Chapter 4

UNIVERSITY OF CAGAYAN VALLEY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Chapter 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation
of data gathered with the use of questionnaire and the
summary of the quantitative data has been presented with the
use of tables and various statistical tools.
1. Profile of the School-Head Respondents
1.1. Age
Table 2a
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of

School Head-Respondents as to Age
Age Range Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole

F P F P F P F P
61-70 2 5.88 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 2.56
51-60 16 47.06 8 44.44 11 42.31 35 44.87
41-50 13 38.24 9 50.00 13 50.00 35 44.87
31-40 3 8.82 1 5.56 2 7.69 6 7.69
Total 34 100.00 18 100.00 26 100.00 78 100.00
Mean Age = 50.50 49.39 48.96 49.73
As reflected in the above data, school heads in
Municipality 1 with the highest number or percentage is 16
or 47.06% belong to age bracket 51-60, and the lowest is 2
or 5.88% belong to age bracket 61-70, with a total mean age
of 50.50. In municipality 2, the highest is 9 or 50.00% of
the school heads belong to age bracket 41-50, and the least
is 1 or 5.56% from age bracket 31-40, with total mean age of

98
GRADUATE SCHOOL
49.39. Moreover, in Municipality 3, the highest is 13 or
50.00% of the school heads belong to age bracket 41-50 and
51-60. The lowest is 2 or 2.56% from age bracket of 61-70,
with total mean age of 48.96.
As a whole, most of the school heads’ respondents
belong to ages 41-60. This implies that they are just in
their right age for the position; a transition period for
new adjustment to new interest, values, and pattern of
behavior; and a right age to have acquired extensive
knowledge, whether from years of experience gained, or via
study for an advanced degree.
1.2. Gender
Table 2b
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of

School Head-Respondents as to Gender
Gender Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole

F P F P F P F P
Male 5 14.71 2 11.11 16 61.54 23 29.49
Female 29 85.29 16 88.89 10 38.46 55 70.51
Total 34 100.00 18 100.00 26 100.00 78 100.00
It is manifested above, that most of the school heads
in Municipality 1 and 2 are females with 29 or 85.29% and 16
or 88.89%, respectively. While Municipality 3 has 16 or
61.54% males and 10 or 38.46% females. As a whole, there are
55 or 70.51% female school heads.

99
GRADUATE SCHOOL
This implies that as a whole, the school head position
is still a female dominated. This finding is similar with
the findings in the previous researches, similar or the same
with the present study.
1.3. Civil Status
Table 2c
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of School Head-

Respondents as to Civil Status
Civil Status Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole

F P F P F P F P
Married 30 88.24 15 83.33 24 92.31 69 88.46
Single 3 8.82 1 5.56 1 3.85 5 6.41
Widow/er 1 2.94 2 11.11 1 3.85 4 5.13
Total 34 100.00 18 100.00 26 100.00 78 100.00
As revealed in the table, 30 or 88.24% of the
respondents in Municipality 1 are married, and 1 or 2.94% is
widow. Likewise, respondents in Municipality 2 are mostly
married with 15 or 83.33%, and 1 or 5.56% is single.
Further, there are 24 or 92.31% of the respondents in
Municipality 3 are married, and 1 or 3.85% widow and single,
respectively.
As a whole, 69 or 88.46% are married, and 4 or 5.13 are
widows. The data imply, that since majority of the
respondents are married, they are expected to be good
managers with a high degree of responsibility, as marriage
is a responsibility.
100
GRADUATE SCHOOL
1.4. Highest Educational Attainment
Table 2d

Respondents as to Highest Educational Attainment
Highest Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole

Educ. Att. F P F P F P F P
Doctorate 3 8.82 2 11.11 1 3.85 6 7.69
Masteral 23 67.65 14 77.78 18 69.23 55 70.51
Bachelor 8 23.53 2 11.11 7 26.92 17 21.79
Total 34 100.00 18 100.00 26 100.00 78 100.00
As gleaned in the above data, 23 or 67.65% of the
school heads in Municipality 1 are holders of Master’s
degree, and 3 or 8.82% are doctorate degree holders. Most of
the school heads in Municipality 2 are likewise Master’s
degree graduate with 14 or 77.78%, and 2 or 11.11% are
doctorate graduate. While 18 or 69.23% of the school heads
in Municipality 3 are also Master’s degree holders, and 1 or
3.85% is a doctorate degree holder.
As a whole, 55 or 70.51% are Master’s degree holders
and 6 or 7.69 are Doctorate degree holders, which implies
that most of the respondents possess the educational
qualifications prescribed by the Department of Education for
the position they are occupying. They are likewise expected
to perform their task with excellence.

101
GRADUATE SCHOOL
1.5. Position Classification
Table 2e

Respondents as to Position Classification
Position Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole

Classification F P F P F P F P
Principal 3 1 2.94 1 5.56 1 3.85 3 3.85
Principal 2 11 32.35 9 50.00 5 19.23 25 32.05
Principal 1 9 26.47 8 44.44 2 7.69 19 24.36
HT 3 10 29.41 0 0.00 16 61.54 26 33.33
TIC/OIC 3 8.82 0 0.00 2 7.69 5 6.41
Total 34 100.00 1 5.56 26 100.00 78 100.00
As presented in the table, 11 or 32.35% of the
respondents in Municipality 1 are Principal 2 and 3 or 8.82%
are Teacher In-Charge and or Officer-In-Charge. Municipality
2 has 8 or 44.44% are Principal 2, and 1 or 5.56% is
Principal 3. While there are 16 or 61.54% Head Teacher 3,
and 1 or 3.85% is Principal 3 in Municipality 3.
As a whole, there are 26 or 33.33% Head Teacher 3 and 3
or 3.85% Principal 3. The data imply that school head
position has different classifications, but their
appointment is still based on educational qualifications,
achievements and experiences.

102
GRADUATE SCHOOL
1.6. Length of Service
Table 2f

Respondents as to Length of Service as School Head
Length of Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole

Service as F P F P F P F P
School Head
26-30 1 2.94 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.28
21-25 5 14.71 0 0.00 1 3.85 6 7.69
16-20 2 5.88 1 5.56 3 11.54 6 7.69
11-15 11 32.35 7 38.89 4 15.38 22 28.21
6-10 9 26.47 6 33.33 10 38.46 25 32.05
1-5 6 17.65 4 22.22 8 30.77 18 23.08
Total 34 100.00 18 100.00 26 100.00 78 100.00
Mean Length = 12.12 9.39 8.96 10.44
The table reflects that in Municipality 1, 11 or 32.35%
of the respondents have been school heads for 11-15 years
and 1 or 2.94% within 26-30 years, and the mean length of
service is 12.12. In Municipality 2, 7 or 38.89% are within
11-15 year in the position as school heads, 4 or 22.22% are
1-5 years, and 9.39 is the mean length of service. On the
other hand, there are 10 or 38.46% of the respondents in
Municipality 3 are school heads for 6-10 years, 1 or 3.85%
is a school head for 21-25 years, with 8.96 mean length of
service as school heads.

103
GRADUATE SCHOOL
As a whole, 25 or 32.05% of the school heads are in the
position for 6-10 years, 1 or 1.28 for 26-30 years. As a
whole, the mean length of service is 10.44 years, which
manifests that the school heads have been in their position
for quite a number of years which provided them with
adequate knowledge and experiences in managing their
respective schools.
1.7. Number of Relevant Trainings Attended
Table 2g
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of School

Head-Respondents as to Number of Relevant
Trainings Attended
No. of Relevant Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole

Trainings F P F P F P F P
16-20 23 67.65 6 33.33 23 88.46 52 66.67
11-15 9 26.47 10 55.56 3 11.54 22 28.21
6-10 2 5.88 1 5.56 0 0.00 3 3.85
1-5 0 0.00 1 5.56 0 0.00 1 1.28
Total 34 100.00 18 100.00 26 100.00 78 100.00
Mean No. = 16.09 13.83 17.42 16.01
It is presented in the table above, that 23 or 67.65%
of the respondents in Municipality 1 have attended 16-20
relevant trainings, 2 or 5.88% attended 6-10 relevant
trainings, and the mean number of relevant trainings
attended is 16.09. The respondents in Municipality 2 on the
other hand, 10 or 55.56% of them attended 11-15 relevant

