21st CENTURY INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP SKILLS VIS-A-VIS SCHOOL CULTURE
IN THE DIVISION OF ZAMBALES, PHILIPPINES
DR. DAVID CABABARO BUENO
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0072-0326
docdave3090@gmail.com
Columban College, Inc.
Olongapo City, Philippines
ABSTRACT- A school administrator is an instructional leader who promotes the
success of schools by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining an instructional
program and school culture conducive to student learning and staff professional
growth. This study analyzed the 21st century instructional leadership skills and
culture among Central Elementary Schools (CES). It utilized a descriptivecorrelational design with the Instructional Management Rating Scale (IMRC) and
School Culture Survey (SCS) to gather data, which were analyzed using the Mean,
t-Test, and Pearson Product Moment Correlation. The principals possessed
strong instructional leadership in framing and communicating the school goals,
coordinating the curriculum, protecting instructional time, maintaining high
visibility and providing incentives for teachers. There was no significant
difference between the views of principals and teachers relative to the
instructional leadership skills among CES. There was a strong collaborative school
culture among principals and teachers characterized by leadership, teacher
professional development, unity of purpose, collegial support, and learning
partnership. There was no significant difference between the views of principals
and teachers on the culture among CES. Thus, strong positive relationship
between instructional leadership and culture among CES was revealed. A training
plan maybe be implemented to further improve the 21st Cenutry skills as one of
the major translational activities.
Keywords—Education, 21st century instructional leadership skills, school culture,
central elementary school, descriptive-correlational design, Zambales,
Philippines
INTRODUCTION
Successful leaders require many complex skills. Schools, in particular, offer a challenging
setting to study when it comes to effective leadership. Bolman and Deal (2003) state, “In many
schools, goals are multiple and elusive, technology is underdeveloped, linkages between means
and ends are poorly understood, and effectiveness is difficult to determine.”
Many researchers define successful school principals as those who promote increased
student achievement (Waters & McNultuy, 2005; Witziers, Zepeda, 2004).
While researchers may agree upon the definition of school success, there is broad
disagreement about the linkage between principal leadership and student achievement.
Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2005) argue that effective school principals can have a dramatic
influence on the overall academic achievement of students. These researchers reached this
conclusion and offer categories of effective leadership behaviors called responsibilities. These
responsibilities are ways in which principals can promote increased student achievement.
Witziers, Bosker and Kruger (2003) examined studies from the same time frame as
Marzano, Waters and McNulty and reached a very different conclusion. They reported that
there is almost no direct relationship between principal leadership and student achievement
after examining various studies conducted internationally.
Phillip Hallinger (2003) also analyzed studies during the same time period. He concludes:
“The preponderance of evidence indicates that school principals contribute to school
effectiveness in student achievement indirectly through actions they take to influence what
happens in the school and in classrooms . . . but it is interesting to note the relatively few studies
find a relationship between the principles hands on supervision of classroom instruction, teacher
effectiveness, and student achievement”.
Leithwood and Jantzi (1999) also conclude, “that principal leadership makes a
disappointing contribution to student engagement.” This case study investigates the indirect
relationship between principal leadership and student achievement. In an effort to better
understand the indirect relationship, this case study focuses on the relationship between
principal instructional leadership and school culture. In 2005, Gruenert learned that a positive,
collaborative school cultures increased student achievement.
The No Child Left Behind legislation mandated that schools will make continuous
improvement towards improving academic standards. “The standard for accountability has put
tremendous stress on school system personnel, especially the principal, who now is held
ultimately accountable for student achievement.
Increased accountability has resulted in the principal assuming a greater degree of
responsibility for student achievement than in the past” (Zepeda, 2007).
As a result, school principals were being held more accountable for improved instruction
in order for students to meet standards. A school administrator is an educational leader who
promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture
and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
Thus, the researcher believes that principals do not simply focus on the instructional
program, but also need to understand the importance of school culture. School leadership
creates the best conditions for learning. All students learning occur in the context of the school.
School cultures, in short, are key to school achievement and student learning.
Moreover, collaborative school cultures should boost student achievement (Elbot &
Fulton, 2008). In Steve Gruenert’s (2005) study, he learned that collaborative cultures improve
student achievement. He states, “According to the results from this study, collaborative
cultures seem to be the best setting for student achievement, thus affirming the literature on
collaborative school cultures.”
The foregoing observations are clarified by Gruenet (2005) when emphasizing that
school cultures directly impact student learning, however researchers have been unable to
conclude that principal leadership has a direct impact upon student achievement. Since the
early 1980s, researchers have been looking for links on how principal instructional leadership
improved student learning. Principals have a strong impact on creating a collaborative school
culture, which in turn impacted student learning and success. There is reason to believe that
strong instructional leadership can be connected to a positive school culture. A collaborative
culture results in a positive teacher attitude and improved student performance.
Furthermore, Marzano (2005) suggests that, “An effective leader builds a culture that
positively influences teachers, who, in turn, positively influence students.” This statement
provides the foundation for this study on principal instructional leadership at the central
elementary schools in the Division of Zambales.
This study examined the instructional leadership and the school culture among central
elementary schools in the Division of Zambales. The researcher questions, “Why some leaders
are successful and others are not when it comes to shaping new cultures is a question that
requires a deeper look into those cultures.” A deeper and elaborate look at principal
instructional leadership and school culture in this dissertation provides a stronger link between
school leadership and student achievement through indirect methodology.
THEORETICAL REVIEW
Much of the school leadership theory during the 2000s is rooted in instructional
leadership theory developed during the 1980s in 1990s. Research efforts concentrated around
principle leadership influencing student-learning outcomes. Many of the themes are familiar:
promoting effective instructional practices, focusing the vision of the school, communication,
collaboration, and emphasizing effective, professional development.
In 2000, Richard Elmore built upon DuFour’s (1991) theory of professional learning
communities in his research. Elmore focuses on Hallinger’s (1987) dimension of curriculum and
instruction to improve instruction and the role of the leader. Since the emergence of standards
based learning, Elmore asserts that the principal, “. . . should manage the conditions of learning
so as to produce a given result.” In order for this model to be successful, a principal needs to
have a vast knowledge and understanding of curriculum and assessment. Elmore (2000) states
how important this role is for the principal:
“Somewhere on the list one usually finds a reference to instruction, couched in
strategically vague language, so as to include both those who are genuinely knowledgeable
about and interested in instruction and those who regard it as a distraction from the main work
of administration. But why not focus leadership on instructional improvement and define
everything else as instrumental to it? The skills and knowledge that matter in leadership, under
this definition, are those that can be connected to, or lead directly to, the improvement of
instruction and student performance. Standards-based reform forces this question”.
Elmore is one of the most recent educational researchers to argue this point. In an ideal
world every principal would be an expert in their field, but in reality, school principals need to
advocate for collaboration so the expert teachers can share their wisdom with others (DuFour,
1998). Elmore also argues that principals need to “buffer” away distractions from teachers to
allow them to concentrate on teaching and learning. In turn, superintendents need to buffer
distractions away from the principal, so they can focus on helping the teachers with instruction.
Elmore (2000) believes that schools need to change to a distributive leadership model,
“Distributed leadership, then, means multiple sources of guidance and direction, following the
contours of expertise in an organization, made coherent through a common culture.”
Distributed leadership has many aspects in common with instructional leadership. This
view of leadership stresses the creation of a common culture, and working toward a common
goal or vision in order to improve the instruction. Elmore stresses how important collaboration
is in the pursuit of academic excellence.
Maguire (2001) states the essential knowledge and skills for effective school principals:
leaders know and understand what it means and what it takes to be a leader; leaders
communicate clearly and effectively; leaders collaborate and cooperate with others; leaders
persevere and take the long view; readers support, develop and nurture staff; readers hold
themselves and others responsible and accountable; leaders never stop learning and honing
their skills; and readers have the courage to take informed risks.
Jeffrey Glanz (2006) looks at how the actions and activities of an effective instructional
leader improve student learning. Many of these actions are based upon the Marzano et al.
research, and the work done by Kathleen Cotton (2003). Cotton identifies 26 best practice
leadership principle behaviors that lead to improved student achievement. Most of these 26
behaviors are ways that the principal supports teachers instructionally as they make an effort to
improve student learning (Cotton, 2003).
