INSTRUCTIONAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF SCHOOL HEADS AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN THE DIVISION OF PANGASINAN I

1
INTRODUCTION

The needs of students today are far different from two or three generations ago. One key reason is that advancement of technology in the global economy is indeed faster than the development of education. In the light of this situation, from a practical viewpoint, a paradigm shift in education is needed as a key agent in the development of a learning society. According to
Sim (2011), a learning society is a form of society that loves science and reading, as well as educational demand as a dynamic culture. Thus, the school curriculum should produce students who are more reactive and dynamic.
The school years are the grounding years of one's education. Schools are institutions that lay the foundation of a child's development.

Furthermore,

school is the most important institution in the socialization of children because it can cause an impact on the children‟s development. Hence, the principal‟s management practices of his roles are often viewed as a major focus of efforts to pursue and achieve excellence in education. In other words, excellence or success of a school is influenced by effective principal management.
An orchestra is made up of different instruments played in a harmonious way. The orchestra cannot function without a conductor. Hence, beautiful music cannot be created without one playing this important role.

1

2
In a school setting, the school head is the conductor. He makes sure that everyone‟s role, like an orchestra, is played well. He leads in developing and pursuing academic goals that the school needs to achieve. He is responsible of ensuring that the teachers help the students to learn effectively to maximize their potentials. School heads who are chosen for the job need to believe in their capacity to succeed for they are like the captain of a ship that sail on difficult waters.
They are expected to possess the necessary management skills to lead their ship safely to the shore. In so doing, they must have the capability to provide instructional and curriculum management in their respective schools for these are the areas people expect them to lead. This asserts that the position of school head is certainly a demanding one (SEAMEO Innotech, 2009).
There is no arguing that in the context of Philippine education, the school head occupies strategic position in the hierarchy of officials in so far as the administration of a secondary school is concerned. The school head acts like a bridge that connects the school to the community and vice versa. Thus, the position has the greatest potential for maintaining and improving the quality of schools which will eventually result to students‟ academic performance.
Republic Act No. 9155 otherwise known as the Governance of Basic
Education Act of 2001 provided an outline of the management roles of a school head with emphasis on instructional management and administrative

3 management. Likewise, the enactment of this Act gave added impetus to the earlier efforts of the Department of Education (DepED) to decentralize the governance and management of basic education. School heads are empowered to manage the operation of their schools within their own context. Since they are highly empowered, they are duty bound to perform their sworn duties and functions with utmost prudence and integrity.
Instructional management role is the premeditated process to improve the quality of teaching and learning in schools. Therefore, the roles of principals as instructional leaders are to provide guidance to teachers on curriculum and pedagogy, encourage students to analyse weaknesses and guide teachers and students. In addition, instructional leaders should work with the limitations of existing school resources and improve the quality of teaching. Hence, it is a sharper path where principal must take into account the norms of the school in order to influence learning process positively.
From the perspectives mentioned, instructional leaders especially school heads must equip themselves with skills, knowledge and specific efficiency to be effective leaders. According to John West-Burnham (2001), knowledge and skills are needed to build personal values, self-awareness, feelings and moral capabilities. When principals play the role as instructional leaders, they need to have the knowledge of learning theory and effective teaching. In other words, instructional leaders must have the communication skills and must reflect the

4 symbolic power to enthuse their subordinates in their school organization. In this context, principals as instructional leaders must possess management characteristics needed to influence all members of staff such as encouraging school programs and activities to make learning meaningful and involving students in all aspects related to school life.
One of the areas of concern of Development Education is human resource development. Human resource is the most important and vital factor of

development or it can be said that humans are the agents of development. The effective performance of an organization depends not just on the available resources but its quality and competence as required by the organization from time to time. As a field of study, development education aims to vitalize people in order to establish a dynamic organization – the school system so to speak.
The school head as the leader plays multiple roles in leading the school. His role as an instructional leader and administrative manager demands professional competence in order to achieve quality education because

quality of life

depends on quality education.
The researcher as a secondary school teacher had observed that instruction most of the time is sacrificed over administrative tasks of a school head. Dismal results of the National Achievement Test (NAT) over the past years testify this scenario. School heads themselves are aware that 70% of their function is devoted to the provision of instructional leadership and 30% on their

5 administrative tasks. Since the NAT result is ultimate measurement of school performances, school heads are duty bound to provide instructional leadership among their teachers which will consequently result to better learning outcomes.
It is in this light that the researcher is highly motivated to conduct this study to determine the instructional management practices of the secondary school heads in the Division of Pangasinan I focusing on the seven domains 1) framing and communicating the vision, mission and goals of the school;
2) managing curriculum and instruction; 3) monitoring students‟ progress;
4) supervising teaching and learning; 5) fostering conducive learning climate;
6) promoting professional development; and 7) collaborating with stakeholders.
In addition, to determine the extent of influence of the school heads‟ level of instructional practice to their school‟s academic achievement based on the overall average Mean Percentage Score (MPS) in the National Achievement
Test (NAT) for the last three years. Results of this study will be used as bases in preparing intervention measures to help the secondary school heads improve their practice of their instructional management roles and post a better school academic performance.

Statement of the Problem
The study was conducted to determine the instructional management practices of school heads and academic performance of secondary schools in the

6
Division of Pangasinan I as basis for proposing intervention measures to improve the instructional management capabilities of school heads which could lead to improve school academic performance.
Specifically, the study sought answers to the following research questions: 1. How are the School Heads‟ profile described in terms of:
1.1. educational attainment,
1.2. position,
1.3. number of years as a classroom teacher,
1.4. number of years as a school head, and
1.5. in-service trainings attended?
2. How are the School Heads‟ level of practice in discharging their instructional management roles along the following domains described as assessed by themselves and their teachers:
2.1. framing and communicating the school vision, mission, and goals; 2.2. managing curriculum and instruction;
2.3. monitoring students‟ progress;
2.4. supervising teaching and learning;
2.5. fostering conducive learning climate;
2.6. promoting professional development; and

