 0.35, and 0.28) higher than the significance level
set at .05. The findings indicate that professional competencies of school heads have no
significant impact on the principals’ performance in the Principals’ Test. The obtained
F-ratio of 921, which was found highly not significant at .05 alpha indicates that
professional competencies of school heads formed a not significant set of predictors for
the principals’ performance in the Principals’ Test.
Problem 8: Policy Guidelines in Improving the Performance Indicators of
Quality Leadership among School Principals/ Heads
Suggested policy guidelines were given based on the findings of the study to
further improve the performance indicators of quality leadership among school heads of
the elementary and junior high schools in DepEd Schools Division of City of Malolos.

65
Conclusions
In light of the findings of the study, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. The school heads’ competent level of professional competencies in terms of
instructional supervision, professional development practice, and management
behavior as evaluated by the public [government] elementary and junior high
school teachers are indications of their effective management of school system.
2. The developing Level of Practice of SBM shows that the elementary and junior
high schools need further initiative for growth and development in all the four
SBM principles namely School Leadership, Curriculum and Instruction,
Accountability and Continuous Improvement, and Management of Resources.
The majority of teachers exemplifying very satisfactory performance pose a
strong indication that school improvement is very much possible, together with
the vast majority of school heads with outstanding performance. With these
groups of personnel as performing human capital, there is a big chance to
continuously achieve improvement of SBM Level of Practice in the succeeding
school years.
3. The schools’ organizational culture of the elementary and junior high schools has
established a high level image to the teacher which reflects the presence of a
positive ambiance in the workplace. This premise could serve as a viable conduit
of improvement of school practices for the next coming school years.
4. Having the majority of school heads of the elementary and junior high schools
who are passers of DepEd Principals’ Test, there is a greater assurance that the

66
school leaders possess the standard qualifications and competencies needed to
perform duties and responsibilities in such positions.
5. The professional competencies of school heads have a significant impact on
SBM Level of Practice; thus, it formed a significant set of predictors for the level
of practice of the schools. School heads’ competencies are indeed important
contributory factors in the improvement of schools. In the other notes,
professional competencies of school heads have no significant impact, both on
teachers’ performance ratings and school heads’ performance rating, and it
formed a not significant set of predictors for the performance ratings of the two
groups. Performance ratings of teachers and school heads are not solely dependent
on the professional competencies of school leaders. Other factors are affecting
the motivation and skills of school officials and personnel to perform better
beyond expectations in the workplace.
6. The professional competencies of school heads have no significant impact on the
school’s organizational culture and it formed a not significant set of predictors
for the school’s organizational climate. Positive organizational culture is not
dependent on the school heads’ professional competencies, and any failure on the
organizational culture should not directly be counted as school heads’ fault.
7. The professional competencies of school heads have no significant impact on the
Principals’ Test Performance and it formed a not highly significant set of
predictors for the school heads’ performance in the Principals’ Test. Passing the
national qualifying examination to become a School Principal-item holder is an
ideal initiative of the government to select qualified aspirants and to avoid

67
favoritism and other forms of red tape in the bureaucracy. However, being a
passer should not be construed as a sole measure of professional competencies
among school heads in the field.
8. A review of the existing policy guidelines in improving the performance
indicators of quality leadership among school heads may be necessary to address
the present needs of school leaders and managers.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions of the study, the following
recommendations are hereby humbly suggested:
1. That the school heads continue practicing the competent level of professional
competencies in terms of instructional supervision, professional development
practice, and management behavior. Should there be opportunities for
enhancement of such professional competencies, school heads should grab it.
2. That the performing school heads and teachers, with their exhibited high level of
performance in the workplace, should work hand in hand to further improve the
SBM Level of Practice in school as part of advocating continuous improvement.
3. That the aspiring school heads should pursue valuable endeavors for personal and
professional development programs to prepare themselves holistically in taking
Principals’ Test and other similar qualifying examinations of the government as
future education leaders and managers.
4. That the school should maintain a positive organizational culture, though the
study revealed that school heads’ professional competencies formed a not

68
significant set of predictors of organizational climate, school heads play a big part
in looking into consideration the other factors that may contribute to its
improvement/enhancement for the benefits of the school system.
5. That the proposed inputs on the policy guidelines be adopted to further improve
the performance indicators of quality leadership among school heads of the
elementary and junior high schools in DepEd Schools Division of City of
Malolos.