Glanz (2006) argues that the effective instructional leader needs to be able to do three
things: 1. Effective principals support teachers, by providing resources to improve instruction.
They make an effort to hire experienced teachers who promote student achievement. 2.
Effective principals place an emphasis on academics. They set high expectations and standards
for student learning. 3. Effective principals improve instructional practices by conducting
instructional conferences with teachers, providing staff development, and developing teacher
reflection.
When instructional leaders apply theory into practice, they can use these guidelines to
be successful, instructional leaders.
Warren Bennis (2003) leadership theory encompasses aspects of instructional
leadership. Bennis argues that leaders create and communicate a vision as one of his four
critical characteristics of effective leadership. People are often drawn to leaders because of
their ability to be a visionary. Leaders of the future will also engage in creative collaboration.
Collaborative teams will rally around the vision and be guided toward the collective goals of the
organization. Other characteristics include leaders must have a clear and distinctive voice,
leaders must operate as people of character and values, and leaders must have the ability to
adapt to change (Bennis & Goldsmith, 2003).
Hallinger (2005) reflects upon the research conducted during the 1980s and 1990s by
assessing the instructional leadership role of the school principal. He concludes that
instructional leaders: 1. Focused on creating a shared vision. This aligns with much of the
general leadership research; 2. Developed a climate of high expectations; 3. Guided the
continuous improvements of the school; 4. Monitored the curriculum and student learning
outcomes; 5. Created and communicated the school's vision; 6. Orchestrated staff
development; and 7. Became a visible presence in the school by modeling the shared values of
the school's culture
Hopkins (1994) defines school culture as the observed patterns of behavior in a school.
For example, one might visit a school and see how teachers interact in the staffroom and the
patterns they establish. The mission statement also speaks volumes for the school and the
common beliefs. After the mission statement are the philosophy statements for each school. A
common philosophy guides teaching and learning in each subject area. The last area that
represents culture according to Hopkins is the unwritten policies and procedures a new teacher
needs to learn in order to succeed both socially and professionally in their school.
Deal and Peterson (1999) state that, “School cultures become like tribes and clans, with
deep ties among people and with values and traditions that give meaning to everyday life.”
Deal and Peterson take culture a step further and identify the people who shape school culture.
Teachers, principals and key decision makers shape culture with their values, beliefs, and
assumptions. Deal & Peterson (1999) continue by connecting culture to the actions within an
organization, “Cultural patterns are highly enduring, have a powerful impact on performance,
and shape the ways people think, act and feel.”
Hoy defines school culture is a system of shared orientations that hold a unit together
and give it a distinctive identity (Hoy, 1997). This identity can be either positive or negative. It
can also be collaborative or singular in nature. A school culture has a direct impact on student
learning.
Deal and Peterson (1999) define the elements of school culture as vision and value,
ritual and ceremony, history and was stories, and finally architecture and artifacts: “Knitting the
elements of culture into an artistic tapestry is like creating a word from the letters of the
alphabet. Juxtaposed with one another letters forming meaningful expression, just as
combining the elements of culture create a cohesive school identity.” Understanding the
elements of school culture is just as important as understanding the individual letters from the
alphabet.
Bolman and Deal (1984) argue that the elements of vision and values combine to create
myths and myths are the spiritual source of schools: “Educational organizations with weak
sagas are uncertain, embattled, and vulnerable to internal and external pressures. A shared
myth makes it easier to develop internal cohesion and sense of direction to maintain the
confidence and support of external constituencies.”
The vision and purpose of an organization define success (Schein, 2004). Schools often
outline these in the mission statement and school beliefs. Everyone in the school needs to
know and believe in these statements to facilitate a strong culture. All schools have different
mission statements shaped by their student and parent populations. A shared purpose enables
staff to see the school’s reason for existence. Even though schools have different visions, they
often share some of these themes: academic and extracurricular success, community service,
performance, learning, change, and students meeting their potential (Deal and Peterson, 1999).
School cultures are categorized as either positive, toxic or anywhere in between. Core
values within the school often play an important role in determining they type culture one will
find in a school (Saphire & King, 1985; Deal & Peterson, 1999, 2002).
In the past, researchers labeled school cultures in a variety of ways. Susan Rosenholtz
(1989) argues that there are “stuck” and “moving” schools. She defines stuck schools as non-
supportive of change and improvement. Teachers were often uncertain and isolated. Stuck
schools also correlated with negative student performance. In this culture, teachers learn little
from each other and low expectations pervades. In moving schools, teachers believe that best
practice is always evolving through research, so teachers are always learning. Teachers improve
through collaboration by trusting the process.
Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) offer five types of labels for cultures in school from
fragmented individualism to collaborative. At the beginning to the continuum, fragmented
individualism is a culture where teachers are isolated in the classroom, protected from outside
interference. This culture discourages collaboration and external support. In the next cultural
stage balkanization is a culture of competition. Teachers compete for resources, power and
supremacy. Little collaboration occurs in the areas of teaching and student learning.
In a culture of contrived collegiality, the administration forms collaborative elements
without teacher involvement (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996). As a result, true discourse and
sharing does not take place, but it can be a good beginning for schools earlier on the
continuum. The next type of culture, comfortable collaboration, provides an environment
where teachers begin to engage in conversation to meet immediate needs within their
classrooms. In the final type of culture, the collaborative culture, there is equal value placed
upon individuals and teams as they support each other toward mutual goals.
According to Deal and Peterson (1999), there are positive and toxic school cultures and
all of those in between. A positive school culture is the result of many influences. Schools
should be focused on creating a learning community for all involved. All individuals should have
a sense of caring and respect for each other. Staff and students need to be positive about their
ability to set and achieve lofty goals. Positive attitudes go a long way in developing and
maintaining a positive culture.
Toxic cultures are influence by many things that are opposite from positive cultures.
People in these cultures tend to concentrate on negative values (Deal and Peterson, 1999).
Classrooms often become isolated with no deeper bond to bring them together. People
become fragmented in other ways. The result is that the school lacks a shared vision. People
then feel lost and become negative about their situation. The whole culture becomes
dysfunctional.
Charles Elbot and David Fulton (2008) offer a continuum model called the Four Mind-Set
Model. There are four stages: dependence, independence, interdependence, and the mind-set
of integration. In a dependent culture, everyone has a respect for leadership and will follow this
top-down approach. For those who are independent, they do not recognize others in their
efforts and often work in isolation. In the interdependence model, teachers use a collaborative
approach, working together to solve problems with a greater wisdom. In the final model, the
mind-set of integration takes the best qualities from the other three models and integrates
them to develop a flexible culture that teaches awareness of all four dimensions.
It is important for leadership to identify their school culture before making intentional
changes. Elbot and Fulton (2008) suggest using a survey and asking parents, teachers and
students to use a rubric to grade their culture. The rubrics can be helpful in identifying how far
along the school is on the Four Mind-Set Model from dependence to the mind-set of
integration referred to earlier. Robert Ramsey (2008) states, “The point is that assessing your
school’s culture isn’t just a nice, trendy thing to do; it’s a leadership imperative. Anything less is
a dereliction of duty.”
School leaders can change and shape school culture. Saphier and King (1985) summarize
the leader’s role in school culture, “Leaders with culture-building on their minds bring and everpresent awareness of these cultural norms to their daily interactions, decisions, and plans, thus
shaping the way events take place.” Culture is linked to all of the organization’s functions.
Schein (2004) took the connection between leadership and culture further by arguing that
creating and managing culture is the most important things leaders do. Leaders and managers
are separated by their ability to identify, change and manage culture. A manager only knows
how to act within an existing culture. Schein continues by declaring that the, “ultimate act of
leadership is to destroy culture when it is viewed as dysfunctional.”
Many cultures, including school cultures go through a cycle of birth, change,
destruction, and rebirth (Schein, 2004). During the birth process, people create the culture by
sharing their assumptions to shape the group’s identity. The culture then begins to shape the
individuals. New members join and the culture changes with the group dynamics. If the culture
becomes toxic, leaders often need to destroy the existing culture and nurture the rebirth of the
new culture (Deal & Peterson, 1999).