7
2.7. collaborating with stakeholders?
3. To what extent do the assessments of the School Heads‟ on the level of their instructional practices differ with the assessment of their respective teachers? 4. How are the schools‟ academic performances described in terms of their overall average Mean Percentage Score (MPS) in the National
Achievement Test (NAT) for the last three years?
5. To what extent do the School Heads‟ level of instructional management practices relate to the school academic performance based on the
NAT-MPS?
6. What are the weak areas identified in each domain of instructional management role of school heads based on their self-assessment and the teachers? 7. What intervention measures are proposed to strengthen the identified areas that need improvement in each domain of instructional management that will enhance the level of practice of the secondary school heads and will lead to improved school‟s academic performance?
Objectives of the Study
This study conducted has the following objectives:
1. To describe the profile of the secondary School Heads in terms of:
1. educational attainment,

8
2. position,
3. number of years as a teacher,
4. number of years as a school head, and
5. in-service trainings attended?
2. To describe the secondary school heads‟ level of practice in discharging the instructional management roles as assessed by themselves and their teachers in terms of the following domains:
2.1. framing and communicating the school vision, mission, and goals; 2.2. managing curriculum and instruction;
2.3. monitoring students‟ progress;
2.4. supervising teaching and learning;
2.5. fostering conducive learning climate;
2.6. promoting professional development; and
2.7. collaborating with stakeholders.
3. To determine the extent of difference on the assessments of school heads and their respective teachers in terms of the level of their instructional practices.
4. To describe the schools‟ academic performance in terms of their
Overall Average Mean Percentage Score (MPS) in the National Achievement
Test (NAT) for the last three years

9
5. To determine the extent of relationship between the school heads‟ level of instructional management practices and the school academic performance based on the NAT-MPS.
6. To determine the weak areas in each domain of instructional management role of school heads based on their self-assessment and the teachers. 7. To propose intervention measures to strengthen the weak areas that need improvement in each domain of instructional management that will enhance the level of practice of the secondary school heads and improve school‟s academic performance.
Hypotheses of the Study
1. There is no significant difference between the School Heads‟ selfassessment on their instructional management practice and the assessment of their teachers.
2. There is no significant relationship between the school heads‟ level of instructional management practice and the school‟s academic performance based on the NAT-MPS for the last three years.

Significance of the Study
From a practical viewpoint, teachers can acquire the ability to generate their own strength in order to inculcate the nature of growing thirst for

10 knowledge, competitiveness in culture and commitment through guidance and support from their principals. Thus, principal plays a prominent role as an expert consultant in pedagogy that facilitates teachers‟ improvement in teaching, understanding the formal curriculum and ensuring that the curriculum is taught as expected. Therefore, in grounded practice, principals should incline themselves to instructional management in order to enthuse and inspire teachers to plan and carry out the tasks of teaching. In short, as an instructional leader, principal should be directly involved in teaching and learning in his or her school because this involvement will enhance their professionalism and the students‟ academic growth.
Hence, this study aims to identify the salient domains of the actual practices among the secondary school heads as instructional leaders and their school academic performance for the benefit of the following education stakeholders and for possible program formulations:
To the secondary school heads, results of this study could help them strengthen the level of their instructional management practice to lead the teachers and students which will eventually results to school academic excellence. To the teachers, it could help them increase their awareness of their role in the instructional programs of their school. Likewise, their objective

11 assessment could provide significant feedback to improve the level of instructional management practice of their school heads.
To the students, results of this study may help them increase their academic performance especially in the National Achievement Test (NAT) via excellent instructional management practice of their school head.
To the school stakeholders, school heads may strengthen their active participation and involvement on school activities that could improve and elevate the school‟s academic performance.
To policy makers, it could provide them significant data as basis in formulating and introducing enhancement programs such as workshops/trainings focused on the seven domains of instructional management.
Lastly, results of this study will be useful and helpful to new and prospective principals as an impetus for them to act with more robust as instructional leaders as well as to examine their strengths and weaknesses in discharging their instructional management role.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
This study was focused on determining the instructional management practices of school heads and academic performance of public secondary schools in the Division of Pangasinan I. Furthermore, it only focused on the seven domains of school heads‟ instructional management roles such as: 1) framing and communicating the school vision, mission and goals; 2) managing

12 curriculum and instruction; 3) monitoring students‟ progress; 4) supervising teaching and learning; 5) fostering conducive learning climate; 6) promoting professional development; and 7) collaborating with stakeholders.
Included in the study was the individual school‟s academic performance based on the overall average Mean Percentage Score (MPS) in the National
Achievement Test (NAT) for the last three years and its extent of relationship to the instructional management practices of the school heads.
Respondents of the study were the 113 secondary school heads and the
355 randomly selected teachers in the Division of Pangasinan I. The teacherrespondents were chosen using random sampling by employing the Slovin‟s
Formula.

Definition of Terms
For purposes of clarity and understanding of the terminologies used in this study, the following were defined operationally.
Collaborating with Stakeholders. This refers to the school head‟s ability to work well with school stakeholders especially in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating school improvement programs to improve students‟ academic performance.

13
Division of Pangasinan I. This refers to one of the thirteen (13) divisions in Region I covering the one hundred thirteen (113) secondary schools divided in three (3) congressional districts.
Framing and Communicating the School Vision, Mission and Goals.
This refers to the ability of the school head to lead in formulating and communicating effectively the vision, mission and goals of the school as one of the domains of his instructional management role.
Fostering Conducive Learning Climate. This refers to the ability of the school head to ensure that the school is a learning community where learners and teachers feel their importance and their needs are addressed to attain their unique optimum development.
Instructional Management. It refers to the ability to develop educational programs. These include the abilities to interpret the curriculum and determine the objectives of teaching, the diversity of teaching methods, determine classroom management, provide learning climate, implement instructional innovation, able to influence and coordinate the teachers and students to achieve the goals of school education ( Sergiovanni, 2001). It can be categorized as to this range:
Ranges