69
References
Abulencia, A. S. (2012). School-based management: A structural reform intervention.
Philippine Normal University.
Adeyemi, T. O. (2010). Principals’ leadership styles and teachers’ job performance in
senior secondary schools on Ondo State, Nigeria. Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy Studies 2(6), 83-91.
Ainley J., & McKenzie, P. (2000). School governance: Research on educational and
management issues. International Education Journal, 1 (3), 139-151.
Arong, F.E. & Ogbadu, M. A. (2010). Major causes of declining quality of education in
Nigeria from administrative perspective: A case study of Dekina local government
area. Canadian Social Science, 6(3): 183-198.
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical
thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285-302.
Bandur, A. (2008). A Study of the implementation of school-based management in Flores
Primary Schools in Indonesia. The University of Newcastle, Australia.
Bandur, A. (2012). School-based management developments: Challenges and impacts.
Journal of Educational Administration. Vol. 50 Issue 6, pp. 845-873. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1108/0957823121164711
Barrera-Osorio, F., Fasih, T. Patrinos, H. A., & Santibáñez, L. (2009). Decentralized
decision-making in schools: The theory and evidence on school-based
management. World Bank Publications. The World Bank, number 2632, January.
Bautista, M. C. R. B., Bernardo, A. B. I., & Ocampo, D. (2010). When reforms don’t
transform: reflections on institutional reforms in the Department of Education.
Quezon City: HDN Research Monograph 2010-11.
Bouchamma, Y. (2012). Leadership practices in effective schools in disadvantaged areas
of Canada. Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Education Research International
Volume 2012, Article ID 712149. DOI: 10.1155/2012/712149

70
Bredeson, P. V. & Johansson, O. (2000). The school principal's role in teacher
professional development. Journal of In-Service Education, 26:2, 385-401, DOI:
10.1080/13674580000200114
Buchanan, L. (2009). The wisdom of Peter Drucker from A to Z. Retrieved from
www.inc.com
Caldwell, B. (2005). School-based management. Education policy series. UNESCO
International Academy of Education and International Institute for Educational
Planning.
Ceralde, A. (2015). Predictors of performance in the national qualifying examination for
principals. Pangasinan State University School of Advanced Studies.
Unpublished Dissertation Paper.
Civil Service Commission. CSC Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 06, s. 2012. Guidelines
for the establishment and implementation of agency strategic performance
management system).
Chin, J. M. & Chuang, C. P. (2014). The relationships among school-based budgeting,
innovative management, and school effectiveness: A study on specialist schools in
Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Edu Res (2015) 24(4):679–693 DOI 10.1007/s40299-014-
0220-3.
Conley, D. T. (1993). Roadmap to restructuring: policies, practices and the emerging
visions of schooling. Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management,
University of Oregon.
Coetzer, E.P. & Rothmann, S. (2003). The big five personality dimensions and job
performance. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology. 29(1), 68-74.
Cromwell, S. (2006). Site-based management: Boon or boondoggle? Education World.
Department of Education. (2006). Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (2006-
2010). National Education for All Committee (NEC).
De Guzman, A. (2003). The dynamics of educational reforms in the Philippine basic and
higher education sectors. Asia Pacific Education Review, vol., no. 1, pp 39-50.
Department of Education. Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) information
bulletin. 2006.