Effective school leaders can read and shape a culture. They need to look for the deeper
understanding of what is happening in the school. A leader needs to investigate and understand
past, present and future dreams and realities. The principal then needs to bring everyone on
board to change the culture by sharing leadership. Deal and Peterson (1999) believe that deep
and shared leadership creates the strongest and tightest cultures.
A leader arrives at a shared vision for the whole learning community. The principal then
models this vision in everything they do and say. Even their office should reflect the culture of
the school. Deal and Peterson compare a school leader to a potter. The leader shapes school
culture as a potter shapes a pot with passion, energy and vision. During change, a leader will
ease the pain of transitions and heal the wounds that may appear.
Figure 1 depicts the research process which uses a modified Input-Process-Output
Model.
Included as inputs are the parameters of principal instructional leadership such as
framing of the school goals, communicating the school goals, supervision and evaluation of
instruction, coordination of curriculum, monitoring student progress, protection of instructional
time, high visibility, and provision of incentives for teachers; and school culture in terms of
collaborative leadership, teacher collaboration, professional development, unity of purpose, collegial
support, and learning partnership. The processes are data gathering through survey-questionnaire,
interview and observation, and statistical analysis of data using Mean and Person Product
Moment Correlation. The desired output is geared towards a proposed training plan for the
improvement of instructional leadership and school culture.
INPUT
Instructional Leadership:
 Framing of the School
Goals;
 Communicating the
School Goals;
 Supervision and
Evaluation of
Instruction;
 Coordination of
Curriculum;
 Monitoring Student
Progress;
 Protection of
Instructional Time;
 Maintaining High
Visibility;
 Provision of Incentives
for Teachers
PROCESS
Gathering of Data:
 SurveyQuestionnaire
 Interview
 Observation
Analysis of Data:
 Mean
 Person Product
Moment
Correlation
School Culture:
 Collaborative
Leadership;
 Teacher Collaboration;
 Professional
Development;
 Unity of Purpose;
 Collegial Support;
 Learning Partnership
OUTPUT
Proposed Training Plan on Instructional
Leadership and
School Culture
Figure 1. Paradigm of the Research Process
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This study analyzed the principal instructional leadership and school culture among
central elementary schools in the Division of Zambales as perceived by principals and teachers
during the School Year 2013-2014.
Specifically, it sought answers to the following questions:
1. How does the principal and teacher view principal instructional leadership among
central elementary schools in the Division of Zambales based on the following areas:
1.1 Framing of the School Goals;
1.2 Communicating the School Goals;
1.3 Supervision and Evaluation of Instruction;
1.4 Coordination of Curriculum;
1.5 Monitoring Student Progress;
1.6 Protection of Instructional Time;
1.7 Maintaining High Visibility; and
1.8 Provision of Incentives for Teachers?
2. Is there a significant difference between the views of principal and teacher on the
instructional leadership among central elementary schools in the Division of Zambales?
3. How does the principal and teacher view school culture among central elementary
schools in the Division of Zambales along the following:
3.1 Collaborative Leadership;
3.2 Teacher Collaboration;
3.3 Professional Development;
3.4 Unity of Purpose;
3.5 Collegial Support; and
3.6 Learning Partnership?
4. Is there a significant difference between the views of principal and teacher on the
school culture among central elementary schools in the Division of Zambales?
Is there a significant relationship between instructional leadership and school culture?
5. What training plan can be proposed to further improve instructional leadership and
culture among central elementary schools?
METHODOLOGY
This study used the quantitative-survey method of research. The rationale for using
quantitative methods was based upon the results this study hopes to achieve. Since a positive
relationship has previously been established between student achievement and a positive,
collaborative school culture, this study identifies a relationship between principal instructional
leadership and the positive, collaborative school culture. By using surveys, the data identifies
attributes of the population of a school. In summary, this study was designed to provide the
best possible analysis of the influence of principal instructional leadership on school culture
among central elementary schools in the Division of Zambales by using mixed methods and
providing multiple sources of evidence in order to triangulate the data. The researcher
considered all the principals from various central schools and randomly selected ten teachers
from each school to answer the instruments regardless of the actual number of regular
permanent teachers in each school. This is to gather quantitative data through the instruments.
Moreover, the researcher considered five teachers from each school for interview and focus
group discussions for the qualitative information. Table 1 presents the actual number of
principal and teacher-respondents for the study.
Table 1. Respondents Per School
Schools
Teacher
Principal
Subic CES
Castillejos CES
San Marcelino CES
San Antonio CES
San Narciso CES
San Felipe CES
Cabangan CES
Botolan North CES
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Botolan South CES
Iba CES
Palauig CES
Masinloc North CES
Masinloc South CES
Candelaria CES
Sta. Cruz North CES
Sta. Cruz South CES
Total
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
160
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
The research questions were answered by using two existing standard survey
instruments. The existing survey instruments were the Principal Instructional Management
Rating Scale developed by Philip Hallinger (Revised in1987) and the School Culture Survey
developed by Steven Gruenert (1998). The first instrument, The Principal Instructional
Management Rating Scale, was developed by Philip Hallinger in 1987. This instrument
measured ten factors of instructional leadership. The Principal Instructional Management
Rating Scale has measured instructional leadership in over 100 studies (Hallinger, 2005).
Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. The purpose of this survey is to
assess principal instructional leadership. The survey establishes three dimensions of
instructional leadership. Within these dimensions are ten functions or factors (Hallinger, 2005).
Defining the School’s Mission: includes how the principal determines the central purpose and
vision of the school. This dimension contains two functions: Framing the School’s Goals and
Communicating the School’s Goals. Managing the Instructional Program: includes the
engagement of the principal in stimulating, supervising, and monitoring teaching and learning
of students in the school. This dimension contains three leadership functions: Supervising and
Evaluating Instruction, Coordinating the Curriculum and Monitoring Student Progress.
Promoting a Positive School Learning Climate: Includes how the principal develops a
collaborative and positive school culture of continuous improvement. This dimension contains
five leadership functions: Protecting Instructional Time, Promoting Professional Development,
Maintaining High Visibility, Providing Incentives for Teachers.
The School Culture Survey. The second instrument, The School Culture Survey
developed by Steven Gruenert in 1998, measures six factors of school culture. The purpose of
the School Culture Survey is to assess the factors of school culture. Six factors of school culture
were established within the survey: Collaborative Leadership: describes the degree to which
school leaders establish and maintain collaborative relationships with school staff. The leaders
value teacher's ideas, seek their input, engage them in decision-making, and trust their
professional judgments. Leaders support and reward risk-taking, innovation, and sharing of
ideas and practices. Teacher Collaboration: describes the degree to which teachers engage in
constructive dialogue that furthers the educational vision of the school. Teachers across the
school plan together, observe and discuss teaching practices, evaluate programs, and develop
an awareness of the practices and programs of other teachers. Professional Development:
describes the degree to which teacher’s value continuous personal development and schoolwide improvement. Teachers seek ideas from seminars, colleagues, organizations, and other
professional sources to maintain current knowledge, particularly current knowledge about
instructional practices. Unity of Purpose: describes the degree to which teachers work toward a
common mission for the school. Teachers understand, support, and perform in accordance with
that mission. Collegial Support: describes the degree to which teachers work together
effectively. Teachers trust each other, value each other's ideas, and assist each other as they
work to accomplish the tasks of the school organization. Learning Partnership: describes the
degree to which teachers, parents and students work together for the common good of the
student. Parents and teachers share common expectations and communicate frequently about
student performance. Parents trust teachers. Students generally accept responsibility for their
schooling.
All quantitative data gathered through the instruments were tallied, tabulated, analyzed
and interpreted accordingly using the following statistical tools: Mean, Pearson Product
Moment Correlation, and t-Test.
To facilitate the interpretation of the scales and descriptive ratings used in the
instruments, the following codes were utilized:
Scale
Mean Interval
Descriptive Rating
Code
5
4.20-5.00
Strongly Agree
SA
4
3.40-4.19
Agree
A
3
2.60-3.39
Moderately Agree
MA
2
1.80-2.59
Disagree
DA
1
1.00-1.79
Strongly Disagree
SD
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Instructional Leadership Among Central Elementary Schools
The instructional leadership among central elementary schools is presented in the
following Tables.