Descriptive Equivalent

4.50 – 5.00
3.50 – 4.49
2.50 – 3.49
1.50 – 2.49
1.00 – 1.49

Outstanding
Very Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Fair
Poor

14
Instructional Management Practice. This refers to how the School
Head implement the different instructional programs focused on the following domains: 1) framing and communicating the vision,, mission and goals of the school; 2) managing curriculum and instruction; 3) monitoring students‟ progress; 4) supervising teaching and learning; 5) fostering conducive learning climate; 6) promoting professional development; and 7) collaborating with stakeholders. It will be a self-assessment to be rated by School Heads themselves and to be validated by their teachers‟ own assessment.
Managing Curriculum and Instruction. This refers to the ability of the school head in planning, implementing, assessing, enriching and revising school programs/activities focused on the different learning areas and the effective processes involved on how the students learn it best.
Mean Percentage Score (MPS). It is the general average of the school on the NAT with focus in English, Mathematics, Science, Filipino and Araling
Panlipunan.
Monitoring Students’ Progress. It refers to the school heads‟ instructional management role on monitoring and evaluating students‟ level of achievements as basis of formulating remedial or enrichment programs to ensure learners‟ maximum personal growth.
National Achievement Test (NAT). It refers to the only annual assessment test conducted by the Department of Education (DepED) to

15 determine the academic achievement of each school both elementary and secondary. Promoting Professional Development. It refers to the ability of the school head to plan, evaluate and implement personal and professional development programs/activities for teachers.
School Academic Performance. It refers to the overall Mean Percentage
Score (MPS) of the school in the National Achievement Test (NAT) for the last three years.
School Heads. These refer to the 113 secondary school administrators managing the affairs of a school such as Principal, Head Teacher, Officer inCharge or Teacher in-Charge with approved designation from the Schools
Division Superintendent.
Supervising Teaching and Learning. It refers to the ability of the school head to ensure effectiveness of the teaching-learning process through classroom observations either direct or indirect.
Teachers. These refer to the 355 randomly selected school teaching personnel from the one hundred thirteen 113 secondary schools in the Division of Pangasinan I who acted as respondents in the study.

16
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Presented in this chapter are the related literature and studies from both foreign and local focused on the instructional management practices of school heads and its significant relationship to school‟s academic achievement. They were compared to the present study and aided the researcher in formulating the theoretical and conceptual framework.

Related Literature
Finkel (2012), in his article on „Principals as Instructional Leaders‟ mentioned that traditionally, principals have been more engaged in administrative function than of instruction.

He added that principal‟s

substantive involvement in instructional leadership is positive for schools. If a school doesn‟t make adequate yearly progress, the principal is held responsible.
Lunenburg (2010), says that the instructional leadership of the principal is a critical factor in the success of a school‟s improvement initiatives and the overall effectiveness of the school. The primary responsibility of the principal is to promote the learning and success of all students. School principals can accomplish this goal by focusing on learning, encouraging collaboration, using data to improve learning, providing support, and aligning curriculum, assessment, and instruction.
16

17
He added that educators are gradually redefining the role of the principal from instructional leader with a focus on teaching to leader of a professional community with a focus on learning. Moreover, one of the professional standards for principals is to have 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. Norton (2009), cited by Floyd (2011), asked 100 elementary and secondary principals to detail their responsibilities. It was found that 79% of the principals rated the following processes as demanding most of their time: organizational climate and staff selection, development and evaluation. While the general conclusion of the study was the principal assumes a significant leadership role in the effective administration of the human resource processes, the notion that the leader of the school also has primary responsibility for the climate of the organization is significant. Norton‟s study illustrates the notion that principals accept the primary responsibility for establishing a positive school climate.
Floyd (2011) quoted Blasé and Blasé (2000), that effective school leadership must include principal in the role of the instructional leader. An instructional leader must: (a) give feedback, (b) model effective instruction, (c) solicit opinions, (d) make suggestions, (e ) support collaboration, (f) provide

18 professional development opportunities, and (g) give praise for effective teaching. According to Blasé and Kirby (2000), effective principals understand that the key to improve their schools‟ effectiveness lies not with persons skilled in compliance with bureaucratic rules and procedures or in discussions about those rules, but in effective use of time allocated for instruction.
Effective management is widely accepted as being a key constituent in achieving school improvement. A highly effective principal is not called to the job per se, but more importantly to the opportunity to make a difference in the school. This could mean a change in the educational landscape, heal an ailing school, or work for the concepts of greater accountability, equity and excellence
(Fook, 2009).
Although school heads are important, their mere presence does not guarantee successful

management.

Countless

evidence,

including

the

deterioration of the quality of education in the country proves this fact and calls for an urgent and widespread demand to improve students‟ performance and reform schools. This has brought a massive pressure on the position of school heads particularly, perusal in their job performance and practice of instructional management roles (Rivera, 2012).
Keefe and Jenkins (2002), defines instructional management as the role of the principal in providing directions, resources and supports to teachers and

19 students in order to improve the teaching and learning in schools. On the other hand, according to Sergiovanni (2001), instructional management refers to the ability to develop educational programs. These include the abilities to interpret the curriculum and determine the objectives of teaching, the diversity of teaching methods, determine classroom management, provide learning climate, implement instructional innovation able to influence and coordinate the teachers and students to achieve the goals of school education.
The school principal is the pivot of curriculum and instructional process in the school. School administration and governance encompasses both general and instructional management. Both of them are aimed at school improvement practices. This is an act of administration, curriculum work, instruction, human relations, management and the management role. It is concerned with the pupil or the student management in the pupil or the student learning in the classroom.
Instructional management takes various dimensions such as helping in the formulation and implementation of schemes of work; evaluating modifications; delivery of instructional resources, helping conducting and coordinating staff inservicing, advising and assisting teachers involved in instructional programmes; procuring funds required for instructional purposes and receiving community feedback about school programmes (Okumbe, 2007).
Fullan as cited by Osman (2013), asserted that instructional management means becoming a leader of leaders (learning to work with others) (teachers,

20 students and parents) to improve instructional quality. The role of principal has become dramatically more complex, over loaded and unclear over the past decade‟ indeed, the role of the principal has been in a state of transition, progressing from the principal as an instructional leader or master teacher to the principal as a transactional leader, most recently to the role of transformational leader. Many researchers stress the importance of the instructional management responsibilities of the principal but state that effective instructional management is seldom practiced. He further added that “effective instructional leaders are in the minority” therefore there is a gap between what is and what needs to be.
Osman (2013,) likewise suggested the knowledge and technical skills that an instructional leader should possess and practice so as to advance teaching and learning in schools. These skills include instructional leaders as developers of people, curriculum developers, instructional specialists, human relation workers, staff developers, administrators, managers of change and evaluators.
Effective school management, in the form of a dedicated, skilled principal, is a key element in creating and maintaining high quality schools
(Glanz, 2006). Good principals must be viewed as guides and coaches, leaders who establish high expectations and common direction, regularly observe classrooms, guide lesson planning, create common planning time, monitor student learning, collect data, and use results to influence improvement plans
(Young, 2004).