104
GRADUATE SCHOOL
trainings, 1 or 5.56% attended 1-5 and 6-10 relevant
trainings respectively, and with 13.83 mean number of
relevant trainings attended. While the respondents in
Municipality 3, 23 or 88.46%of them attended 16-20 relevant
trainings, 3 or 11.53% attended 11-15 relevant trainings,
and with 17.42 mean number of relevant trainings.
As a whole, 52 or 66.67% attended 16-20 relevant
trainings, 1 or 1.28% attended 1-5 relevant trainings, with
16.01 overall mean number of relevant trainings attended.
This indicates the desires of the school heads to
continuously acquire new knowledge and to further improve
their leadership skills as they themselves are advocators of
continual improvement.
GRADUATE SCHOOL 105
2. Extent to Which the School-Head Respondents Manifest their Leadership Skills as

Assessed by Themselves and their Teachers by Municipality and as a Whole
2.1. Administrative Skills
Table 3a
Mean and Descriptive Scale Distribution on the Extent to Which the

School-Head Respondents Manifest their Leadership Skills as
Assessed by Themselves and their Teachers by Municipality
and as a Whole Relative to Administrative Skills
Items Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole Overall Mean
School Heads Teachers School Heads Teachers School Heads Teachers School Heads Teachers
M DS M DS M DS M DS M DS M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. I/He/She am/is effective with the detailed
aspects of my work 2.68 VH 2.93 VH 2.61 VH 2.66 VH 2.46 VH 2.99 VH 2.58 VH 2.86 VH 2.72 VH
2. Filling out forms and working in details comes
easily to me/him/her. 2.71 VH 2.92 VH 2.56 VH 2.63 VH 2.46 VH 2.96 VH 2.57 VH 2.83 VH 2.70 VH
3. Managing people and resources is one of
my/his/her strengths. 2.74 VH 2.90 VH 2.61 VH 2.63 VH 2.54 VH 2.95 VH 2.63 VH 2.82 VH 2.73 VH
4. In my/his/her work, I/He/She enjoy/s
responding to people’s requests and concerns. 2.76 VH 2.87 VH 2.61 VH 2.66 VH 2.62 VH 2.86 VH 2.66 VH 2.79 VH 2.73 VH
5. Obtaining and allocating resources is a
challenging aspect of my/his/her job. 2.76 VH 2.79 VH 2.72 VH 2.66 VH 2.50 VH 2.83 VH 2.66 VH 2.76 VH 2.71 VH
6. I/He/She am/is effective at obtaining
resources to support our programs. 2.71 VH 2.93 VH 2.56 VH 2.70 VH 2.42 VH 2.86 VH 2.56 VH 2.83 VH 2.69 VH
7. I/He/She encourage/s initiative, involvement,
and innovation from my/his/her co-workers. 2.68 VH 2.89 VH 2.72 VH 2.69 VH 2.58 VH 2.83 VH 2.66 VH 2.80 VH 2.73 VH
8. I/He/She systematically evaluate the
performance of my people. 2.71 VH 2.92 VH 2.61 VH 2.73 VH 2.46 VH 2.84 VH 2.59 VH 2.83 VH 2.71 VH
9. Communicates high expectations of people,
trusts capable people to do their work, celebrate
team achievement. 2.74 VH 2.90 VH 2.67 VH 2.67 VH 2.54 VH 2.84 VH 2.65 VH 2.81 VH 2.73 VH
10. When assigning tasks, I/He/She consider/s
people skills and interests. 2.82 VH 2.94 VH 2.72 VH 2.70 VH 2.58 VH 2.88 VH 2.71 VH 2.84 VH 2.77 VH
Category Mean 2.73 VH 2.90 VH 2.64 VH 2.67 VH 2.52 VH 2.88 VH 2.63 VH 2.82 VH 2.72 VH
GRADUATE SCHOOL 106
It is reflected in the table above that the school
heads of municipality 1, 2 and 3 obtained a category mean of
2.73, 2.64 and 2.52, respectively, with a total category
mean of 2.63, all of which are “very high”. In like manner,
the teacher-respondents of municipality 1, 2 and 3 assessed
their school heads and obtained a category mean of 2.90,
2.67 and 2,88, respectively, with a total mean of 2.82,
also, as “very high”. This implies that the school heads are
skillful in the management of people and resources. To them
obtaining and allocating resources to finance programs and
projects of the school is challenging, although they are
able to handle this efficiently. It also implies that as
assessed by their teachers, their school heads communicate
with high expectations of people, trust capable people of
doing their work and financial managers who can obtain and
allocate funds for their schools.
In the data, as a whole, the school heads obtained
highest in item numbers 4,5 and 7, with a mean 2.66 which is
“very high”. These are “In my/his/her work, I/He/She enjoy/s
responding to people’s requests and concerns”, “Obtaining
and allocating resources is a challenging aspect of
my/his/her job.” and “7. I/He/She encourage/s initiative,
involvement, and innovation from my/his/her co-workers.”

107
GRADUATE SCHOOL
This indicates the school heads ability to convince
people for the financial support of their school programs
and projects. Although it is a challenging task, they are
able to obtain and allocate resources for their schools.
Likewise, for the teachers’ assessment as a whole, the
highest mean obtained is 2.86 which is “very high” is on
item number 1 “I/He/She am/is effective with the detailed
aspects of my work”. This implies that with the number of
years school heads have been in office, they have mastered
the art of doing their administrative skill along paper
works and managing people.
On the other hand, rated lowest by school heads’
assessment is on item number 6 “I/He/She am/is effective at
obtaining resources to support our programs” with a mean of
2.56 equivalent to “very high”. Also, in the teacher’s
assessment, the lowest is on item number 5 “Obtaining and
allocating resources is a challenging aspect of my/his/her
job” with a mean of 2.76 or “very high”. These items though
lowest, do not imply weakness since it is still categorized
as very high.
Over-all the school heads, displayed a great deal of
their leadership skills along administrative skills. They
displayed a very high administrative capability to manage
people, resources and technical competence.

108
GRADUATE SCHOOL
The findings of this study corroborate the results of
the study of Ogundele, Sambo & Bwoi (2014) in their study
entitled “Principals’ Administrative Skills for Secondary
Schools in Plateau, Nigeria”. The study which investigated
the necessary skills needed by principals in the effective
administration of schools at secondary school level, also
showed a great deal of administrative capability to manage
their schools.
GRADUATE SCHOOL
109
2.2. Instructional Skills
Table 3b

and as a Whole Relative to Instructional Skills
1. I/He/She facilitate/s curriculum
planning, implementation, and evaluation. 2.71 VH 2.93 VH 2.67 VH 2.67 VH 2.58 VH 2.87 VH 2.65 VH 2.82 VH 2.74 VH
2. I/He/She conducts goal setting and
evaluation with teachers. 2.71 VH 2.92 VH 2.67 VH 2.66 VH 2.54 VH 2.91 VH 2.64 VH 2.83 VH 2.73 VH
3. I/He/She keep/s my/his/her staff focused
on closing the achievement gap. 2.68 VH 2.92 VH 2.56 VH 2.61 VH 2.54 VH 2.88 VH 2.59 VH 2.80 VH 2.70 VH
4. I/He/She focus/es on teaching strategies
and learning outcomes. 2.76 VH 2.93 VH 2.78 VH 2.67 VH 2.65 VH 2.84 VH 2.73 VH 2.82 VH 2.77 VH
5. I/He/She am/is concerned with the
quality of teaching that results in
improved pupil performance. 2.82 VH 2.93 VH 2.72 VH 2.72 VH 2.62 VH 2.84 VH 2.72 VH 2.83 VH 2.77 VH
6. I/He/She help/s teachers improve
instruction to enhance pupil learning. 2.76 VH 2.91 VH 2.78 VH 2.64 VH 2.58 VH 2.88 VH 2.71 VH 2.81 VH 2.76 VH
7. I/He/She assist/s and develop teachers
in the performance of their duties. 2.79 VH 2.90 VH 2.78 VH 2.67 VH 2.62 VH 2.92 VH 2.73 VH 2.83 VH 2.78 VH
8. I/He/She give/s technical assistance
primarily in improving conditions that are
concerned with learning and pupils’ growth. 2.82 VH 2.88 VH 2.78 VH 2.66 VH 2.77 VH 2.92 VH 2.79 VH 2.82 VH 2.80 VH
9. I/He/She make/s sure that the
professional development activities of
teachers are in accordance with the
teaching goals of the school. 2.79 VH 2.94 VH 2.72 VH 2.69 VH 2.65 VH 2.95 VH 2.72 VH 2.86 VH 2.79 VH
10. I/e/She observe/s instructions in
classrooms. 2.79 VH 2.93 VH 2.72 VH 2.73 VH 2.58 VH 2.89 VH 2.70 VH 2.85 VH 2.77 VH
GRADUATE SCHOOL
110
It is presented in the table above that the school
heads of municipality 1,2, and 3 achieved a category mean
of 2.76,2.72 and 2.61 respectively, with a total category
mean of 2.70 which are “very high”. Likewise, the teacher –
respondents of municipality 1, 2, and 3 assessed their
school heads and got a category mean of 2.92,2.67 and 2.89
respectively, with a total category mean of 2.83 also as
“very high”. This implies that the school heads displayed
extensive and highly developed instructional skills all
geared towards the improvement of instruction in their
respective schools.
In the data, as a whole, the school heads rated
highest item number 8, with a mean of 2.79. This is
“I/he/she give/s technical assistance primarily in
improving conditions that are concerned with learning and
pupils’ growth,” This implies that school heads assist
teachers in doing their instructional tasks like lesson
planning, module-making, instructional device-making, test
construction and item analysis. This is so, since
instructional supervision is one of the major roles of
school heads. They often do post-conferences to thresh out
the results of classroom instruction and observation.