Framing of the School Goals
Table 2 exposes the instructional leadership in terms of framing the school goals as
viewed by the principals and teachers. The responses of the two groups of respondents
revealed that framing the school goals is strongly enforced with the collaborative efforts of staff
by developing goals that are easily translated into classroom objectives by teachers. In doing
this, according to majority of teachers and principals, they do needs assessment or other
systematic methods to secure staff input on goal development, and use data on student
academic performance when developing the school’s academic goals. Thus, framing of school
goals is viewed “Agree” with an overall mean of 4.14.
Table 2. Instructional Leadership in Terms of Framing the School Goals
Framing the School Goals
Principal
Teacher
X
DR
X
DR
Develop a focused set of annual school-wide
goals.
4.21
SA
4.08
A
Frame the school in terms of staff responsibilities
for meeting them.
4.25
SA
4.32 SA
Use needs assessment or other systematic
methods to secure staff input on goal 4.12
A
3.89
A
development.
Use data on student academic performance when
developing the school’s academic goals.
4.15
A
3.92
A
Develop goals that are easily translated into
classroom objectives by teachers.
4.21
SA
4.33 SA
Ave. Mean
4.18
A
4.10
A
Overall
X
DR
4.14
A
4.28
SA
4.00
A
4.03
A
4.27
4.14
SA
A
Communicating the School Goals
Communicating the school goals is presented in Table 3. As shown in the Table, the
principals and the teachers mentioned that they communicate the school’s mission effectively
to members of the school community. Moreover, the principals refer to the school’s academic
goals when making curricular decisions with teacher, and these are reflected in highly visible
displays in the school. However, the principals moderately discuss the school’s academic goals
with teachers at faculty meetings. In other words, principals seldom conduct formal meetings
with teacher to discuss goals related to academics. According to them, posting these academic
goals is enough for the teachers to be informed. Thus, the overall rating of 4.15 is computed
with a descriptive rating of “Agree”.
Table 3. Instructional Leadership in Terms of Communicating the School Goals
Communicating the School Goals
Principal
Teacher
X
DR
X
DR
Communicate the school’s mission effectively to
members of the school community.
4.22
SA
4.21 SA
Discuss the school’s academic goals with teachers
at faculty meetings.
Refer to the school’s academic goals when
making curricular decisions with teachers.
Ensure that the school’s academic goals are
reflected in highly visible displays in the school.
Refer to the school’s goals in student assemblies.
Ave. Mean
3.19
MA
3.17
MA
4.31
SA
4.29
SA
Overall
X
DR
4.21
SA
3.18
4.30
MA
SA
4.30
4.57
SA
4.23
SA
4.23
4.10
SA
A
4.37
4.05
SA
A
SA
4.40
4.15
SA
A
Supervision and Evaluation of Instruction
Table 4 reveals the instructional leadership in terms of supervision and evaluation of
instruction. As revealed, both the principals and the teachers moderately agree that the
classroom priorities of teachers are consistent with the stated goals of the school. They seldom
review student work products when evaluating classroom instruction, and point out specific
strengths and weaknesses in teacher’s instructional practices in post observation feedback.
Good thing to reveal is the conduct informal observations in classroom on a regular basis by the
principals. Thus, supervision and evaluation of instruction is rated 3.37 with descriptive rating
of “Moderately Agree”.
Table 4. Instructional Leadership in Terms of Supervision and Evaluation of Instruction
Supervision and Evaluation of Instruction
Principal
Teacher
Overall
X
DR
X
DR
X
DR
Ensure that the classroom priorities of teachers are
consistent with the stated goals of the school.
3.20 MA 3.49
A
3.34 MA
Review student work products when evaluating
classroom instruction.
3.11 MA
3.25 MA 3.26 MA
Conduct informal observations in classroom on a
regular basis.
4.12 A
4.01 A
4.06 A
Point out specific strengths in teacher’s
instructional practices in post observation
feedback.
3.17
Point out specific weaknesses in teacher’s
instructional practices in post observation
feedback.
3.10
Ave. Mean
3.34
MA
3.20
MA
3.18
MA
MA
MA
3.08
3.41
MA
A
3.09
3.37
MA
MA
Coordination of Curriculum
The assessment on coordination of curriculum as integral part of instructional
supervision in revealed in Table 5. As shown in the Table, both the principals and the teachers
revealed strong agreement that they draw upon the results of school-wide testing when making
curriculum decisions. They monitor the classroom curriculum to see that it covers the school’s
curricular objectives, and likewise assess the overlap between the school’s curricular objectives
and the school’s achievement tests, and participate actively in the review of curricular
materials. However, they moderately make clear who is responsible for coordinating the
curriculum across grade levels. In other words, there is no clear and specific assignment among
teachers as to responsibilities and in-charge of the specific grade level. Thus, the overall rating
as to coordination of curriculum is 4.23 with a descriptive rating of “Strongly Agree”.
Table 5. Instructional Leadership in Terms of Coordination of Curriculum
Coordination of the Curriculum
Principal
Teacher
X
DR
X
DR
Make clear who is responsible for coordinating the
curriculum across grade levels.
3.17 MA
3.20 MA
Draw upon the results of school-wide testing when
making curriculum decisions.
4.34 SA
4.30 SA
Monitor the classroom curriculum to see that it
covers the school’s curricular objectives.
4.65 SA
4.52 SA
Assess the overlap between the school’s curricular
objectives and the school’s achievement tests.
4.45 SA
4.34 SA
Participate actively in the review of curricular
materials.
4.73 SA
4.65 SA
Ave. Mean
4.26
SA
4.20 SA
Overall
X
DR
3.18
4.32
MA
SA
4.58
SA
4.39
SA
4.69
4.23
SA
SA
Monitoring Student Progress
Table 6 exposes the assessment of the principals and teachers on the monitoring of
student progress. As exposed, the use of test results to assess progress toward school goals is
evidently practiced. They likewise inform students of school’s test results.
Table 6. Instructional Leadership in Terms of Monitoring Student Progres
Monitoring Student Progress
Principal
Teacher
X
DR
X
DR
Meet individually with teachers to discuss student
academic progress.
3.11 MA 3.12 MA
Discuss the item analysis of tests with the faculty to
identify curricular strengths and weaknesses.
3.15 MA 3.16 MA
Use test results to assess progress toward school
goals.
4.23
SA
4.21 SA
Inform teachers on the school’s performance
results in written form.
3.09 MA 3.11 MA
Inform students of school’s test results.
4.87
SA
4.65 SA
Ave. Mean
3.69
A
3.65
A
Overall
X
DR
3.11
MA
3.15
MA
4.22
SA
3.10
4.76
3.67
MA
SA
A
However, principals seldom meet individually with teachers to discuss student academic
progress, and discuss the item analysis of tests with the faculty to identify curricular strengths
and weaknesses. Information among teachers on the school’s performance results in written
form is seldom practice. The overall assessment is computed 3.67 with a descriptive rating of
“Agree”.
Protection of Instructional Time
Table 7 revealed the assessment of principals and teachers on the protection of
instructional time. As revealed, protection of instructional time is strongly enforced among
schools by ensuring that students are not called to the principal’s office during instructional
time; ensuring that tardy and truant students suffer specific consequences for missing
instructional time; encouraging teachers to use instructional time for teaching and practicing
new skills and concepts; and limiting the intrusion of extra- and co-curricular activities on
instructional time. Moreover, instead of public address announcements, to limit interruptions
of instructional time, the teachers do this in the classroom. Thus, protection of instructional
time is rated 4.28 with a descriptive rating of “Strongly Agree”.
Table 7. Instructional Leadership in Terms of Protection of Instructional Time
Protection of Instructional Time
Principal
Teacher
X
DR
X
DR
Limit interruptions of instructional time by public
address announcements.
3.16 MA
3.21 MA
Ensure that students are not called to the office
during instructional time.
4.54 SA
4.32 SA
Ensure that tardy and truant students suffer
specific consequences for missing instructional
Overall
X
DR
3.18
MA
4.43
SA
4.35
time.
4.32
Encourage teachers to use instructional time for
teaching and practicing new skills and concepts.
4.67
Limit the intrusion of extra- and co-curricular
activities on instructional time.