21
As leaders, school managers are directly responsible for the work and behavior of their teachers whom they motivate to perform to the best of their abilities. A productive school environment rests on both school managers and teachers who are aware of the extent and limitation of their respective functions and responsibilities. A school environment conducive to learning exists when there is agreement between school managers and teachers of their respective functions. The kind of management school manager manifest determines the behavior of their teachers.
In like manner, many scholars and educational researchers have acknowledged the highly significant role of school management in enhancing school performance and student achievements. To lay the foundation for improved school performance and student success, one crucial task of a school leader is to ensure that the teachers as well as the non-teaching staff are competent and motivated. In fact, in the content analysis of Cotton (2003) cited by Stronge (2008), research on principals‟ impact on student achievement, she highlighted that much of the principals‟ success can be attributed to the professional development opportunities that are provided for the staff members, particularly the teaching staff.
Principals who are comfortable with providing instructional support to teachers are likely to have been good teachers themselves. Moreover, they have the knowledge and skills to design and implement programs and activities that

22 provide instructional growth opportunities for teachers. Such principals will find the time for instructional management because they value it and truly believe that it makes a difference in teacher development and student achievement. To mark a good school is one in which instructional management is primary.
Schools must consciously seek principals who are instructional leaders (Glanz,
2006).
In terms of students‟ achievement, schools are educational institutions that play a prominent role in the intellectual and personal growth of students.
According to Ubben and Hughes as cited by Sim (2011), schools can make a difference to the level of students‟ performance. However, a good or poor school depends on the person who leads the school. As the saying goes, “Where the principal goes, so goes the school.”
Sim (2011),

mentioned the

different

domains

of

instructional

management he adopted from Hallinger and Murphy, Krug and Hussein
Mahmood.
According to Hallinger and Murphy as cited by Sim (2011), instructional management domains composed of: framing the school goals, communicating the school goals, supervising and evaluating instruction, coordinating the curriculum, monitoring students‟ progress, protecting instructional time, maintaining high visibility, providing incentives to teachers, promoting professional development and providing incentives for learning.

23
Similarly, according to Krug as again cited by Sim (2011), instructional management domains consist of: explaining the school‟s mission, supervising teaching, building a conducive learning climate, managing curriculum and monitoring students‟ achievement.
On the same area of instructional management role of a school head,
Hussein Mahmood as cited by Sim (2011), stated that the domains along this line include setting school‟s philosophy, forming school‟s vision, setting school goals and objectives, formulating and developing school policies and procedures, providing support for teaching and learning, controlling teaching quality, promoting staff development, and cooperating with the school stakeholders. Based on the philosophical stand, specifically, anyone can be an instructional leader if he has a vision, basic knowledge, willingness to risk, willingness to work for a long period of time, and willingness to undertake change, maintain growth, develop changes and to empower others . The principal‟s role is indispensable in promoting staff development program to achieve the school‟s goals (Sim, 2011).
In like manner, according to Hidalgo (2012) instructional management encompasses those actions that a principal takes or delegates to others, to promote growth in student learning. It comprises the following tasks: a) defining the purpose of schooling; b) setting school-wide goals; c) providing resources

24 needed for learning to occur; d) supervising and evaluating teachers; e) coordinating staff development programs; and f) creating collegial relationships with and among teachers.
Provision in RA 9155 otherwise known as Governance of Basic
Education Act 2001 states that, “There shall be a school head for all public elementary schools or a cluster thereof. The establishment of integrated schools from existing public elementary and public high schools shall be encouraged.”
This underscored the shift in locus and focus of the management roles of principal in school improvement.
The school head, who may be assisted by an assistant school head, shall be both an instructional leader and administrative manager. The school head shall form a team with the school teachers/learning facilitators for delivery of quality educational programs, projects and services. A core of non-teaching staff shall handle the school‟s administrative, fiscal and auxiliary services.
The instructional management role of the school head as stipulated in RA
9155 are: a) setting the mission, vision, goals and objectives of the school; b) creating an environment within the school that is conducive to teaching and learning; c) implementing the school curriculum and being accountable for higher learning outcomes; d) developing the school education program and school improvement plan; e) offering educational programs, projects and services which provide equitable opportunity for all learners in the community;

25
f) introducing new innovative methods of instruction to achieve higher learning outcomes; g) administering and managing all personnel, physical and fiscal resources of the school; h) recommending the staffing complement of the school based on its needs; i) encouraging staff development; and j) establishing school and community network and encouraging the active participation of teachers organizations, non-academic personnel of public schools, and parents-teacherscommunity associations.
Related Studies
Excellent principals are sense makers of schools that help create a sustainable school climate that will enhance students‟ and teachers‟ productivity.
Hence they are not only the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) but also the instructional leaders and motivators for their teams. In exploring the management characteristics of an excellent school principal in Malaysia, findings indicated that the principal demonstrated characteristics outlined by literature and used a variety of educational strategies and situational management styles. Nevertheless some felt that the principal was too ambitious, result oriented, and had little time for teachers and students.
In the study of Osman (2013), he explored information about the skills and tasks required to support practices of instructional management. He used secondary data analysis to inform readers of the Kenyan context of instructional management and recommend ways of improving instructional management