71
Department of Education. DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015. Guidelines on the establishment
and implementation of the results-based performance management system
(RPMS) in the Department of Education. 06 February 2015.
Department of Education. DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2010 (National adoption and
implementation of the national competency-based standards for school heads). 16
April 2010.
Department of Education. DepEd Order No. 83, s. 2012. Implementing guidelines on the
revised school-based management (SBM) framework, assessment process and
tool (APAT). 29 November 2012.
Department of Education. DepEd Order No. 97, s. 2011. Revised guidelines on the
allocation and reclassification of school heads positions. 16 December 2011.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports. DECS Order No. 230, s. 1999.
Department of Education. School Improvement Plan (SIP) Manual 2009.
Department of Education. (2006a). Five-year development plan on SPED-inclusive
education for nine TEEP provinces. Pasig City: DepEd.
Department of Education. (2006b). Operations manual on school-based management and
its support systems. January 2006. Pasig City: DepEd.
Department of Education. (2006c). Third elementary education program report card.
Pasig City: DepEd.
Department of Education. (2006d). Transforming education from the ground: Fifty
studies of school-based management under the Third Elementary Education
Project (TEEP). Bautista, M.C.R. (Ed.). Pasig City: DepEd.
Dizon et. al. (2018). Level of implementation of the results-based performance
management system in the Department of Education Division of Gapan,
Philippines. Vol. (Iss.1): January, 2018] ISSN- 2350-0530(O), ISSN- 2394-3629
Fang, Z. & Wei, Y. (2010). School of teaching and learning. 2423 Norman Hall,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-7048, USA. (E-mail:
zfang@coe.ufl.edu). The Journal of Educational Research, 103:262–273, Taylor

72
& Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0022-0671 print / 1940-067 online
DOI:10.1080/00220670903383051
Feng, Gao. (2011). Design for social-based reflection in health behavior change.
Retrieved from https://pdfs. semanticscholar.org/ 26be/4cac4975 bab314fbdb2e
b77d63a 35818c900.pdf
Ga, V.S. & Daub, K. (2014). The implementation of school-based management policy:
An exploration. University Technology Malaysia, Skudai, 81310, Johor,
Malaysia. Science Direct 1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier
Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Kuala Lumpur.
Gamage, D. T. (2006a). Professional development for leaders and managers of self-
governing schools. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Gamage, D. T. & Zajda, J. (2005b). Decentralization, delegation, and devolution:
Towards self-governing schools. Political Crossroads, 12 (3), 29-57.
Grissom, J. A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How
perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central
importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal, 48,
1091-1123.
Gutierrez, O. F. (2014). The School-based management practices of public elementary
schools in the third congressional district of Pangasinan. Dissertation,
Unpublished. Saint Louis University, Baguio City.
Goden, L. T., Lumbab, N. T., Niez, R. A., & Coton, V. G. (2016). Influence of school
heads’ instructional competencies on teachers’ management. Leyte Division,
Philippines. Naval State University-Main Campus Naval, Biliran, Philippines.
International Journal of Engineering Sciences and Research Technology: ISSN:
2277-9655.
Habtamu, G. N. (2013). The instructional leadership roles of principals and their
relationship with school improvement in public secondary schools of SNNPR,
Ethiopia. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10603/28826
Hartijasti, Y. & Afzal, S. (2016). Leadership competencies of school principals: The
case of urban and rural private schools in Pakistan. Polish Journal of

73
Management Studies 14(2):71-81 · December 2016. DOI:
10.17512/pjms.2016.14.2.07
Hoekstra, K. (2014). Key leadership competencies demonstrated by principals in two
turnaround schools. Lipscomb University. AAC3668680.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (1st
ed. 1980).
Hopper, L. E. (2009). Elementary principal perceptions on key leadership responsibilities
associated with increased student achievement. Saint Louis University, ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing, 2009. UMI 3383202.
Hughes, W. & Pickeral, T. (2013). School climate and shared leadership. In T. Dary, &
T. Pickeral (Eds), School climate practices for implementation and sustainability.
A School Climate Practice Brief, Number 1, New York, NY: National School
Climate Center.
Jha, S., Khattri, N., & Ling, C. M. (2012). The effects of school-based management in the
Philippines: An initial assessment using administrative data (English). Journal of
Development Effectiveness. -- Vol. 4, No. 2 (June 19, 2012), pp. 1-30.
Knuth, R., & Banks, P. (2006). The essential leadership model. NASSP Bulletin, 90(4),
4-18. doi:10.177/0192636505283885
Korkmaz, M. (2008). Educational administration: Theory and practice. 53:75-98.
Lam, Y. K. (2006). Local response to school-based management in Hong Kong.
Educational Studies, 32 (2), 171-185.
Lapus, J. & Suan, A. (2008). Presentation seminar of the basic education sector reform
agenda (2006–2010). Manila: DepEd.
Lavraskas, P. J. (2008). Purposive sample. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947.n419
Lawal, O. I. & Oguntuashe, K. (2012). Impacts of organizational leadership and culture
on organizational trust: Role of Job Cadre. Volume 20 Number1, March 2012
Copyright ©2012 Ife Center for Psychological Studies/Services, Ile-Ife Nigeria.
Department of Psychology University of Lagos, Akoka-Yaba, Lagos.