4.87
Ave. Mean
4.31
SA
4.39
SA
SA
SA
4.60
SA
4.63
SA
SA
SA
4.76
4.25
SA
SA
4.81
4.28
SA
SA
Maintaining High Visibility
Table 8 reveals the assessment of the principals and the teachers on the maintaining
high visibility by the principals. As revealed, the principals attend and actively participate in
extra-and co-curricular activities. They also regularly visit classrooms to discuss school issues
with teachers and students. However, the principals seldom take time to talk to students and
teachers during recess and breaks. They also seldom cover classes for teachers until a late or
substitute teacher arrives; and tutor students or provide direct instruction to classes. Thus, the
overall assessment is computed as 3.43 with a descriptive rating of “Agree”.
Table 8. Instructional Leadership in Terms of Maintaining High Visibility
Maintaining High Visibility
Principal
Teacher
X
DR
X
DR
Take time to talk to students and teachers during
recess and breaks.
3.08 MA
3.00 MA
Visit classrooms to discuss school issues with
teachers and students.
4.01 A
3.08 A
Attend/participate in extra-and co-curricular
activities.
4.42 SA
4.41 SA
Cover classes for teachers until a late or
substitute teacher arrives.
3.16 MA
3.00 MA
Tutor students or provide direct instruction to
classes.
3.13 MA
3.02 MA
Ave. Mean
3.56
A
3.30
A
Overall
X
DR
3.04
MA
3.54
A
4.41
SA
3.08
MA
3.07
3.43
MA
A
Provision of Incentives for Teachers
The assessment on the provision of incentives for teachers is shown in Table 9.
According to the principals and teachers, they reinforce superior performance by teachers in
staff meetings, newsletters, and/ or memos; compliment teacher publicly for their efforts or
performance; and recognize teachers for satisfactory performance in school-related activities.
However, the principals seldom compliment teachers privately for their efforts or performance;
and acknowledge teacher’s exceptional performance by writing for their personnel files. The
overall assessment is 3.87 with a descriptive rating of “Agree”. The general theme that emerged
among central schools was that teachers viewed their principal as a strong instructional leader.
Table 9. Instructional Leadership in Terms of Providing Incentives for Teachers
Providing Incentives for Teachers
Principal
Teacher
X
DR
X
DR
Reinforce superior performance by teachers in
staff meetings, newsletters, and/ or memos.
4.51 SA
4.42 SA
Compliment teachers privately for their efforts or
performance.
3.12 MA
3.11 MA
Acknowledge teacher’s exceptional performance
by writing for their personnel files.
3.31 MA
3.20 MA
Compliment teacher publicly for their efforts or
performance.
4.21 SA
4.39 SA
Recognize teachers for satisfactory performance
in school-related activities.
4.22 SA
4.25 SA
Ave. Mean
3.87
A
3.87
A
Overall
X
DR
4.46
SA
3.11
MA
3.25
MA
4.30
SA
4.23
3.87
SA
A
Difference Between the Views of Principal and Teacher on the Instructional Leadership
The difference between the views of the principals and the teachers on the instructional
leadership is reflected in Table 10.
Table 10. Difference Between the Views of Principal and Teacher on the Instructional
Leadership
P value
Variables
X1
X2
N df
t(Two
Interpretation
value Tailed)
Framing the School Goals
4.18 4.10
5 8 0.8235 0.4341
NS
Communicating the School
4.10 4.05
Goals
5 8 0.1537 0.8817
NS
Supervision
3.34 3.40
and Evaluation of Instruction
5 8 0.2577 0.8032
NS
Coordination of Curriculum
4.26 4.20
5 8 0.1722 0.8676
NS
Monitoring Student Progress
3.69 3.65
5 8 0.0817 0.9369
NS
Protection of Instructional Time
4.31 4.25
5 8 0.1377 0.8939
NS
Maintaining High Visibility
3.56 3.30
5 8 0.6600 0.5278
NS
Providing Incentives for
Teachers
3.87
3.87
5
8
0.0000
1.0000
NS
As shown in the Table, the comparative analyses on the views of principals and the
teachers on the instructional leadership relative to framing the school goals, communicating
the school goals, supervision and evaluation of instruction, coordination of curriculum,
monitoring of student progress, protection of instructional time, maintaining high visibility, and
providing incentives for teachers show no significant difference. This means that the null
hypothesis is accepted. Thus, there is no significant difference between the assessment of
principals and teachers on the instructional leadership of school principals among central
elementary schools in the Division of Zambales.
Culture Among Central Elementary Schools
Collaborative Leadership
Table 11 exposes the collaborative leadership as element of school culture. As reflected
in the Table, the principals and the teachers have the same level of agreement. The overall
assessment is 4.32 with a descriptive rating of “Strongly Agree”. This means that the principals
and teachers are unanymous in saying that thier leaders value thier ideas.
Table 11. School Culture in Terms of Collaborative Leadership
Collaborative Leadership
Principal
X
DR
Leaders value teachers’ ideas.
4.42 SA
Leaders in this school trust the professional
judgments of teachers.
4.39 SA
Leaders take time to praise teachers that perform
well.
4.23 SA
Teachers are involved in the decision-making
process.
4.26 SA
Leaders in our school facilitate teachers working
together.
4.24 SA
Teachers are kept informed on current issues in the
school.
4.47 SA
Teachers are rewarded for experimenting with new
ideas and techniques.
4.36 SA
Leaders support risk-taking and innovation in
teaching
4.43 SA
Administrators defend instruction and planning time.
4.26 SA
Teachers are encouraged to share ideas.
4.50 SA
Teacher
X
DR
4.22 SA
Overall
X
DR
4.32 SA
4.33
SA
4.36 SA
4.21
SA
4.22 SA
4.24
SA
4.25 SA
4.22
SA
4.23 SA
4.41
SA
4.44 SA
4.32
SA
4.34 SA
4.40
SA
4.41 SA
4.27
4.27
SA
SA
4.26 SA
4.38 SA
Ave. Mean
4.35 SA
4.28
SA
4.32 SA
Moreover, leaders in school trust the professional judgments of teachers, and take time
to praise teachers that perform well. The importance of teachers’ involvement in the decisionmaking process is also revealed. School leaders facilitate teachers working together, where
Teachers are kept informed on current issues in the school. Leaders support risk-taking and
innovation in teaching and they are rewarded for experimenting with new ideas and
techniques. Administrators defend instruction and planning time. Teachers are encouraged to
share ideas.
The findings imply that organizational culture has become a vehicle for understanding
the basic meaning and character of institutional life among central schools.
Thus, in collaborative school cultures, the underlying norms, values, beliefs, and
assumptions reinforce and support high levels of collegiality, team work, and dialogue about
problems of practice. In short, collaboration can affect the quality of teaching by enriching the
work of teachers.
Successful schools share characteristics such as strong instructional leadership, a clear
and focused mission, high expectations for students, a climate conducive to learning,
opportunities to learn, regular monitoring of students and classrooms, and positive homeschool relations (Levine and Lezotte, 1990). It shows that collegiality and collaboration ties with
positive school outcomes.
Moreover, schools with professional collaboration exhibit relationships and behaviors
that support quality work and effective instruction. These schools feature helpful, trusting, and
open staff relationships. They also may have "a commitment to valuing people as individuals"
and valuing the groups to which individuals belong.
Thus, in collaborative cultures, teachers develop the collective confidence to respond to
changes critically, selecting and adapting those elements that will aid improvement in their own
work context, and rejecting those that will not. Collaboration is not simply a group of congenial,
happy teachers.
Lastly, collaborative schools may be a way to build a professional capacity for change,
improvement, and success even in the most difficult urban school.
Other teachers spoke about how the school’s administration has a collaborative decision
making process: “I think its very warm and caring climate. I think its stems from the fact that
the way the administration has the collaborative model of decision making. I think that’s what
sets a tone to the culture and trickles down to the teachers, and the parents. It results in a close,
kind of cozy feel. I think its one kind of community that is well supported. It just seems like there
is always a positive buzz in the air.”
Teacher Collaboration
Table 12 reveals the teacher collaboration as element of school culture. Both the
principals and the teachers strongly agree that they have opportunities for dialogue and
planning across grade levels and subjects. They spend time for planning together and discuss
instructional strategies and curriculum issues and work together to develop the school
schedule.
However, teachers do not take time to observe each other teaching; and teaching
practice disagreements are not voiced openly and discussed. Thus, the computed mean value
is3.82 with a descriptive rating of “Agree”.