26 skills, tasks and knowledge base. He asserted that the principal's instructional management behavior should have much more immediate influence on the internal structure of the school than the external. The school's internal structures include its instructional practices, organizational structure, climate, and culture.
It is through the design, development and interaction of the internal structures that the principal has maximum influence on the students' outcomes. Effective instructional management depends upon a very complex set of relationships between principals and their beliefs and the surrounding environment of the school. The principal's values and previous experiences, as well as the expectations of the community must be taken into account in management and decision making. He concluded that transformational management is the best practice for principals as they carry out instructional management role.
Based on the study of Mielcarek (2003), the accountability and standards movements in education had intensified pressure on school administrators to raise the achievement levels of their students. The purpose of his inquiry was to develop a path model to explain the connections among key organizational variables and student achievement. Also, he found out that one of the difficulties in predicting student achievement is that the socioeconomic status generally overwhelms all other organizational variables in explaining the variance.
The findings provided substantial support for the model. Although the instructional management of the principal was not directly related to student

27 achievement, it did have an indirect positive effect on achievement through the academic press of the school, which had a direct effect on student achievement in both mathematics and reading, controlling for socio-economic status. Socioeconomic status had both a direct effect and indirect effect, through academic press, on student achievement. In sum, this study adds to the understanding of the social dynamics within the school that influence student achievement.
Principals can affect the student achievement of their students indirectly using their management to develop an organizational climate in which academic and intellectual pursuits are central to the school.
In the study, its primary aim was to develop a path model to explain the connections among key organizational variables and students‟ achievement. He found out that one of the strong predictors of students‟ achievement is the school heads‟ instructional management. He also found out that the instructional management practice of the school principal did not have direct effect on students‟ achievement and this is what the present study aimed to validate.
Another difference in the study is in terms of respondents, the present study focused on secondary schools while Mielcarek‟s study focused on elementary school heads.
Sim‟s (2011), research entitled “Instructional Management among
Principals of Secondary Schools in Malaysia.” The purpose of his study was to examine the instructional management role and the preference domain practised

28 by Malaysian principals. He also examined the concordance between the level of instructional management and the level of students‟ academic achievement.
PIMRS questionnaire designed by Hallinger was adapted and employed.
Findings revealed that Malaysian principals had successfully implemented the seven dimensions of instructional management role. Findings showed the existence of concordance between the level of instructional management and the level of students‟ academic achievement. Hence, it implies instructional management role is vital in producing better academic achievement in schools.
In the study of Shaharbi (2010), where he explored the behaviors and practices of a head teacher in an excellent school, he intended to find out the management behaviours and practices of the head teacher that contribute towards the excellent academic and co-curricular achievements and how the excellent results are consistently maintained year after year. Just like in the present study, the researchers aimed to determine the existing relationship between school heads‟ instructional management practices and school academic performance. Additionally, Shaharbi‟s study hoped to explore the head teacher‟s administrative style in the school.
Lyons (2009), cited by Hallinger on the other hand conducted a study entitled Principal Instructional Management Behavior as Perceived by Teachers and Principals at New York State Recognized and Non-Recognized Middle
Schools. The purpose of his study was to determine which of the ten

29 management functions contained in the Principal Instructional Management
Rating Scale (PIMRS) as identified by Hallinger are demonstrated by principals at New York State Department of Education recognized gap closing and high achieving middle schools, as compared to principals at non-recognized schools.
The ten management functions are sub-groups which are a consolidation of 50 distinct behaviors. The survey was administered to teachers and principals at demographically similar New York State middle schools. 15 principals and 174 teachers participated in the study, which took place in the fall of 2009. As a subsidiary question, the study also sought to determine if there would be a significant difference in principal and teacher perceptions of the principals' instructional management behavior.
The study of Lyons (2010), aimed to determine which among the ten management functions contained in PIMRS are demonstrated by the principals at New York State Department of Education.
Gamage et al.(2009), in their study entitled “How Does a School
Leaders‟ Role Influence Student Achievements: A Review of Research Findings and Best Practices” they found out that currently, school systems around the globe are focusing on student achievements empowering school leaders along with curriculum and accountability frameworks. This paper focused on a comprehensive review of literature on the role of school management towards improving student achievements based on research findings and best practices. It

30 refers to numerous research projects conducted in many different school systems based on quantitative, qualitative and mixed method approaches comprising small scale medium size and mega research projects for the benefits of all types of school stakeholders on how a leader can do his or her best to improve student achievements. In the research conducted by Dhlamini (2008), he investigated the instructional management role of the school principal in the improvement of the quality of education. A qualitative method using case study was employed. A literature study was conducted to explore the nature and scope of instructional management and quality. A purposefully selected sample from five secondary schools in the Potchefstroom area in the North West Province was used to collect data. The method entailed observation, interviews and document analysis. The principals and educators were asked to fill in biographical questionnaires. Findings indicated that principals could improve the quality of teaching and learning through their instructional activities. These included, amongst others, formulating a clear vision; participatory decision making; resource provision; good time management and educators‟ development programmes. In-service training was recommended to help the principals and educators with the new curriculum; the funding model; IQMS and discipline.
Newly appointed principals also needed to be adequately inducted.

31
In the study conducted by Miller (2006), while research in Western societies has found that principal management is usually a necessary condition for school improvement,

there

remains

a

dearth

of research on

how principals provide instructional management in developing countries. This study sought to address this need by adapting the PIMRS by Hallinger, an instrument designed to assess principal instructional management. The PIMRS was translated and administered to 10 secondary school principals in northern
Thailand. Findings from this initial study indicated that the PIMRS‐Thai Form appears to

provide

data

on

the instructional management of

secondary school principals that meet or exceed common research standards of reliability and

validity. Researchers and

practitioners

interested

in

assessing principal instructional management in Thai schools can proceed to use the PIMRS‐Thai Form with a reasonable degree of confidence that it will yield accurate information on job performance in this domain.
Bruce (2009), conducted a research entitled “A Study of the Relationship among Instructional Management Behaviors of the School Principal and
Selected School-Level Characteristics”. This study examined the relationship among instructional management behaviors of the school principal and selected school-level characteristics. Instructional management was considered from a
"broad" perspective to include behaviors that have been identified through research primarily based on a goal attainment model of effectiveness. In such a