74
Lindgerg, E., & Vanyushyn, V. (2013). School-based management with or without
instructional leadership: Experience from Sweden. Journal of Education and
Learning, 2 (3), 39-50.
Litvack, J. & Seddon, J. (1999). Decentralization briefing notes. World Bank Institute
Working Papers, Washington DC: The World Bank.
Lund, D. B. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 18(3), 219-236. DOI: 10.1108/0885862031047313
Matthew, S. (2011). Impact of information and communication technology (ICT) on the
professional development and educational needs of library professionals in the
universities of Kerala. Retrieved from www.academia.edu/34467863
McInerney, P. (2003). Moving in dangerous territory? Educational leadership in a
developing education system. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6
(1) 57-72.
Melton, T. D., Mallory, B. J., & Chance, L. (2012). Global perspectives on school
leadership: An ongoing study of policy, practice, and cultural context. Journal of
Global Intelligence & Policy. Winter2012, Vol. 5 Issue 9, p81-91. 11p.
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating
diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Mizrahi, Y. (2005). Mexico (United Mexican States). In handbook of federal countries.
Editor Ann L. Griffiths and Karl Nerenberg, 357-371. Montreal: Forum of
Federations.
Morrison, D. (2005). Principal leadership competencies in a successful school reform
effort. Loyola University of Chicago. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/ 34172789
Myers, D. & Stonehill, R. (1993, January). School-based management. Education
consumer guide No. 4. Office of Research, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement (OERI) of the Department of Education. ED/ OERI 92-38.

75
National Competency-Based Standards for School Heads Training and Development
Needs Assessment (NCBSSH-TDNA) Guide and Tools T&D System Operations
Manual-Volume 2: The TDNA System.
Nir, A. E. (2010). School-based management and its effect on teacher commitment.
International Journal of Leadership in Education Theory and Practice. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120210134616
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership, theory and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications.
O’Farrell, G. (2006). Cultures and values in the Queensland Public Service. Speech
presented at the Queensland Regional Heads Forum Annual Business Conference,
Conrad Hotel, Broadbeach, 25 May 2006. Retrieved from
http://www.qrhf.gov.au/ 04_conferences/ georgeofarrell.presentation.pdf.pdf
O’Shea, M. R. (2005). From standard to success: A guide for school leaders. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Oswald, L. J. (2014). School-based management: Rational and implementation
guidelines. Palmer, AK: Wordsworth LLC Publishing.
Poonchai, S. (2010). Effect of e-learning on secondary school students’ performance in
Biology. Report Presented at the Seminar of the Secondary School Teacher
Association. Retrieved from www.researchgate.com
Pradubploy, W. (2008). Effect of e-Learning in teaching English grammar on
achievement of secondary school students. Retrieved from www.academia.
edu/34467863
Rai, N. & Thapa, B. (2018). A study on purposive sampling in research. Retrieved from
www.academia.edu/28087388
Republic Act 9155. Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001.
Republic Act 7160. Local Government Code of 1991.
Republic Act 10173. Data Privacy Act of 2012.