Collaboration facilitates the creation of challenging and motivating programs among
schools. It helps prevent teacher burnout and increases students' willingness to learn.
Teamwork through open discussions of concerns and disagreements allows teachers and the
school to manage time more productively to develop lessons that are stimulating and
rewarding and to create an innovative learning environment.
Collaboration is beneficial for teachers. It prevents feelings of teacher isolation.
Collaboration increases work satisfaction by facilitating close working relationships. Beginning
teachers tend to benefit substantially when they are paired with experienced teachers who can
relieve anxiety and nervousness by showing them the ropes.
Initially, teachers may hesitate to engage in collaborative work, but McCann and
Radford (1993) indicated that teachers involved in collaboration with their colleagues reported
considerable personal benefits from collaboration: Teachers in the project experience delight,
surprise, and success during this learning process. Teachers also indicated that collaboration
improved their communication skills, gave them a sharper focus in their work, and increased
the amount of time they spent reflecting on their work, enhanced their self-esteem and
confidence in their teaching ability, and motivated them to take more risks by attempting new
teaching strategies, such as team teaching.
Table 12. School Culture in Terms of Teacher Collaboration
Teacher Collaboration
Principal
X
DR
Teachers have opportunities for dialogue and
planning across grades and subjects.
4.36 SA
Teachers spend considerable time planning
together.
4.30 SA
Teachers take time to observe each other teaching.
2.37 DA
Teachers are generally aware of what other teachers
are teaching.
3.40 A
Teachers work together to develop and evaluate
programs and projects.
4.34 SA
Teaching practice disagreements are voiced openly
and discussed.
2.32 DA
Teachers and staff discuss instructional strategies
and curriculum issues.
4.21 SA
Teachers and staff work together to develop the
school schedule.
4.32 SA
Teachers and staff are involved in the decisionmaking process with regard to materials and 4.22 SA
resources.
Teacher
X
DR
Overall
X
DR
4.32
SA
4.34 SA
4.29
SA
4.29 SA
2.40
DA
2.38 DA
3.42
A
3.41 A
4.35
SA
4.34 SA
2.34
DA
2.33 DA
4.25
SA
4.23 SA
4.37
SA
4.34 SA
4.28
SA
4.25 SA
The planning and organizational time allotted to
teachers and staff is used to plan as collective 4.38 SA
units/teams.
Ave. Mean
3.82
A
4.32
SA
3.83
A
4.35 SA
3.82
A
Professional Development
Professional development as part of school culture is exposed in Table 13. As shown,
the respondents strongly agree that teachers utilize professional networks to obtain
information and resources for classroom instruction; and regularly seek ideas from seminars,
colleagues, and conferences. Moreover, professional development is valued by the teachers,
and there is financial support to professional development. However, leaders moderately
provide orientation of policies and procedures of the school; and financial and administrative
support to professional development of teachers. Thus, the overall assessment is 4.12 with a
descriptive rating of “Agree”.
Table 13. School Culture in Terms of Professional Development
Professional Development
Principal
X
DR
Teachers utilize professional networks to obtain
information and resources for classroom
instruction.
4.49 SA
Teachers regularly seek ideas from seminars,
colleagues, and conferences.
4.38 SA
Professional development is valued by the faculty.
4.47 SA
Teachers maintain a current knowledge base about
the learning process.
4.43 SA
The faculty values school improvement.
4.31 SA
Teachers willingly participate in any in-house
training.
4.44 SA
Teachers
maintain
professional
affiliation/
association.
4.52 SA
The faculty values in-house trainings for
professional improvement.
4.48 SA
Leaders provide orientation of policies and
procedures of the school.
3.06 MA
Leaders provide financial and administrative
support to professional development of teachers.
3.01 MA
Ave. Mean
4.15
A
Teacher
X
DR
Overall
X
DR
4.41
SA
4.45 SA
4.42
SA
4.40 SA
4.41
SA
4.44 SA
4.26
4.22
SA
SA
4.34 SA
4.26 SA
4.29
SA
4.36 SA
4.41
SA
4.46 SA
4.24
SA
4.36 SA
3.11
MA
3.08 MA
3.08 MA
4.08 A
3.04 MA
4.12
A
Professional development can boost teachers' careers; preparing them for supervisory
positions and helping them get pay increases. Continued professional development for teachers
is imperative to stay up to date and keep teaching skills sharp.
According to the thesaurus of Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
database, professional development refers to “activities to enhance professional career
growth.”
Therefore, teacher professional development is something that is very important. For
some, it means learning more about who they are and about what type of teacher they can be,
and for their pupils it means having a teacher that has done all that they can to promote their
own learning.
Unity of Purpose
Unity of purpose as element of school culture is shown in Table 14. As reflected,
principals and teachers among central schools support the mission of the school which provides
clear sense of direction for them. Likewise, they believe that school mission reflects the values
of the community. Moreover, school leader provides for participation in the process of
developing school goals by using problem solving with the teacher to generate school goals.
Thus, the overall assessment is 4.36 with a descriptive rating of “Strongly Agree”. According to
some teachers when interviewed, the school philosophy is the foundation in which the
institution has significantly impacted the lives of many school children.
This means that the schools recognize that pupils differ in interests, attitudes and
abilities and feels it is the responsibility of the school to provide a well-organized, flexible, and
varied program of classroom including other school related experiences.
These educational experiences provide them with an awareness of habits, attitudes,
ideals, morals, and spiritual values as well as the knowledge and skills necessary for living
successfully.
School leadership requires vision. It is a force that provides meaning and purpose to the
work of an educational organization. Leaders of change are visionary leaders, and vision is the
basis of their work. "To actively change an organization, leaders must make decisions about the
nature of the desired state" (Manasse, 1986). They begin with a personal vision to forge a
shared vision with their coworkers. Their communication of the vision is such that it empowers
people to act.
According to Westley and Mintzberg (1989) visionary leadership is dynamic and involves
a three stage process: an image of the desired future for the organization (vision) is
communicated (shared) which serves to “empower those followers so that they can enact the
vision".
For some teachers when interviewed, vision is "a hunger to see improvement" as well as
"the force which molds meaning". Leaders of educational change have a clear picture of what
they want to accomplish; they have the "ability to visualize one's goals". Their vision of their
school provides purpose, meaning, and significance to the work of the school and enables them
to motivate and empower the staff to contribute to the realization of the vision. According to
school principals, vision includes the "development, transmission, and implementation of an
image of a desirable future". They further states that the sharing of a leader's vision "may
differentiate true leaders from mere managers". This means that school leaders have not only a
vision but also the skills to communicate that vision to others, to develop a shared vision, a
"shared covenant".
Table 14. School Culture in Terms of Unity of Purpose
Unity of Purpose
Principal
X
DR
Teacher
X
DR
Overall
X
DR
Teachers support the mission of the school.
4.41 SA
The school mission provides a clear sense of
direction for teachers.
4.47
Teachers understand the mission of the school.
4.32
The school mission statement reflects the values of
the community.
4.42
Teaching performance reflects the mission of the
school.
4.31
Leaders regularly encourage faculty members to
evaluate progress toward achievement of school
goals.
4.43
Leader works toward whole teacher consensus in
establishing priorities for school goals.
4.41
Leader provides for participation in the process of
developing school goals.
4.32
Leader encourages faculty members to work
toward the same goals.
4.39
Leader uses problem solving with the faculty to
generate school goals.
4.31
Ave. Mean
4.37
4.32
SA
4.36 SA
SA
4.33
SA
4.40 SA
SA
4.36
SA
4.34 SA
SA
4.22
SA
4.32 SA
SA
4.21
SA
4.26 SA
SA
4.34
SA
4.38 SA
SA
4.37
SA
4.39 SA
SA
4.63
SA
4.47 SA
SA
4.35
SA
4.37 SA
SA
SA
4.33 SA
4.34 SA
4.32 SA
4.36 SA
Thus, the relationship between the teachers' and principals' vision is important.
Principals' vision tends to encompass the whole system or their vision is an organizational
vision. Teachers' vision appears to focus primarily on the individual or personal actions for
school change.
Collegial Support
Table 15 reflects the collegial support among central schools in the division. As shown in
the Table, both the groups of respondents strongly agree that collegial support is evident
among central schools as evidenced by the computed mean value of 4.34 with a descriptive
rating of “Strognly Agree”.