32 model school effectiveness is measured by student achievement on standardized tests. The selected school-level characteristics were Teacher Commitment,
Professional Involvement, and Innovativeness. These have been identified as characteristics of an effective school by those adhering to a systems resource perspective. The relationship among instructional management behaviors of principals and the school-level characteristics of innovativeness and professional involvement were found to be statistically different for each school type. The results of this study reinforce the validity of the "broad" conceptualization of instructional management in the development of effective schools. It suggests that such a conceptualization is compatible with both the goal attainment and systems resource perspectives of organizational effectiveness. The findings bring into question arguments that instructional management is negatively related to Teacher Commitment, Professional Involvement, and Innovativeness.
Finally, the developed models should be of value to practitioners and researchers as they attempt to determine management practices that will lead to new levels of school effectiveness.
According to Baliton (2012), principals who are comfortable with providing instructional support to teachers are likely to have been good teachers themselves (Glanz, 2006). This descriptive method of research assessed the roles of Southeast Asian school managers as instructional leaders in the four domains

33 of teaching responsibilities and explored relationships among the variables of the study namely: planning and preparation, the classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities. This research concluded that the
SEA school managers are very comfortable with their level in working with teachers on content and pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of students and resources, ability to select instructional goals, and the degree to which they help teachers assess learning as well as the degree to which they encourage and create an environment of respect and caring and establish a culture for learning related to many aspects of classroom environment.
As stressed by De Guzman (2007), meaning-making is vital in the realm of principalship. It serves as the fulcrum of one‟s practice which eventually leads to seeing the light and appreciating the serendipity of principalship. While explicit knowledge abounds in the literature and is communicated in professional development programs, the role of the principals‟ tacit knowledge derived from their experiences, day-to-day dealings with the school‟s stakeholders, observations, insights, and reflections are vital inputs in understanding the dynamics of school principalship.
In a study of Tiongson (2000), identified the role perceptions and role performance of 150 female public secondary school principals and head teachers in the Division of Quezon City and Manila. The study revealed that principals perceived their role as administrative manager or school manager more than as

34 an instructional leader. They perceived that providing management in formulating school policies, programs, and projects, as well as taking lead in implementing the same, was ideal to their position as general manager. The principals also perceived that providing adequate curriculum materials and providing opportunities for professional growth of teachers and personnel was ideal to their position as an instructional leader. Furthermore, the study revealed that perceptions of their roles and role performance were not congruent with those 45 roles expected and prescribed by the Department of Education.
Dahili (2001), conducted a study that identified and compared the perception of secondary school teachers on the instructional management behaviour of the principals of three selected OP-Siena school in Luzon using the
Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) that was originally developed by Hallinger (2004).
The findings depicted that there is significant difference between the perceptions of the Middle Level Administrators and Teachers. It is further concluded based on the responses in PIMRS that reward scheme for teachers, principals‟ visibility and principals‟ performance in managing curriculum and instruction are contributory factors to the said difference in perceptions.
On the other hand, Salonga (2004), recommended that in order to prevent role conflict, principals should focus on the area where there was a big discrepancy and direct to the teachers a general description of roles and task

35 areas that should define principals‟ responsibilities. A feedback mechanism should also be established to create familiarity on the roles that principals should accomplish and on the roles that they actually perform.
Duran (2006), her study, she included 12 principals and 172 teachers as respondents in which almost half of the principals perceived themselves as acting under a 9,9 style of Team Administration compared with the perception of the teachers that the principals are having a 1,9 style of Comfortable and
Pleasant Administration. He recommended that they need to keep a balance between concern for people and concern for institutional performance and develop the ability of shifting from one orientation to another whenever needed are important aspects of a school administrator. Taking into account, this discrepancy in perceptions between the teachers and the administrators‟ themselves is important in the development of management training program for administrators. In the study of Rivera (2012), he examined the actual management roles practiced by public high school administrators in view of the management roles proposed by Sergiovanni and as stipulated by Section 7 of RA 9155 otherwise known as Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001. Further, the effect of the performance of the administrators on and strengths and weaknesses in the practice of the management roles were used in developing a management improvement program. Administrators viewed themselves to perform more

36 technical and symbolic management roles while teachers viewed their administrators to be more inclined in technical and human management.
Educational and cultural management roles were found to be the weak points of the administrators. And lastly, significant difference between the practice of technical and symbolic management roles when principals were grouped according to performance resulted from the Mann-Whitney U test. In light of the results of the study, a management improvement program that is aimed to buttress cultural and educational management of principals was developed and recommended for implementation.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
The theoretical framework of this study was based on the seven domains of instructional management adopted from Sim (2011). The researcher assumed that these domains play significant impact on teachers‟ performance, students‟ achievement and stakeholders‟ participation in school as an academic community. The seven domains of instructional management namely: formulating and communicating the school vision, mission and goals, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising teaching and learning, monitoring students‟ progress, fostering teaching and learning climate, promoting professional development and collaborating with external parties. All the seven domains used in this theoretical framework are based on the concept of instructional

37 management from Hallinger and Murphy, Krug and Mahmood as cited by Sim
(2011).
School Heads’ Self-Assessment on their Level of Practice on the Seven Domains of
Instructional Management

Teachers’ Assessment on the
Level of Practice of the School
Heads on the Seven Domains of
Instructional Management

 The vision, mission and goals of the school;
 Managing curriculum and instruction;  Monitoring students‟ progress;  Supervising teaching and learning;  Fostering conducive learning climate;  Promoting professional development; and
 Collaborating with stakeholders  Framing and communicating the vision, mission and goals of the school;  Managing curriculum and instruction;  Monitoring students‟ progress;
 Supervising teaching and learning;  Fostering conducive learning climate;  Promoting professional development; and
 Collaborating with stakeholders

School’s Academic Performance
Based on the last three years overall average Mean Percentage Score (MPS) in the National Achievement Test (NAT)

Proposed Intervention Measures
Figure 1. Conceptual Paradigm of the Study

38
Figure 1 depicts the domains of the instructional management role of a school head as an instructional leader to achieve school‟s academic performance. It comprises the instructional management domains namely: framing and communicating the school vision, mission and goals, managing curriculum and instruction, supervise teaching and learning, monitoring students‟ progress, fostering teaching and learning climate, promoting professional development and collaborating with external parties which are used by school heads to achieve students‟ academic performance. This conceptual framework shows that instructional management can affect students' academic performance by using the seven domains of instructional management.
Moreover, the study intended to explore the school heads‟ and teachers‟ perspectives pertaining to the role of school heads as instructional leaders.
Therefore, this study will review the practices among secondary school heads in developing teachers‟ quality and effective teaching. Likewise, this study will examine the existence of concordance between instructional management practices of school heads and schools‟ academic performance.