111
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Similarly, for the teachers’ assessment as a whole,
the highest mean obtained is 2.86 which is “very high” is
on item number 9 “I/He/She make/s sure that the
professional development activities of teachers are in
accordance with the teaching goals of the school,” This
indicates that the in-service-training of teachers are
along instructional goals and objectives of the school.
Seminars, trainings and workshops of teachers are based on
NCBTS- Teachers’ Strengths and Training Needs Assessment
(TSNA). They are also based not only on the needs of
teachers but also on pupils’ needs and other stakeholders.
On the other hand, rated lowest by the school heads’
and teachers’ assessment is on item number 3 “I/He/She
keep/s my/his/her staff focused on closing the achievement
gap”. Although the item is rated lowest by the school heads
and teacher-respondents, the descriptive rating is still
very high. This suggests that school heads are closely
monitoring the academic achievements of learners and see to
it that achievements improved every year. They require
teachers to do a comparative analysis of their learners’
academic achievements and ensure that there’s an
improvement in their performance. This is in line with the
saying that “The school is known by the quality of the

112
GRADUATE SCHOOL
learners it produces,” hence school heads are on their toes
to see to it that quality learners are produced as shown in
examinations and other academic achievements.
The findings of this study support the findings of
Sabado (2014), in her study “The Influence of Leadership
Behavior of School Heads to the Performance of Public and
Private High School Teachers in Kidapawan City Division”,
University of Southern Mindanao. Results of the study
revealed that the school heads’ leadership behavior
practices were rated strongly agree in terms of human
relation, agree in terms of instructional leadership,
moderately agree in conflict, and disagree in terms of
decision making and control domain. Majority of the high
school teachers were found to have very satisfactory
performance.
GRADUATE SCHOOL
113
2.3. Interpersonal Skills
Table 3c

and as a Whole Relative to Interpersonal Skills
1. I/He/She usually know/s ahead of time
how people will respond to a new idea or
proposal. 2.74 VH 2.72 VH 2.50 VH 2.47 VH 2.65 VH 2.84 VH 2.63 VH 2.68 VH 2.65 VH
2. IHe/She am/is able to sense the
emotional undercurrent in my/his/her group. 2.76 VH 2.67 VH 2.44 VH 2.47 VH 2.62 VH 2.86 VH 2.61 VH 2.67 VH 2.64 VH
3. IHe/She use/s my emotional energy to
motivate others. 2.74 VH 2.79 VH 2.67 VH 2.58 VH 2.69 VH 2.86 VH 2.70 VH 2.74 VH 2.72 VH
4. The key to successful conflict
resolution is respecting my/his/her
opponent. 2.71 VH 2.79 VH 2.56 VH 2.55 VH 2.50 VH 2.80 VH 2.59 VH 2.71 VH 2.65 VH
5. I/He/She work/s hard to find consensus
in conflict resolution. 2.71 VH 2.80 VH 2.78 VH 2.53 VH 2.62 VH 2.88 VH 2.70 VH 2.74 VH 2.72 VH
6. I/He/She listen/s carefully to my people
and encourage them to express their
opinions. 2.82 VH 2.73 VH 2.83 VH 2.55 VH 2.62 VH 2.87 VH 2.76 VH 2.72 VH 2.74 VH
7. I/He/She/ listens carefully to others
views and open to feedback. 2.88 2.81 2.83 2.56 2.73 2.88 2.82 2.75 2.78 VH
8. Works effectively with other people,
builds rapport and keep others in the loop,
uses networks to get things done. 2.76 VH 2.90 VH 2.67 VH 2.56 VH 2.65 VH 2.88 VH 2.70 VH 2.78 VH 2.74 VH
9. Understanding the social fabric of the
organization is important to me/him/her. 2.74 VH 2.85 VH 2.61 VH 2.59 VH 2.69 VH 2.88 VH 2.68 VH 2.78 VH 2.73 VH
10. Knows which emotions they are feeling
and why, handles other peoples’ feelings
and emotions sensitively. 2.82 VH 2.74 VH 2.56 VH 2.52 VH 2.65 VH 2.84 VH 2.68 VH 2.70 VH 2.69 VH
GRADUATE SCHOOL 114
It is presented that the school heads of municipality
1, 2, and 3 got a category mean of 2.77, 2.64 and 2.64
respectively with a total category mean of 2.68 all are
“very high”. Similarly, the teacher-respondents of
municipality 1, 2 and 3 assessed their school heads and got
a category mean of 2.78, 2.54 and 2.86 respectively with a
total category mean of 2.73, also as “very high. This
manifests that school heads and teacher-respondents
assessed the school heads favorably in their ability to
utilize emotional energy to motivate people, resolve
conflict by admonishing that respect-be-gets-respect,
ability to listen and encourage subordinates to express
their opinions and in anticipating people’s reactions to
newer ideas and technologies. The over-all mean of 2.71,
implies that the school heads displayed a great extent of
interpersonal skills needed to administer, manage and lead
a school.
In the data, as a whole the school heads rated highest
item number 7 “I/He/She listen/s carefully to others’ views
and open to feedback,” with a total mean of 2.82 or “very
high”. This implies that school heads listen to teachers’
views and open to feedback and encourage them to express

115
GRADUATE SCHOOL
their opinions. The school heads serve as a someone to lean
on.
In like manner, for the teachers’ assessment as a
whole, they rated highest items number 8 and 9 with a mean
of 2.78 which is “very high.” These are “Works effectively
with other people, builds rapport and keep others in the
loop, uses networks to get things done”, “Understanding the
social fabric of the organization is important to me/
him/her.” This manifests the ability of the school heads to
understand and handle other people’s feelings and emotions.
It means that they are able to develop smooth-interpersonal
relationship with the stakeholders and can relate well with
other people. Knowing the characteristics of people in an
organization, their strengths, needs and interests is vital
in the effective management of schools. This enables the
school heads to know whom to delegate school activities,
what to assign to them and when to send them to seminars
and workshops. Knowing and understanding the social fabric
of the organization will aid the school head to handle
people’s feelings and emotions.
On the other hand, rated lowest by the school heads as
a whole is item number 4, “The key to successful conflict
resolution is respecting one’s opponent” with a total mean

116
GRADUATE SCHOOL
of 2.59 or “very high”. Likewise, in the teachers’
assessment, the lowest is on item number 2, “I/He/She am/is
able to sense the emotional undercurrent in my/his/her
group. This implies that school heads have the ability to
resolve conflicts by adhering to the principles that
“respect begets respect.” The school heads are also trouble
shooters, as they always find solutions to solve conflicts
and misunderstandings among teachers and other
stakeholders. They always want a happy and conducive
working environment where everyone is safe and happy.
The findings of this study support the findings of