This means that teachers trust each other among schools. Teachers are willing to help
out whenever there is a problem and their ideas are valued by other teachers. Teachers work
cooperatively in groups and tell stories of celebrations that support the school's values.
Teachers and staff meet outside of the school to enjoy each other’s' company.
Thus, the school schedule reflects frequent communication opportunities for teachers
and staff, where sharing of new ideas are highly given due recognition. There is a rich and
healthy tradition of rituals and celebrations including holidays, special events and recognition.
In summary, the school reflects a true "sense" of community.
Teachers' mutual collaboration is based either on an individualistic approach that keeps
up borders, or on a community-based approach that accentuates social interdependence. An
individualistic interpretation of autonomy may restrict the range of possibilities offered by
collaboration. In such case, teachers may, at best, look for different forms of collaboration so as
to get support to their own work.
Table 15. School Culture in Terms of Collegial Support
Collegial Support
Principal
X
DR
Teachers trust each other.
4.21 SA
Teachers are willing to help out whenever there is
a problem.
4.35 SA
Teachers’ ideas are valued by other teachers.
4.62 SA
Teachers work cooperatively in groups.
4.41 SA
Teachers and staff tell stories of celebrations that 4.32
support the school's values.
SA
Teachers and staff visit/talk/meet outside of the 4.26
school to enjoy each other’s' company.
SA
Our school reflects a true "sense" of community.
4.34 SA
Our
school
schedule
reflects
frequent
communication opportunities for teachers and
staff.
4.41 SA
Our school supports and appreciates the sharing of
new ideas by members of our school.
4.37 SA
There is a rich and healthy tradition of rituals and
celebrations including holidays, special events and
recognition.
4.23 SA
Ave. Mean
4.35 SA
Teacher
X
DR
4.27 SA
Overall
X
DR
4.24 SA
4.38
4.41 SA
4.32 SA
4.35
SA
4.29
SA
4.36 SA
SA
4.51
4.36 SA
4.33
SA
4.27
SA
4.42
SA
4.38
SA
4.37
SA
4.39
SA
4.26
SA
4.31
SA
4.21
4.32
SA
SA
4.22
4.34
SA
SA
SA
Thrust is the way some school heads act as a role model for the type of behavior they
expect of their staff. They set the standard and support the staff so as to maintain the standard.
If the school head is hard-working, the staffs are both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated
and enjoy their work. The school head with high thrust influences the college climate positively;
all activities are focused and directed to achieving the organizational goals, both teachers and
students enjoy teaching and learning. Whereas the school head with no thrust also affects the
climate and that this may result in lack of motivation and performance on the part of teachers.
Hence, thrust is an important factor in enhancing the effectiveness of an organization.
Moreover, collegial trust supports a school’s capacity for building a professional learning
community given that in situations of interdependence, trust reduces uncertainty and enhances
cooperation. Teachers need one another in school-based professional learning communities in
order to engage in dialogue, open the door of their classroom, and collaborate with a focus on
student learning, although a balance between autonomy and collegiality is desirable in
professional development.
Learning Partnership
Table 16 presents the school culture relative to learning partnership. As reflected, the
overall assessment is 4.21 or ‘Strongly Agree”. This means that teachers and parents have
common expectations for student performance; teachers and parents communicate frequently
about student performance. Administrators of these schools and parents have common
expectations for student’s development. Students generally accept responsibility for their
schooling, for example they engage mentally in class and complete homework assignments.
However, leaders seldom communicate with the alumni for school-related activities. Research
shows that children do better in school when parents talk often with teachers and become
involved in the school. There are number of ways that parents and teachers can communicate
with each other, rather than relying on the scheduled parent-teacher conferences. Close
communications between parents and teachers can help the student. Parents who participate
in school activities and events will have added opportunities to communicate with teachers.
Teachers usually welcome meeting their pupils' parents early in the school year. Making an
effort to do this help the teacher better understand the education of children. Teachers
appreciate knowing that parents are concerned and interested in their child's progress. And,
this helps open the lines of communication.
Parent-teacher meetings are often scheduled at the time of the first report card for the
school year. For parents and teachers, this is a chance to talk one-on-one about the pupil. The
parent-teacher meeting is a good opportunity to launch a partnership between parent and
teacher that will function during the school year.
It is by planning for and promoting widespread participation that schools can scale up to
making parent and community engagement the normal business of the school, parents and the
community.
The finding suggests that having a critical mass of parents and community members
actively involved in the day to day activities of the school adds to the school's base of expert
knowledge, networks, financial support and physical resources. Furthermore, schools which
have high levels of active participation have reported lower levels of absenteeism, truancy and
drop-out.
When describing the school culture in their schools, participants offered an added level
of understanding after the survey data was collected. In summary, the principals and the
teachers described the school culture as positive and collaborative.
Table 16. Culture in Terms of Learning Partnership
Learning Partnership
Teachers and parents have common expectations
for student performance.
Teachers and parents communicate frequently
about student performance.
Leaders communicate frequently with the alumni
for school-related activities.
Administrators and parents have common
expectations for student’s development.
Administrators trust teachers’ professional
judgments.
Parents support and appreciate the activities of our
school.
Parents trust teachers’ professional judgments.
Students generally accept responsibility for their
schooling, for example they engage mentally in
class and complete homework assignments.
Students
generally
support
school-related
activities.
Students are actively involved in school-community
engagements.
Ave. Mean
Principal
X
DR
Teacher
X
DR
Overall
X
DR
4.21
SA
4.33
SA
4.27
SA
4.27
SA
4.39
SA
4.33
SA
3.10
4.38
MA
3.21
4.24
MA
3.15
4.31
MA
SA
SA
SA
4.41
SA
4.32
SA
4.36
SA
4.43
SA
4.22
SA
4.32
SA
4.41
SA
4.23
SA
4.32
SA
4.32
4.21
SA
4.26
SA
SA
4.37
SA
4.23
SA
4.30
SA
4.52
4.24
SA
SA
4.40
4.17
SA
A
4.46
4.21
SA
SA
Difference Between the Views of Principal and Teacher on the School Culture
The difference between the views of principals and teachers on the school culture in
reflected in Table 17. The comparative analyses on the school culture relative to collaborative
leadership, teacher collaboration, professional development, unity of purpose, collegial
support, and learning partnership show no significant difference. This means that the null
hypothesis is accepted. Thus, there is no significant difference on the views of the principals
and the teachers on the school culture among central elementary schools in the Division of
Zambales.
Table 17. Difference Between the Views of Principal and Teacher on the School Culture
P value
Variables
X1
X2
N
df
t-value (Two
Interpretation
Tailed)
Collaborative
10
18
1.6943 0.1074
NS
4.3560 4.2890
Leadership
Teacher
10
18
0.0325 0.9744
NS
3.8220 3.8340
Collaboration
Professional
10
18
0.2941 0.7720
NS
4.1590 4.0850
Development
Unity of Purpose
4.3790 4.3460 10
18
0.8134 0.4266
NS
Collegial Support
4.3520 4.3280 10
18
0.5570 0.5844
NS
Learning Partnership 4.2420 4.1780 10
18
0.3763 0.7111
NS
Significant Relationship Between Instructional Leadership and School Culture
The significant relationship between instructional leadership and culture among central
elementary schools in the Division of Zambales is shown in Table 18. As shown in the Table, the
computed r-value of 0.91rejected the null hypothesis with an interpretation of strong positive
correlation. This means that high instructional leadership variable scores go with high school
culture variable scores (and vice versa). Thus, there is a significant relationship between
principal instructional leadership and school culture. Numerous and strong relationships is
found between many instructional leadership and school culture factors suggesting the
importance of principals using an instructional leadership approach. As instructional leaders,
principals can create a positive and collaborative school culture. By helping teachers
collaborate, instilling collective leadership, and communicating a shared vision, principals can
contribute to developing a positive and collaborative school culture. The strongest relationship
between instructional leadership and school culture is found in the central elementary schools.
The instructional leadership factors, frame the school goals, communicate the school goals,
supervise & evaluate instruction, and coordinate the curriculum had statistically significant
correlations with all the factors of school culture.