39
METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This chapter presents the research design which include the research method, respondents of the study, sampling design, the data gathering instrument, and the units of analysis that were used in this study.

Research Method
The descriptive-comparative-correlational research was utilized in this study. Calderon (2003) defined descriptive and correlational research as

follows: Descriptive research describes what is. It involves the description, recording, analyses and interpretation of the present nature, composition or processes of phenomena. It focuses on the prevailing condition, or how a person, group, or thing behaves or functions in the present. It involves some types of comparison or contrast. On the other hand, he defined correlational research as a research showing relationship, between two or more variables that is, how a variable varies with another.
It is also comparative because it compared the school heads‟ level of instructional management practices as rated by themselves and their teachers on the following domains: 1) framing and communicating the vision, mission and goals of the school; 2) managing curriculum and instruction; 3) monitoring students‟ progress; 4) supervising teaching and learning; 5) fostering conducive

39

40 learning climate; 6) promoting professional development; and 7) collaborating with stakeholders.
In addition, descriptive research was used in describing the school‟s academic performance level. It was based on the overall average Mean
Percentage Score (MPS) in the National Achievement Test (NAT) from School
Years 2009-2012. This was used as criterion measure in describing how the schools perform. It is also comparative because it determined the significant difference on the school heads‟ self-assessment of their instructional management practices to the assessment of their teachers. In like manner, it is correlational because it determined the significant relationship between the schools heads‟ level of instructional management practice and the school‟s academic performance.
Results were used as bases in the formulation of intervention measures that could help the secondary school heads in improving their level of practice along the seven domains of instructional management.

Locale of the Study
The study was conducted among the 113 public secondary schools in the
Division of Pangasinan I ( Figure 2).

41

Figure 2. Location Map of Pangasinan I Division

Figure 2. Map of Pangasinan I Division
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of the study were the 113 secondary school heads in the
Division of Pangasinan I as well as the 355 teachers who represented the 3,149 public secondary school teachers in the whole division.
Presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3 were the distribution of the schools divided in three congressional districts and teacher-respondents who acted as respondents in the study.
Sampling Procedure
Slovin‟s formula was used in determining the sample size of teacherrespondents. Proportionate random sampling was also used in determining the

42 sample size of teacher-respondents per school.

Slovin‟s formula is shown

below: where: n = sample size
N = total population
1 = constant e = .05 (margin of error)
Table 1. Distribution of the Schools and Teacher Respondents per School in the Congressional District I
NO. SCHOOL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

Agno NHS
Anda NHS
Arnedo NHS
Balingasay NHS
Bangan-Oda NHS
Bani NHS
Banog Sur NHS
Bayambang NHS (Inf)
Binabalian NHS
Bolinao IS
Bolinao SOF
Burgos NHS
Cabanaetan NHS
Cabungan NHS
Carot NHS
Cato NHS
Dacap Norte NHS
Dewey NHS
Eguia NHS
Garrita NHS
Ilog Malino NHS
Luciente II NHS
Luna NHS
Macaleeng NHS
Magalong NHS
Malimpin NHS
Pilar NHS
Pogoruac NHS
Pangascasan IS
Quinaoayanan NHS
Ranao NHS
Ranom Iloco NHS
Sampaloc NHS
San Jose NHS
San Miguel NHS, Bani
Sual NHS
Tagudin NHS
Tambobong NHS
Tondol NHS
Zaragosa NHS
Catubig IS
Total

MUNICIPALITY
Agno
Anda
Bolinao
Bolinao
Agno
Bani
Bani
Infanta
Bolinao
Bolinao
Bolinao
Burgos
Mabini
Anda
Anda
Infanta
Bani
Bolinao
Dasol
Bani
Bolinao
Bolinao
Bolinao
Anda
Mabini
Dasol
Bolinao
Burgos
Sual
Bani
Bani
Bani
Bolinao
Anda
Bani
Sual
Mabini
Dasol
Anda
Bolinao
Bolinao

NO. OF
TEACHERS
55
21
15
22
18
30
7
10
29
30
30
42
7
10
11
25
31
8
20
11
8
15
23
8
13
12
31
22
13
12
21
13
15
15
20
65
18
13
12
17
5
803

NO. OF TEACHER
RESPONDENTS
6
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
3
3
3
5
1
1
1
3
3
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
7
2
1
1
2
1

91

43
Table 2. Distribution of the Schools and Teacher Respondents per School in the Congressional District II
NO. SCHOOL
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74

Balangay NHS
Basista NHS
Bayaoas IS
Bayoyong NHS
Bocboc East NHS
Bogtong NHS
Cabayaoasan NHS
Camaley NHS
Don G. Dumlao NHS
Dulag NHS
Dumpay NHS
Enrico T. Prado NHS
Estanza NHS
Galarin NHS
Labrador NHS
Lasip NHS
Macarang NHS
Mangatarem NHS
Naguilayan NHS
Olo NHS
Binmaley SOF
Pangasinan NHS
Pangasinan SAT
Parayao NHS
Urbiztondo NHS
Polong NHS
Quetegan NHS
Real NHS
Salomague NHS
D.I.RAYOS NHS
Dalanguiring IS
Tampac IS
Urbiztondo IS
Total