Gemora (2014), on his study,” Influence of Interpersonal
Relationship on the Administrative and Teaching Performance
among Faculty Administrators”. The study which aimed to
determine the interpersonal skills and administrative
influence of school administrators of West Visayas State
University – Janiuay Campus (WVSU – JC) and to determine
the extent of teaching performance among college faculty,
revealed that the Interpersonal Skills of School
Administrators of WVSU-JC are very clearly evident in their
support to the faculty. The school administrator’s ability
to allow teachers high degree of initiative and creativity
in their work make them to be more dedicated is very
clearly evident in their influence.
GRADUATE SCHOOL 117
2.4. Intrapersonal Skills
Table 3d

and as a Whole Relative to Intrapersonal Skills
1. I/He/She am/is willing to cope with
uncertain view and rapidly changing
condition of my/his/her job as a school
head. 2.68 VH 2.78 VH 2.67 VH 2.61 VH 2.54 VH 2.96 VH 2.63 VH 2.78 VH 2.71 VH
2. I/He/She can handle work stress,
adapting to different personalities,
communication styles and cultures. 2.71 VH 2.75 VH 2.61 VH 2.56 VH 2.50 VH 2.92 VH 2.61 VH 2.75 VH 2.68 VH
3. I/He/She can be self- motivating and
self- monitoring. 2.71 VH 2.87 VH 2.67 VH 2.66 VH 2.50 VH 2.91 VH 2.62 VH 2.81 VH 2.72 VH
4. I/He/She amlis willing to acquire new
information and skills related to work. 2.71 VH 2.87 VH 2.78 VH 2.67 VH 2.62 VH 2.84 VH 2.70 VH 2.79 VH 2.75 VH
5. I/He/She have/has high standards for
myself and for those whom I/he/she lead/s. 2.62 VH 2.78 VH 2.56 VH 2.53 VH 2.50 VH 2.84 VH 2.56 VH 2.72 VH 2.64 VH
6. I/He/She can adapt to new challenges,
adjust to change and modify my thinking
when faced with new challenges and
realities. 2.71 VH 2.81 VH 2.56 VH 2.63 VH 2.58 VH 2.84 VH 2.61 VH 2.76 VH 2.69 VH
7. I/He/She stay/s calm under high stress
and during a crisis. 2.71 VH 2.77 VH 2.50 VH 2.58 VH 2.58 VH 2.91 VH 2.59 VH 2.75 VH 2.67 VH
8. I/He/She am/is willing to consider other
ways of doing things for the improvement of
my staff, pupils and the whole school. 2.76 VH 2.84 VH 2.72 VH 2.58 VH 2.62 VH 2.83 VH 2.70 VH 2.75 VH 2.72 VH
9. I/He/She usually learn/s from my/his/her
mistakes. 2.82 VH 2.84 VH 2.67 VH 2.58 VH 2.69 VH 2.91 VH 2.73 VH 2.77 VH 2.75 VH
10. Once I/he/she have/has a goal, I/he/she
can usually plan how to do it. 2.74 VH 2.90 VH 2.61 VH 2.59 VH 2.50 VH 2.92 VH 2.62 VH 2.80 VH 2.71 VH
118
GRADUATE SCHOOL
GRADUATE SCHOOL
118
As indicated in the data above that the school heads
of municipality 1, 2 and 3 attained a category mean of
2.71, 2.63 and 2.56, respectively, with a total category
mean of 2.64, all of which are “very high”. Likewise, the
teacher- respondents of municipality 1, 2 and 3 assessed
their school heads and attained a category mean of 2.82,
2.60 and 2.89 with a total of 2.77, also, as “very high”.
This means that the school heads displayed various
intrapersonal skills necessary for the productive
management of their respective schools.
In the data as a whole, the school heads attained
highest in item number 9 with a mean of 2.73 which is “very
high”. This is “I/He/She usually learn/s from my/his/her
mistakes. This implies that school heads gracefully admit
their mistakes and learn from them. They also believe that
unpleasant experiences make them better school
administrators and adhered that this intrapersonal skill is
one way of developing a wholesome personality.
highest mean attained is 2.81 which is “very high” is on
item number 3 “I/He/She can be self- motivating and self-
monitoring”. This means that the school heads have a very
strong personality since their physical presence alone can

119
GRADUATE SCHOOL
motivate the teachers to do their best, not because of fear
but because of respect and self-discipline. It also means
the awareness of the teachers on the impact of the school
heads in the performance of their instructional functions.
They consider their school heads as their inspirations in
the performance of their jobs.
On the other hand, rated lowest by the school heads’
and teachers’ assessment is on item 5 “I/He/She have/has
high standards for myself and for those whom I/he/she
lead/s” with a mean of 2.56 and 2.72 respectively, with an
overall mean of 2.64 or “very high”. This means that as
professionals and leaders in their respective schools, they
are expected to display favorable behaviors and act as
models to their teachers and other stakeholders. They
believe that to be a good leader, one should also be a good
follower. They also expect their teachers to be good models
to their learners especially children are good imitators.
This finding affirms the study of Caroline Elaine

Gadson (2018) which entitled “Perceptions on Principal
Leadership on Teacher Morale. It investigated how high
school teachers in the University of South Carolina
perceived leadership behaviors as having an impact to
teacher morale. Results of the study showed that high
teacher morale is attributed to the intrapersonal skills of
the school leader
GRADUATE SCHOOL 120
2.5. Conceptual Skills
Table 3e

and as a Whole Relative to Conceptual Skills
1. I/He/She am/is effective at problem
solving. 2.62 VH 2.81 VH 2.67 VH 2.58 VH 2.58 VH 2.93 VH 2.62 VH 2.78 VH 2.70 VH
2. When problems arise, I/He/She
immediately address them. 2.68 VH 2.85 VH 2.67 VH 2.59 VH 2.54 VH 2.91 VH 2.63 VH 2.78 VH 2.71 VH
3. Seeing the big picture comes easily to
me/him/her. 2.65 VH 2.87 VH 2.44 ``VH 2.53 VH 2.58 VH 2.84 VH 2.56 VH 2.75 VH 2.65 VH
4. Making strategic plans for my/his/her
company appeals to me/him/her. 2.65 VH 2.81 VH 2.50 VH 2.55 VH 2.50 VH 2.76 VH 2.55 VH 2.71 VH 2.63 VH
5. I/He/She enjoy/s discussing
organizational values and philosophy. 2.71 VH 2.76 VH 2.61 VH 2.56 VH 2.50 VH 2.78 VH 2.61 VH 2.70 VH 2.65 VH
6. I/He/She am/is flexible about making
changes in our organizations. 2.68 VH 2.78 VH 2.61 VH 2.58 VH 2.58 VH 2.82 VH 2.62 VH 2.73 VH 2.67 VH
7. Does what is right despite personal
risks, says ‘no’ when necessary, has the
courage to take tough decisions. 2.65 VH 2.81 VH 2.78 VH 2.64 VH 2.54 VH 2.83 VH 2.65 VH 2.76 VH 2.71 VH
8. Adapts quickly to new situations,
handles stress successfully, keeps
composure in difficult circumstances. 2.71 VH 2.78 VH 2.67 VH 2.59 VH 2.50 VH 2.89 VH 2.62 VH 2.76 VH 2.69 VH
9. Gathers information from a wide variety
of sources, approaches problems from
different angles, brainstorms possible
solutions with others. 2.71 VH 2.82 VH 2.72 VH 2.53 VH 2.58 VH 2.88 VH 2.67 VH 2.74 VH 2.71 VH
10. I/He/She take/s calculated risks, and
develop contingency plans for major
decisions. 2.62 VH 2.84 VH 2.72 VH 2.53 VH 2.50 VH 2.87 VH 2.61 VH 2.75 VH 2.68 VH
UNIVERSITY OF CAGAYAN VALLEY 121
GRADUATE SCHOOL
120
It is shown in the data that the school heads of
municipality 1, 2 and 3 assessed themselves and got a
category mean of 2.66, 2.64 and 2.54, respectively, with a
total category mean of 2.61 all of which are “very high”.
Similarly, the teacher-respondents of municipality 1, 2 and
3 assessed their school heads and got a category mean of
2.81, 2.57 and 2.85, respectively with a total category
mean of 2.74, also, as “very high”. This implies that the
school heads as assessed by themselves and as assessed by
their teachers demonstrated very high conceptual skills
which are necessary for the effective and efficient
management of their schools.
In the data as a whole, the school heads obtained
highest in item number 9 with a total mean of 2.67 which is
“very high”. This is “Gathers information from a wide
variety of sources, approaches problems from different
angles, brainstorms possible solutions with others”.
This implies the resourcefulness of school heads in
data gathering to update themselves educationally and
professionally. They are also broad minded in the sense
that they do not only rely on their judgements but also
consider the opinion of others in solving a problem.