Table 18. Significant Relationship Between Instructional Leadership and School Culture
Variables and Values
∑
Mean
∑(X - Mx)2
X
67.20
4.2
0.74
Y
68.03
4.25
0.74
∑(X - Mx)(Y - My)
0.68
The value of R is 0.91. This is a strong
N
16
positive correlation, which means that
r
0.91
high X variable scores go with high Y
variable scores (and vice versa).
Implication of the Findings Towards a Proposed Training Plan
Key findings from this study indicate that a principal needs to coordinate the curriculum,
communicate their vision, supervise and evaluate instruction, and establish relationships with
teachers to be a strong instructional leader. Results from central schools contributed to this key
finding. Most teachers in the central elementary school considered their principal to be a strong
instructional leader. Teachers commented that the principal “has a strong knowledge of
curriculum, knows what’s happening in classrooms, was approachable, was a great
communicator, asked teams to meet often to discuss curriculum, and had a vision for the
school and the students.” An unanticipated finding suggests that the principal needs to
establish personal relationships with their teachers in order to improve instruction and
learning. Most teachers commented that the principal’s ability to develop relationships with the
staff leads to valuable communication toward a greater understanding and investment in
curriculum and instructional practices. This seemed to be a significant factor as instructional
leaders shaped school culture. For principals to establish a positive and collaborative school
culture, results suggest that principals need to have teachers collaborate, share leadership, and
offer professional development opportunities. Once again relationships interweave throughout
the culture of the school. In support of this key finding, survey, focus group and interview
results, showed no differences for school culture in each school. Teachers in the central
elementary schools viewed their school as having a positive and collaborative culture. It should
be noted that the average mean difference from the surveys showed no difference between
views in school culture and instructional leadership. A highly collaborative and positive school
culture is found among schools. Based upon interview and focus groups, teachers viewed the
culture as “warm, positive, open, caring, collaborative, and as good as it gets”. They also
emphasized the “cozy feeling of the school and how learning partnerships are valued.”
Moreover, a training plan (Appendix I) is proposed to further strengthen and improve the
instructional leadership and culture among central elementary schools in the division. This
training plan specifies the objectives of the training program, participating organization/
persons, measures of success and allotted budget.
CONCLUSIONS
Emerged among central schools was that teachers viewed their principal as a strong
instructional leader in framing and communicating the school goals, coordinating the
curriculum, protecting instructional time, maintaining high visibility and providing incentives for
teachers. Supervising and evaluating instruction was moderately practiced. There was no
significant difference between the views of principals and teachers on the instructional
leadership of principals among central elementary schools in the Division of Zambales. The
principals and the teachers described the school culture as positive and collaborative in terms
of leadership, teacher, professional development, unity of purpose, collegial support, and
learning partnership. There was no significant difference between the views of principals and
teachers on the culture among central elementary schools in the Division of Zambales. There
was a strong positive relationship between instructional leadership and culture among central
elementary schools in the Division of Zambales. A training plan was proposed to further
strengthen and improved the instructional leadership of principals and culture within schools.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The school principal should discuss school’s academic goals with teachers at faculty
meetings. The school principals should strengthen the supervision and evaluation of instruction
by ensuring that classroom activities of teachers are consistent with the stated goals and
discussing the instructional strengths and weaknesses of teachers during post obervation
feedback. The school principals should make clear who is responsible for coordinating the
curriculum across grade levels. The school principals should further improve the monitoring of
stduent progress by meeting individually with teachers, discussing item analysis, and informing
teachers on the school’s performance in written form. The school principals should strengthen
high visibility among teachers and students and provide compliments and acknowledgements
for exceptional performance. Teaching practice disagreements should be voiced openly and
discussed during faculty meetings. School administration should continue provide financial and
administrative support to professional development of teachers. School administration should
communicate frequently with the alumni for school-related acitivies. The proposed training
plan should be implemented to further strenthen and improve the instructional leadership and
culture among central schools. A parallel study should be conducted among small schools to
provide wider perspective on how to improve instructional leadership and school culture in the
Division of Zambales.
REFERENCES
Andrews, R., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal leadership and student achievement. Educational
Leadership.
Austin, G. (1979). Exemplary schools and the search for effectiveness. Educational Leadership.
Bennis, W. G. (2003). On becoming a leader. ([Rev. ed.).Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Bennis, W. G., & Goldsmith, J. (2003). Learning to lead : A workbook on becoming a leader (3rd
ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing
organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., Lee, G. (1982). The instructional leadership role of the
principal. Educational Administration Quarterly.
Bridges, E. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state of the art, 1967-1980.
Educational Administration Quarterly.
Catano, N., & Stronge, J. (2007). What do we expect of school principals? Congruence between
principal evaluation and performance standards. International Journal of Leadership in
Education Theory and Practice
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement : What the research says. Alexandria, Va.:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches
(2nd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: the heart of leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dimmock, C. A. J., & Walker, A. (2005). Educational leadership: Culture and diversity. London ;
Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE Publications.
DuFour, R. (1991). The principal as staff developer. Amherst, MA: National Educational Service.
DuFour, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: best practices for enhancing
student achievement. Amherst, MA: National Educational Service.
Dwyer, D. (1984). The search for instructional leadership: Routines and subtleties in the
principal's role. Educational Leadership, 41(5), 32-37.
Elbot, C., & Fulton, D. (2008). Building an intentional school culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, D.C.: The Albert
Shanker Institute.
Fredericks, J., & Brown, S. (1993). School effectiveness and principal productivity. NASSP
Bulletin.
Fullan, M. (1988). Leadership for the 21st century: Breaking the bonds of dependency.
Educational Leadership.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school? New York:
Teachers College Press.
Ginsburg, R. (1988). Principals as instructional leaders. Education and Urban Society.
Glanz, J. (2006). What every principal should know about instructional leadership. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Glatthorn, A. (1998). Performance assessment and standards-based curricula: The achievement
cycle. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.
Glatthorn, A. (2000). The principal as curriculum leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gruenert, S. W. (1998). Development of a school culture survey. Unpublished Digital
Dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri.
Gruenert, S. (2005). Correlations of collaborative school cultures with student achievement.
NASSP Bulletin.
Hallinger, P. (1987). Assessing and developing principal instructional leadership. Educational
Leadership.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review
of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly
Hallinger, P. H., Ronald. (2005). The study of educational leadership and management.
Educational Management, Administration & Leadership.
Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations : Software of the mind
(Rev. and expanded 2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hopkins, D. A., M & West, M. (1994). School improvement in an era of change. New York, NY:
Teacher's College Press.
House, R. J., & Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program.
(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations : The GLOBE study of 62 societies.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hoy, W. J. T. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.
Kohn, A. (1994) The risks of rewards. Urbana, IL: Eric Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early
Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED376990)
Krueger, R. & Casey, M. A. (2000) Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Marzano, R. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing
student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Development.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research
to results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA.
McGuire, K. (2001). Do you have what it takes to be an effective school leader? Curriculum
Review
Miles, M. (2002). The relative impact of principal instructional and transformational leadership
on school culture. Dissertation Abstracts International
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. A report to the secretary of education. Washington, DC: United
States Department of Education.
No Child Left Behind (2003). No child left behind: Retrieved March 10, 2008,
http://www.nclb.org/next/parentsguide.html.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Officers. (1996). Interstate school leader’s licensure consortium: Standards for school leaders.
Council of Chief State School Officers. Washington, DC
Patton, M. Q. (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Ramsey, R. D. (2008). Don't teach the canaries not to sing: Creating a school culture that boosts
achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rentsch, J. (1990). Climate and culture: Interaction and qualitative differences in organizational
meanings. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teacher's workplace: The social organization of schools. New York:
Longman.
Rossman, G. B., Corbett, H. D., & Firestone, W. A. (1988). Change and effectiveness in schools.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Smith, W. F., & Andrews, R. L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a
difference. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools & classrooms. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Vail, K. (2005). Create Great School Climate. American School Board Journal.
Weick, K. (1982). Administering education in loosely coupled schools. Phi Delta Kappan.
Wellisch, J. B. M., Anne H.; Carriere, Ronald A.; Duck, Gary A. (1978). School management and
organization in successful schools. Sociology of Education
Vogt, W. P. (2007). Quantitative research methods for professionals. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn
and Bacon.
Zepeda, S. (2004). Instructional leadership for school improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Eye
Education.