MUNICIPALITY
Urbiztondo
Basista
Urbiztondo
Basista
Aguilar
Mangatarem
Mangatarem
Binmaley
Aguilar
Binmaley
Basista
Aguilar
Lingayen
Urbiztondo
Labrador
Lingayen
Mangatarem
Mangatarem
Mangatarem
Mangatarem
Binmaley
Lingayen
Lingayen
Binmaley
Urbiztondo
Bugallon
Mangatarem
Urbiztondo
Bugallon
Bugallon
Urbiztondo
Aguilar
Aguilar

NO. OF
TEACHERS
13
65
25
5
21
13
20
17
10
32
29
34
29
23
61
29
44
107
6
13
47
189
61
34
34
60
13
27
29
51
6
6
11
1164

NO. OF
TEACHER
RESPONDENTS
1
7
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
4
3
4
3
3
7
3
5
12
1
1
5
21
7
4
4
7
1
3
3
6
1
1
1
131

44
Table 3. Distribution of the Schools and Teacher Respondents per School in the Congressional District III
NO.

SCHOOL

MUNICIPALITY

75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113

Aliaga NHS
Baloling NHS
Banaoang NHS
Bayambang NHS
Beleng NHS
Botao NHS
Bued NHS
Buenlag NHS
CCNHS
Calbeg NHS
Canan NHS
Daniel Maramba NHS
DP BOQUIRIN NHS
Don Pedro NHS
Doyong-Malabago NHS
Hermosa NHS
Lareglareg NHS
Lokeb Norte NHS
Lokeb Sur NHS
Lunec NHS
Malasiqui NHS
Mapandan NHS
Matic-Matic NHS
Minien NHS
MB Rebamontan NHS
Nalsian-Tomling NHS
Nancapian NHS
Olea NHS
Palapar NHS
Payas NHS
Primicias NHS
San Julian NHS
Sanlibo NHS
Talospatang NHS
Tanolong NHS
Tobor NHS
Tococ NHS
Torres NHS
Tuliao NHS
Total
GRAND TOTAL

Malasiqui
Mapandan
Santa Barbara
Bayambang
Bayambang
Santa Barbara
Calasiao
Calasiao
Calasiao
Malasiqui
Malasiqui
Santa Barbara
Malasiqui
Malasiqui
Calasiao
Bayambang
Malasiqui
Malasiqui
Malasiqui
Malasiqui
Malasiqui
Mapandan
Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara
Bayambang
Malasiqui
Malasiqui
Malasiqui
Malasiqui
Santa Barbara
Mapandan
Malasiqui
Bayambang
Malasiqui
Bayambang
Malasiqui
Bayambang
Mapandan
Santa Barbara

NO. OF
TEACHERS

NO. OF TEACHER
RESPONDENTS

13
10
22
194
11
18
40
18
151
14
18
104
12
15
25
12
8
13
23
10
117
56
16
15
18
19
7
22
10
20
12
11
15
25
16
11
25
18
18
1182
3149

1
1
2
22
1
2
5
2
17
2
2
12
1
2
3
1
1
1
3
1
13
6
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
2
1
3
2
2
133
355

45
Data Gathering Instrument
The data gathering instrument used in this study was the “Principal‟s
Instructional Management Rating Scale” (PIMRS) adopted from Sim (2011). It was composed of seven (7) domains of instructional management roles such as:
1) framing and communicating the vision, mission and goals of the school; 2) managing curriculum and instruction; 3) monitoring students‟ progress; 4) supervising teaching and learning; 5) fostering conducive learning climate; 6) promoting professional development; and 7) collaborating with stakeholders.
Each domain has its sub-domains or indicators to answer the problems set in this study and were rated using a five point Likert Scale as to: 5 – Outstanding, 4 –
Very Satisfactory, 3 – Satisfactory, 2 – Fair, and 1 – Poor.
However, since some of the indicators in each domain are applicable in foreign context, the researcher modified the survey questionnaire based on the expected instructional management roles of school heads in Philippine setting as stipulated in RA 9155 and School-Based Management Manual.

Data Gathering Procedure
The researcher secured permission from the office of the Schools
Division Superintendent of the Division of Pangasinan I and the Education
Program Supervisor I in Research, Evaluation and Testing to gather the data needed in the study. After which, the researcher distributed the questionnaires

46 to the secondary school heads to accomplish as well as the questionnaires intended for their teachers. Accomplished questionnaires were retrieved by the researcher for consolidation, tabulation, testing, analysis, and interpretation. The data gathered was kept with utmost confidentiality by the researcher for the respondents to provide responses with the highest degree of objectivity.
Units of Analysis
The units of analysis of the study were the public secondary schools and school heads of the Division of Pangasinan I.

Data Analysis
The data gathered in the study were treated using the appropriate statistical tools to ensure the objectivity of analysis and interpretation in the next chapter. For Objective No. 1: To describe the profile of the school heads, frequency and percentages were used.
For Objective No. 2: To describe the school heads‟ level of practice in terms of the seven domains of instructional management as rated by them and by the teacher-respondents, weighted means were established and interpreted using the following ranges and their descriptive equivalents:
Ranges
4.50 – 5.00
3.50 – 4.49
2.50 – 3.49

Descriptive Equivalent
Outstanding
Very Satisfactory
Satisfactory

47
1.50 – 2.49
1.00 – 1.49

Fair
Poor

For Objective No. 3. To determine if there is a significant difference on the school heads‟ self-assessment on the level of their instructional management practices to the assessment of their teachers, the t-test was utilized. The critical or tabular t-value was established to compare with the computed t-value as basis in making decisions.
For Objective No. 4. Regarding the description of the secondary schools‟ academic achievement in the National Achievement Test for the last three years, the individual school‟s overall average Mean Percentage Scores
(MPS) were determined and described as “Above Average”, “Average”, “Below
Average” using mean and standard deviation.
For Objective No. 5. To determine the extent of relationship between the school heads level of instructional practice and school academic achievement, the Pearson Product-Moment of Correlation (Pearson r) was used.
The coefficients of correlation (r) was established and used as basis in determining the strength of relationship between the variables tested.