76
Riswan. (2014). The influence of principal leadership, organization culture, teacher
competency and job satisfaction to job performance of teacher at vocational
public school of Medan. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-
JHSS) Volume 19, Issue 3, Ver. V (Mar. 2014), PP 50-53 e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-
ISSN: 2279-0845. www.iosrjournals.org
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organizational behaviour. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. P. (2005). Organizational behaviour. 10th Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Robinson, V., & Ward, L. (2005). Lay governance of New Zealand’s Schools: An
educational, democratic or managerialist activity? Journal of Educational
Administration, 43 (2), 170-187.
Sahskin, M. & Rosenbach, W. E. (2013). Organizational culture assessment
questionnaire (QCAQ). Retrieved from http://leadingandfollowing.com/
documents/ OCAQ Participant Manual.pdf
Sammons, P., Gu, Q., Day, C., & Ko, J. (2010). Exploring the impact of school
leadership on pupil outcomes: Results from a study of academically improved and
effective schools in England. International Journal of Educational Management,
25(1), 83-101.
Sandoval, P. P. (2001). Concerns of parents related to their special children’s
termination of schooling. University of the Philippines.
Sawyer, F. (2010). Principal on the rise: A case study of leadership practices.
ISBN: ISBN-978-1-1240-0765-6. ERIC Number: ED516995
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. Third Edition. Jossey – A
Wiley Imprint. Retrieved from www.academia.edu.
Selva Rethinam, R. (2008). A study of educational management of elementary and middle
school headmasters in Tiruchirappalli district. Bharathidasan University.
Retrieved from http://hdl. handle.net/ 10603/5068
Susa, M. C. T. (2018). Work values and teaching performance of early childhood
educators in Tuguegarao City, Philippines: Department of Education,
Tuguegarao North Central School, Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of

77
Multidisciplinary Research Vol. 6 No.1, 15-22 February 2018 P-ISSN 2350-7756
E-ISSN 2350-8442 www.apjmr.com
Thida, K. I. & Luz, C.J. (2012). Exploring the implementation of school-based
management in selected public schools in Cambodia: A Multiple Case Study.
UNESCO, Cambodia, De La Salle University, Philippines: The Asian Conference
on Education 2012 Official Conference Proceedings 2012.
Tsai, Y. (2018). Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and
job satisfaction. BMC Health Services Research, 11, pp. 98.
Vaidya, F. K. (2010). A study of the relationship between empowerment of secondary
school teachers and their perception about the leadership qualities of school
principals. Department of Education. S.N.D.T Women’s University Mumbai- 400
020.
Van der Post, W.Z., De Koning, T.J., & Smit, E.M. 1998. The relationship between
organizational culture and financial performance: Some South African evidence.
South African Journal of Business Management, 29(1), 30-40.
Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the
next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review 62: 527-
40.
Walinga, J. (2012). Introduction to psychology – 1st Canadian edition. Retrieved from
https://opentextbc.ca
Watson, T. J. (2006). Organising and managing work, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Wehella, M. M. (2014). School-based management initiatives in Sri Lanka: Policy into
practice. University of Sussex. Retrieved from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ 51349/.
Willems, J. (2016). Organizational crisis resistance: Examining leadership mental
models of necessary practices to resist crises and the role of organizational
context. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 27(6).
June 2016. University of Hamburg. DOI: 10.1007/s11266-016-9753-9
Wohlstetter, P. (1995). Getting school-based management right: What works and what
doesn’t. The Phil Delta Kappan, vol. 77, no. 1, pp.22-26.

78
Wohlstetter, P. & Mohrman, S. A. (1996). Assessment of school-based management.
Volume I: Findings and conclusions. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California.
World Bank. (2004). Implementation completion report: Education quality improvement
project (Report No. 29679). Retrieved from http://wwwwds. Worldbank.org/
servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/10/06/000012009_20041006 093930/
Rendered/ INDEX/296790KH.txt
World Bank. (2007). What is school-based management? Washington, DC.: Education,
Human Development Network.
Yap, I. R. & Adorio, M. P. (2008). School-based management: Promoting special
education programs in local schools. Education Quarterly, December 2008, 66
(1), 50-70 U.P. College of Education.
Zajda, J. & Gamage, D. (2009). Decentralisation, school-based management and quality.
Retrieved from www.researchgate.net