122
GRADUATE SCHOOL
highest mean obtained is 2.78 which is also “very high”.
These are item numbers 1 and 2, “I/He/She am/is effective
at problem solving” and “When problems arise, I/He/She
immediately address them”. This implies that school heads
face problems as they come and immediately address them.
Thus, the teacher-respondents believe that their school
heads’ most evident conceptual skill is their ability to
solve problems.
On the contrary, rated lowest by school heads’
assessment is on item number 4 “Making strategic plans for
my/his/her company appeals to me/him/her” with a total mean
of 2.55 which is still “very high”. This suggests that
school heads are not skillful in strategic planning, and
that planning which is considered the heart of any
organization is not fully participated, discussed and
agreed upon. Also, in the teachers’ assessment, the lowest
is on item number 5 “I/He/She enjoy/s discussing
organizational values and philosophy” with a total mean of
2.70 or “very high”. This means that although school heads
involve teachers in their planning sessions, their
participation is not maximized. These items though rated
lowest by the school head and teacher respondents do not

123
GRADUATE SCHOOL
imply weakness on the part of the school heads since the
items are still categorized as “very high”.
This finding is corroborated in the study of Bolanle’s
(2013) entitled “Principals’ Leadership Skills and School
Effectiveness: The Case of South Western Nigeria”. The
study sought to find out the leadership skills possessed by
Principals of public secondary schools in South Western
Nigeria and the relationship between these leadership
skills and school effectiveness in terms of student
academic achievement. Findings in the study revealed that
secondary school principals in South Western Nigeria
possessed technical, interpersonal, conceptual and
administrative skills. A significant relationship was found
between principals’ leadership skills and school
effectiveness. It was found out that more than half of the
principals also had the conceptual skill.

GRADUATE SCHOOL 124
2.6. Collaborative Skills
Table 3f

and as a Whole Relative to Collaborative Skills
1. I/He/She can tap the expertise of others and
utilize them in effective and appropriate ways. 2.76 VH 2.91 VH 2.72 VH 2.70 VH 2.65 VH 2.89 VH 2.71 VH 2.84 VH 2.77 VH
2. I/He/She am/is creative and able to see things
in fresh, new ways (think outside the box). 2.76 VH 2.90 VH 2.56 VH 2.61 VH 2.62 VH 2.89 VH 2.65 VH 2.80 VH 2.72 VH
3. I/He/She can make concessions in my viewpoints
to achieve results for the greater whole or
cause. 2.71 VH 2.86 VH 2.61 VH 2.55 VH 2.62 VH 2.84 VH 2.64 VH 2.75 VH 2.70 VH
4. I/He/She value differences of opinions and
perspectives. 2.74 VH 2.85 VH 2.67 VH 2.56 VH 2.62 VH 2.84 VH 2.67 VH 2.75 VH 2.71 VH
5. I/He/She can maintain my focus and others on
the mission and vision in the face of conflict or
outside pressures. 2.68 VH 2.84 VH 2.61 VH 2.58 VH 2.50 VH 2.84 VH 2.60 VH 2.75 VH 2.68 VH
6. I/He/She can successfully facilitate a group
without my/his/her own issues and agenda’s
getting in the way. 2.68 VH 2.83 VH 2.61 VH 2.56 VH 2.50 VH 2.84 VH 2.60 VH 2.74 VH 2.67 VH
7. I/He/She have/has a good sense of my/his/her
personal strengths and weaknesses. 2.76 VH 2.88 VH 2.50 VH 2.59 VH 2.58 VH 2.80 VH 2.61 VH 2.76 VH 2.69 VH
8. I/He/She am/is comfortable and successful in
working across differences in race, ethnicity,
gender, culture, and age. 2.71 VH 2.87 VH 2.67 VH 2.69 VH 2.65 VH 2.82 VH 2.68 VH 2.79 VH 2.73 VH
9. Sets the teams’ direction and priorities,
reviews the teams’ successes and failures, helps
team members work well together. 2.68 VH 2.89 VH 2.61 VH 2.50 VH 2.54 VH 2.88 VH 2.61 VH 2.76 VH 2.68 VH
10. I/He/She can turn or help others turn
concerns into positive actions that connect to
the larger goals. 2.68 VH 2.91 VH 2.72 VH 2.56 VH 2.65 VH 2.88 VH 2.68 VH 2.78 VH 2.73 VH
GRADUATE SCHOOL
As presented in the table that school heads of
municipality 1, 2 and 3 attained a category mean of 2.71,
2.63 and 2.59, respectively, with a total category mean of
2.64, all are “very high”. Likewise, the teacher-
respondents of municipality 1, 2 and 3 assessed their
school heads and attained a category mean of 2.87, 2.59 and
2.85, respectively, with a total category mean of 2.77,
also as “very high”. This implies that school heads
displayed a great deal of collaborative skills such as
tapping the expertise of teachers and others, comfortable
with people of various types, respectful of the opinion of
others, optimistic, respect individual differences and
display favorable disposition in life.
In the data as a whole, the school heads and the
teacher-respondents rated highest item number 1 which is,
“I/He/She can tap the expertise of others and utilize them
in effective and appropriate ways” with a mean of 2.71
which is “very high”. This implies that school heads are
very good in delegating school activities, assignments and
other tasks to qualified teachers and personnel in their
schools. They know very well their people so they know whom
to delegate school assignments. They know the talents,

126
GRADUATE SCHOOL
abilities and interests of their teachers hence, utilize
them to the fullest without sacrificing quality teaching-
learning.
On the other hand, items number 5 and 6 were rated
lowest by the school heads with a mean of 2.60, still “very
high”. These are “I/He/She can maintain my focus and others
on the mission and vision in the face of conflict or
outside pressures” and “I/He/She can successfully
facilitate a group without my/his/her own issues and
agenda’s getting in the way”. This reflects that school
heads have the ability in addressing challenges of cultural
diversity and can help others in transforming conflicts
into positive actions that connect them to the larger
society. In the teachers’ assessment, item number 6 was
also rated lowest with a mean of 2.74 or “very high” This
reveals that the school heads manifest a very strong
personality since they can organize a group meeting weather
pre-scheduled or not. They can command discipline and self-
respect. They are being looked-up by their subordinates
since school heads are also respectful to others.
Over-all, the school heads acknowledge their personal
strengths and weaknesses and are able to transform these
into positive actions. They know themselves very well, and

127
GRADUATE SCHOOL
believe that they do not have the monopoly of everything
hence, collaborative with others.
2.7. Summary on the Extent to Which the School Heads

Manifest their Leadership Skills as Assessed by
Themselves and their Teachers
Table 3g
Summary Table on the Extent to Which the School Heads

Manifest their Leadership Skills as Assessed by
Themselves and their Teachers
Dimension Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole Overall

SH T SH T SH T SH T CM
CM DS CM DS CM DS CM DS CM DS CM DS CM DS CM DS CM DS
1.Administrative
Skills 2.73 VH 2.90 VH 2.64 VH 2.67 VH 2.52 VH 2.88 VH 2.63 VH 2.82 VH 2.72 VH
2. Instructional
3. Interpersonal
4. Intrapersonal
5. Conceptual
6. Collaborative
Overall Mean
2.72 VH 2.85 VH 2.65 VH 2.61 VH 2.58 VH 2.87 VH 2.65 VH 2.78 VH 2.71 VH
It is shown in the table that school heads of
municipality 1, 2 and 3 got a total category mean of 2.65
which is equivalent to “very high”. In like manner, the
teacher-respondents of municipality 1, 2 and 3 assessed
their school heads and got a total category mean of 2.78 or
“very high”. This manifests the school heads ability to
manage people and resources. They possess very high

128
GRADUATE SCHOOL
leadership skills which is necessary in order to have very
good working relationship with the people in the
organization.
In the data as a whole, the school heads and the
teacher- respondents rated highest Instructional Skills
with a category mean of 2.70 and 2.83 respectively, which
is “very high”. This means that the school heads excel
along instructional skills which is their primary function
as school leaders.
On the other hand, rated lowest by the school heads is
on conceptual skills with a category mean of 2.61 which is
still “very high”. This implies that school heads are
effective trouble shooters or problem solvers. When
problems arise, school heads are quick to resolve them.
Also, in the teachers’ assessment, the lowest is on
interpersonal skills with a category mean of 2.73 which is
also “very high”. This means that school heads can easily
empathize with others and have the internal abilities and
behaviors that help them manage emotions, cope with
challenges and learn new information.

129
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Over-all, the school heads displayed remarkable
leadership skills, which make them effective and efficient
school leaders.
The result of this study supports the findings of
Tuliao (2013) in the study entitled “Leadership Behavior of
School Principals and Teaching Performance of Teachers of
the division of Tuguegarao City”, where the study found out
that the leadership behavior of the school principals in
the division of Tuguegarao City as assessed by both the
teachers and school principals is very competent with a
grand mean of 3.69.

130
GRADUATE SCHOOL
3. Comparison Between the Assessment of the Two Groups of

Respondents on the Leadership Skills Manifested by the
School Heads by municipality and as a whole
3.1 Municipality 1
Table 4.a
Test of Difference Between the Assessment of the Two

Groups of Respondents on the Leadership Skills
Manifested by the School Heads
Municipality 1
Dimension Respondents N Mean T df Sig. (2-tailed) Decision
Administrativ School Heads 34 2.7294
-3.365 166 .001 Reject Ho
e Skills Teachers 134 2.8985
Instructional School Heads 34 2.7647 Reject Ho
-3.212 166 .002
Skills Teachers 134 2.9187
Interpersonal School Heads 34 2.7676 Accept Ho
-.201 166 .841
Intrapersonal School Heads 34 2.7147 Accept Ho
-1.699 166 .091
Conceptual School Heads 34 2.6647 Reject Ho
-2.434 166 .016
Collaborative School Heads 34 2.7147 Reject Ho
-2.683 166 .008
skills Teachers 134 2.8739
As reflected above, there is a significant difference
between the assessments of the two groups of respondents on
the leadership skills manifests by the school heads along:
administrative skills, instructional skills, conceptual
skills and collaborative skills, hence the rejection of the
null hypothesis at .05 level of significance. This means
that the two groups of respondents assessed the school
heads differently. It further means that while the school

131
GRADUATE SCHOOL
heads assessed themselves high on some skills, the teacher
respondents assessed them low or vice versa.
On the other hand, there is no significant difference
between the assessment of the two groups of respondents on
the leadership skills manifested by the school heads along
interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, hence the
acceptance of the null hypothesis at .05 level of
significance. This means that the assessment of the two
groups of respondents did not vary.
3.2 Municipality 2
Table 4.b
Test of difference between the assessment of the two groups

of respondents on the leadership skills manifested by the
school heads in municipality 2
Municipality 2
Administrativ School Heads 18 2.6389 Accept Ho
-.314 80 .754
Instructional School Heads 18 2.7167 Accept Ho
.388 80 .699
Interpersonal School Heads 18 2.6444 Accept Ho
.857 80 .394
Intrapersonal School Heads 18 2.6333 Accept Ho
.291 80 .772
Conceptual School Heads 18 2.6389 Accept Ho
.573 80 .568
Collaborative School Heads 18 2.6278 Accept Ho
skills .310 80 .758
Teachers 64 2.5906
As seen above, there is no significant difference
between the assessment of the two groups of respondents or

132
GRADUATE SCHOOL
administrative skills, instructional skills, interpersonal
and intrapersonal skills, conceptual and collaborative
skills, hence the acceptance of the null hypothesis at .05
level of significance. This implies that the assessment of
the school heads and teacher-respondents or the leadership
skills of school heads is the same.
3.3 Municipality 3
Table 4c

school heads in Municipality 3
Municipality 3
Dimension Respondents N Mean t df Sig. (2-tailed) Decision
e Skills -5.554 100 .000 Reject Ho
Teachers 76 2.8829
Instructional School Heads 26 2.6115
-4.703 100 .000 Reject Ho
Interpersonal School Heads 26 2.6423
-3.448 100 .001 Reject Ho
Intrapersonal School Heads 26 2.5615
-5.656 100 .000 Reject Ho
Conceptual School Heads 26 2.5385
-4.639 100 .000 Reject Ho
Collaborative School Heads 26 2.5923
-3.921 100 .000 Reject Ho
As disclosed above, there is a significant difference
administrative skills, instructional skills, interpersonal
and intrapersonal skills, conceptual and collaborative

133
GRADUATE SCHOOL
skills, hence the rejection of the null hypothesis at .05
level of significance. This means that while the school
heads rated themselves very high, there are items or
dimensions where the teacher-respondents rated them lower
numerically, although still very high in terms of
descriptive scale, or vice versa, since there are also
items where school heads rated themselves low, but rated
high by teacher-respondents.
3.4 As a Whole
Table 4d

school heads as a whole
As A Whole
-5.006 350 .000 Reject Ho
Instructional School Heads 78 2.7026
-3.697 350 .000 Reject Ho
Interpersonal School Heads 78 2.6974
-1.028 350 .305 Accept Ho
Intrapersonal School Heads 78 2.6449
-3.146 350 .002 Reject Ho
Conceptual School Heads 78 2.6167
-3.226 350 .001 Reject Ho
Collaborative School Heads 78 2.6538
-3.237 350 .001 Reject Ho
α = 0.05
As presented above, there is a significant difference
the leadership skills manifested by the school heads along:
administrative skills, instructional skills, intrapersonal

134
GRADUATE SCHOOL
skills, conceptual and collaborative skills, hence the
rejection of the null hypothesis at .05 level significance.
This means that the two groups of respondents assessed the
school heads differently. While the teacher-respondents
evidently observed the leadership skills of school heads,
there are small details that they failed to see.
However, there is no significant difference between
the assessment of the two groups of respondents on the
leadership skills manifested by the school heads along
interpersonal skills, hence the acceptance of the null
hypothesis at .05 level of significance. This means that
they confirm each other’s assessment.

GRADUATE SCHOOL
4. Extent to Which the School-Head Respondents Manifest their School-Based Management

Level of Practice as Assessed by Themselves and their Teachers by Municipality and
as a Whole
4.1. Leadership and Governance
Table 5a
Mean and Descriptive Scale Distribution on the Extent to Which the School-Head Respondents
Manifest their School-Based Management Level of Practice as
Assessed by Themselves and their Teachers Relative
to Leadership and Governance
1. In place is a Development Plan (e.g. SIP)
developed collaboratively by the stakeholders of D
the school and community. 1.47 D 1.73 M 1.61 D 2.00 M 1.46 D 1.04 D 1.51 D 1.59 D 1.55
2. A network of leadership and governance guides
the education system to achieve its shared
vision, mission and goals making them responsive D
and relevant to the context of diverse
environments. 1.44 D 1.74 M 1.61 D 2.02 M 1.46 D 1.07 D 1.50 D 1.61 D 1.56
3. The school is organized by a clear structure
and work arrangements that promote shared
leadership and governance and define the roles D
and responsibilities of the stakeholders. 1.41 D 1.77 M 1.72 M 2.08 M 1.54 D 1.12 D 1.56 D 1.66 D 1.61
4. A leadership network facilitates communication
between and among school and community leaders
for informed decision- making and solving of D
school community wide- learning problems. 1.41 D 1.78 M 1.72 M 2.02 M 1.50 D 1.16 D 1.54 D 1.65 D 1.60
5. A long term program is in operation that
addresses the training and development needs of D
school and community leaders. 1.41 D 1.81 M 1.72 M 2.05 M 1.58 D 1.14 D 1.57 D 1.67 M 1.62
6. 2.07 M 1.77 M 2.15 M 2.03 M 1.51 D 1.11 D 1.91 M 1.63 D 1.77
Category Mean 1.54 D 1.77 M 1.76 M 2.03 M 1.51 D 1.11 D 1.60 D 1.63 D 1.62 D
GRADUATE SCHOOL
It is indicated in the data that the school heads of
municipality 1, rated highest item number 1, which states
that “In place is a development plan (e.g SIP) developed
collaboratively by the stakeholders of the school and
community” with a mean of 1.47 or “Developing”. This
implies the presence of a development plan particularly a
School Improvement Plan (SIP) while the school heads,
together with their teachers and other stakeholders do or
develop during the school year. Planning and crafting of
this School Improvement Plan (SIP) is spearheaded by the
school heads, as every school should have this kind of
plan. However, this item was rated lowest by the school
heads of municipality 2, and municipality 3 and by the
teacher-respondents of municipality 1, municipality 2, and
3, as a whole and over-all with a mean of 1.61, 1.46, 1.73,
2.00, 1.04, 1.59 and 1.55 or “developing” respectively.
This means that the making of development plan especially
SIP, have not sinked yet among the respondents hence this
low rating. Participation of teachers and other
stakeholders in the development plan is not maximized.
While there are stakeholders who are actively involved
others are not. It further means that the involvement of

137
GRADUATE SCHOOL
stakeholders in the making of the School Improvement Plan
is still on-going process, that needs to be mastered.
Rated lowest by the school heads of municipality 1 is
item number 3, which reveals that “The school is organized
by a clear structure and work arrangements that promote
shared leadership and governance and define the roles and
responsibilities of the stakeholders,” with a mean of 1.41
or “developing.” This means that the school heads are still
in a dilemma as to the work assignment of their staff,
considering that many of them are new in their school
assignment. They are not yet familiar with teachers in
their school, hence cannot utilize their expertise, thereby
not being able to share leadership with them. However, this
item was rated highest by the school heads and teacher-
respondents of municipality 2, with a mean of 1.72 and 2.08
or “maturing”. This indicates that school heads have been
delegating school activities to qualified teachers as their
way of sharing leadership with them. School heads utilize
the expertise of teachers by assigning them school
activities and programs within their interest. Teachers,
too, are aware of the shared leadership by their school
heads, when they are assigned or delegate as officer of the
day.
138
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Also rated lowest by the school heads of municipality
1, is item number 4 which states that “A leadership network
facilities communication between and among school and
community leaders for informed decision-making and solving
of school community wide-learning problems” with a mean of
1.41 or “developing.” This means that a leadership
communication network, has not been developed yet. They are
still in the process of forming a network which is
necessary for information dissemination. However, the
school heads of municipality 2 rated this item highest with
a mean of 1.72 or “maturing” while teacher-respondents of
municipality 3 also rated it highest with a mean of 1.16 or
“developing.” Although highest, it was rated very low,
considering the numerical value. This means that a
leadership communication network has yet to be fully
developed. However, the school heads of municipality 2,
believe that they are already benefiting from the network
established in their school. Through the leadership
communication network, they are updated and informed of
important matters regarding them and the school.
The school heads further rated lowest item number 5 “A
long term program is in operation that addresses the
training and development needs of school and community”

139
GRADUATE SCHOOL
with a mean of 1.41 or “developing.” This means that
although a plan is in place for the training needs of
teachers and other stakeholders, it is not maximized due to
the lack of funds. However, this item was rated highest by
the teacher-respondents of municipality 1, school heads of
municipality 2, 3, and by the teacher-respondents as a
whole and over-all with a mean of 1.81, 1.72, 1.58, 1.57,
1.67 and 1.62 or “maturing” and “developing,” respectively.
This means that for some schools, a long-term program for
training and development needs of the school and community
leaders are in operation. These trainings upgraded the
professional and personal development of teachers making
them more competent in their jobs.
Rated lowest by the school heads of municipality 2, 3
and as a whole is item number 2 which states that “A
network of leadership and governance guides the education
system to achieve its shared vision, mission and goals
making them responsive and relevant to the content of
diverse environments” with a mean of 1.61, 1.46 and 1.50 or
“developing.” This implies that a network of leadership is
yet to be developed among the school heads in the
respondent schools.
140
GRADUATE SCHOOL
The category mean of the school head - respondents and
teacher-respondents ranges from 1.11 to 2.03 or from
” developing” to “maturing.” This implies that the school-
based management level of practice among school heads is
yet to be developed. The practice is still on its infantile
stage.
GRADUATE SCHOOL
4.2. Curriculum and Learning
Table 5b
to Curriculum and Learning
1. The curriculum provides for the needs of all types of
learners in the school community.
1.35 D 1.83 M 1.50 D 1.97 M 1.65 D 1.17 D 1.50 D 1.66 D 1.58 D
2. The implemented curriculum is localized to make it more
meaningful to the learners and applicable to life in the
community. 1.44 D 1.80 M 1.61 D 1.98 M 1.65 D 1.11 D 1.57 D 1.63 D 1.60 D
3. A representative group of school and community
stakeholders develop the methods and materials for
developing Creative thinking and problem solving. 1.32 D 1.77 M 1.50 D 1.95 M 1.65 D 1.12 D 1.49 D 1.61 D 1.55 D
4. The learning systems are regularly and collaboratively
monitored by the community using appropriate tools to
ensure the holistic growth and development of the learners
and the community. 1.32 D 1.78 M 1.56 D 2.00 M 1.65 D 1.14 D 1.51 D 1.64 D 1.58 D
5. Appropriate assessment tools for teaching and learning
are continuously reviewed and improved, and assessment
results are contextualized to the learner and local
situation and the attainment of relevant life skills.
1.41 D 1.78 M 1.72 M 2.05 M 1.69 M 1.21 D 1.61 D 1.68 M 1.64 D
6. Learning managers and facilitators (teachers,
administrators and community members) nurture values and
environments that are protective of all children and
demonstrate behaviors consistent to the organization’s
vision, mission and goals. 1.41 D 1.81 M 1.56 D 2.08 M 1.69 M 1.18 D 1.55 D 1.69 M 1.62 D
7. Methods and resources are learner and community-
friendly, enjoyable, safe, inclusive, accessible and aimed
at developing self- directed learners. Learners are
equipped with essential knowledge, skills, and values to
assume responsibility and accountability for their own
learning.
1.44 D 1.83 M 1.61 2.06 M 1.69 M 1.20 D 1.58 D 1.70 M 1.64 D
8. 1.46 D 1.80 M 1.67 M 2.01 M 1.67 M 1.16 D 1.60 D 1.66 M 1.63 D
Category Mean 1.40 D 1.80 M 1.59 D 2.01 M 1.67 M 1.16 D 1.55 D 1.66 M 1.61 D
GRADUATE SCHOOL 142
As seen on the data presented, the school heads of
municipality 1 rated highest item number 2, which states
that “The implemented curriculum is localized to make it
more meaningful to the learners and applicable to life in
the community” with a mean of 1.44 or “developing.” This is
a standard operation procedure where the curriculum is
based on the needs and interest of the learners it serves.
It is also based upon the resources available in the
community and the expertise of the teacher. It is
lamentable that this item although highest was rated very
low. This item was rated lowest by the school heads and the
teacher-respondents of municipality 3 with a mean of 1.65
and 1.11 or “developing” respectively. This means although
the curriculum is localized, there are teachers who do not
follow, since many of them just download their teaching
activities which at times are not suitable to the target
learners. School heads should therefore do a regular
monitoring of classroom activities.
Also rated highest by the school heads and teacher-
respondents of municipality 1, school heads of municipality
3, and teacher-respondents as a whole and over-all is item
number 7 which describes that “Methods and resources are
learner and community-friendly, enjoyable, safe, inclusive,

143
GRADUATE SCHOOL
accessible, and aimed at developing self-directed learners.
Learners are equipped with essential knowledge, skills, and
values to assume responsibility and accountability for
their own learning,” with a mean of 1.44, 1.83, 1.69, 1.70
and 1.64 or “developing”, “maturing” and “developing”
respectively. This implies that curriculum and learning
which include the methods/techniques, and audio-visual
materials, should be suited to the nature, needs and
interest of learners, to make learning easier and enjoyable
for children. Although these are practiced by teachers in
their classes, rating this item low is a point to ponder
upon.
Rated lowest by the school heads and teacher-
respondents of municipality 1, and 2, and school heads of
municipality 3,as a whole and over-all is item number 3
which shows that “A representative group of school and
community stakeholders develop the methods and materials
for developing creative thinking and problem solving” with
a mean of 1.32, 1.77, 1.50, 1.95, 1.65, 1.49, 1.61 and 1.55
or “developing”, “maturing”, “developing”, “maturing” and
“developing,” respectively. This means that there are
school heads, teachers and other stakeholders, who are
assigned to craft the curriculum, including the development

144
GRADUATE SCHOOL
of methods and materials needed to develop the creative
thinking and problem-solving ability of learners. These are
often done during the in-house or in-service training of
teachers. However, not all schools are represented in this
activity, hence the low rating.
Also rated lowest by the school heads of municipality
1 and 3 is item number 4 “The learning systems are
regularly and collaboratively monitored by the community
using appropriate tools to ensure the holistic growth and
development of the learners and the community,” with a mean
of 1.32 and 1.65 or “developing” respectively. This
activity is rarely done due to the lack of duly trained
people from the community who will regularly and
collaboratively monitor the learners in particular and the
school in general. However, a school visit or evaluation is
done to monitor and evaluate schools.
Rated highest by the school heads of municipality 2,
school heads and teacher-respondents of municipality 3, and
school heads as a whole and over-all is item number 5,
which states that “Appropriate assessment tools for
teaching and learning are continuously reviewed and
improved, and assessment results are contextualized to the

145
GRADUATE SCHOOL
learner and local situations and the attainment of relevant
life skills” with a mean of 1.72, 1.69, 1.21, 1.61 and 1.64
or “maturing” and “developing” respectively. This implies
that various assessment tools are utilized to evaluate the
teaching-learning process. These tools include performance
based-assessment and paper-pencil tests. Test-item analysis
is conducted to find out which are mastered, least-mastered
and not mastered skills. These are regularly done for
monitoring and improvement. Least-mastered skills are
reviewed and intervention activities are done for mastery.
Also rated highest by the teacher-respondents of
municipality 2 and school heads of municipality 3 is item
number 6 “Learning managers and facilitators nurture values
and environment that are protective of all children and
demonstrate behaviors consistent to the organization’s
vision, mission and goals,” with a mean of 2.08 and 1.69 or
“maturing” respectively. This means that schools are child-
friendly, conducive for learning and a place where school
officials, teachers and learners are safe. The Child-
Protection- Policy law is also enforced in the schools.
The category mean of 1.40, 1.59, 1.67 and 1.55 by the
school heads, in the three municipalities and as a whole

146
GRADUATE SCHOOL
suggest that the school-based management level of practice
of the school heads along curriculum and learning is only
to a developing level. This sentiment is shared by the
teacher-respondents of municipality 3 and as a whole when
they assessed the school heads with a category mean of 1.16
and 1.66 or “developing” respectively. However, the
teacher-respondents of municipality 1 and 2 rated them with
1.80 and 2.01 or “maturing” respectively.
The overall category mean of 1.61 indicates that
curriculum and learning is wanting.
The findings of this study corroborate the results of
the study of conducted by Tabaldo (2018) entitled “School-
Based Management Practices of School Heads: Its Relation to
Teachers’ Work Performance”. The study showed that the
teachers work performance does not depend directly on the
school-based management practice of the school heads. It
may affect to some extent but there are other factors
affecting the work performance of teachers.

GRADUATE SCHOOL
4.3. Accountability and Continuous Improvement
Table 5c
Items Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole Overall
Mean
1. Roles and responsibilities of
accountable person/s and collective
body/ies are clearly defined and agreed
upon by community stakeholders. 1.41 D 1.87 M 1.67 M 2.03 M 1.73 M 1.18 D 1.60 D 1.70 M 1.65 D
2. Achievement of goals is recognized based
on a collaboratively developed performance
accountability system; gaps are addressed
through appropriate action. 1.41 D 1.87 M 1.61 D 2.08 M 1.69 M 1.12 D 1.57 D 1.69 M 1.63 D
3. The accountability system is owned by
the community and is continuously enhanced
to ensure that management structures and
mechanisms are responsive to the emerging
learning needs and demands of the
community. 1.32 D 1.84 M 1.67 M 2.08 M 1.65 D 1.22 D 1.55 D 1.72 M 1.63 D
4. Accountability assessment criteria and
tools, feedback mechanisms, and information
collection and validation techniques and
processes are inclusive and collaboratively
developed and agreed upon. 1.35 D 1.84 M 1.72 MM 2.08 M 1.62 D 1.20 D 1.56 D 1.71 M 1.63 D
5. Participatory assessment of performance
is done regularly with the community.
Assessment results and lessons learned
serve as basis for feedback, technical
assistance, recognition and plan D
adjustment. 1.44 D 1.85 M 1.72 M 2.03 M 1.58 D 1.26 D 1.58 D 1.72 M 1.65
6. 1.40 D 1.86 M 1.65 D 2.06 M 1.65 D 1.20 D 1.57 D 1.70 M 1.64 D
Category Mean 1.39 D 1.86 M 1.67 M 2.06 M 1.65 D 1.20 D 1.57 D 1.70 M 1.64 D
Assessed by Themselves and their Teachers Relative to
Accountability and Continuous Improvement
GRADUATE SCHOOL 148
It is gleaned above that the school heads of
municipality 1, municipality 2, teacher-respondents of
municipality 3, teacher-respondents as a whole and over-all
rated highest item number 5, which states that
“Participatory assessment of performance is done regularly
with the community. Assessment results and lessons learned
serve as basis for feedback, technical assistance,
recognition and plan adjustment” with a mean of 1.44, 1.72,
1.26, 1.72 and 1.65 or “developing”, “maturing”,
“developing”, “maturing” and “developing” respectively.
This means that assessment of the school is jointly
participated by stakeholders in both the school and the
community for a valid and more objective evaluation of
results. These are cooperatively undertaken by other school
heads and other school officials for the continuous
improvement of the school. Results of the evaluation serve
as a basis for feedback, technical assistance and for
recognition or the whichever purpose it may serve. However,
the teacher-respondents of municipality 2 and school heads
of municipality 3, rated this item lowest with a mean of
2.03 and 1.58 or “maturing” and “developing” respectively.
This manifests among teacher-respondents the presence of a

149
GRADUATE SCHOOL
team who undertake assessment of the performance of the
school, which serve as a basis for feedback, technical
assistance, recognition and plan revision if necessary. The
school heads believe that this activity is not fully
implemented hence, the low rating.
The school heads and teacher-respondents of
municipality 1, and school heads as a whole and aver-all,
rated lowest item number 3 which describes that “The
accountability system is owned by the community and is
continuously enhanced to ensure that management structures
and mechanisms are responsive to the emerging learning
needs and demands of the community,” with a mean of 1.32,
1.84, 1.55, and 1.63 or “developing,” “maturing” and
“developing,” respectively. This indicates that
accountability is not only owned by the community, but a
shared responsibility between and among the stakeholders.
On the other hand, this item was rated highest by the
teacher-respondents of municipality 2, and teacher
respondents as a whole, with a mean of 2.08 and 1.72 or
“maturing,” respectively. This means that accountability
and continuous improvement is a joint responsibility of
stakeholders which school heads and teachers should uphold.

150
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Rated highest by the teacher-respondents of
municipality 1 and school heads of municipality 3, as a
whole and over-all is item number 1, which reveals that
“Roles and responsibilities of accountable persons and
collective bodies are clearly defined and agreed upon by
community stakeholders,” with a mean of 1.87, 1.73, 1.60
and 1.65 or “maturing” and “developing” respectively. This
means the awareness of concerned school officials of their
roles and responsibilities, since these are clearly defined
and agreed upon by them. These accountable officers and
collective bodies clearly understand and perform their
functions, because they are aware of their “command
responsibility”.
Moreover, the teacher-respondents of municipality 1
and 2, rated highest item number 2, which is “Achievement
of goals is recognized based on a collaboratively developed
performance accountability system, gaps are addressed
through appropriate action” with a mean of 1.87 and 2.08 or
“maturing,” respectively. This implies that an evaluation
tool to assess achievement was jointly prepared by experts,
and this is used to assess deserving teachers and other
stakeholders who qualify for awards and recognition.
Internal audit are undertaken to thresh out strengths and

151
GRADUATE SCHOOL
weaknesses. After weaknesses are properly addressed, the
school is submitted for external audit. However, this was
rated lowest by school heads of municipality 2 and teacher-
respondents of municipality 3, as a whole and over-all with
a mean of 1.61, 1.12, 1.69 and 1.63 or “developing,”
“maturing” and “developing” respectively. Also rated lowest
by the teacher-respondents of municipality 1 and over-all
and highest by the school heads and teacher-respondents of
municipality 2 is item number 4, which states that
“Accountability assessment criteria and tools, feedback
mechanisms, and information collection and validation
techniques and processes are inclusive and collaboratively
developed and agreed upon” with a mean of 1.84 and 1.63, or
“maturing” and “developing”, respectively and 1.72 and 2.08
or “maturing” respectively. This implies that school heads
and teacher-respondents are aware of the evaluation tools
and mechanism feedback developed and implemented by a team
of evaluators. These are downloaded to them and discussed
during school meetings and general assembly meetings.
The category mean of the school head - respondents all
point out towards developing level of school based-
management level of practices. While the teacher-
respondents of municipality 1 and 2 and as a whole show a

152
GRADUATE SCHOOL
maturing level of school-based management level of
practices of school heads, over-all the school-based-
management level of practice by school heads as assessed by
themselves and their teachers is still on the developing
level, or first stage of implementation along
accountability and continuous improvement.

GRADUATE SCHOOL
4.4. Management of Resources
Table 5d
to Management of Resources
Items Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole Overall

Mean
1. Regularly resource inventory is
collaboratively undertaken by learning
managers. learning facilitators, and
community stakeholders as basis for
resource allocation and mobilization. 1.38 D 1.79 M 1.72 M 2.05 M 1.65 D 1.18 D 1.59 D 1.67 M 1.63 D
2. A regular dialogue for planning and
resource programming, that is accessible
and inclusive, continuously engage
stakeholders and support implementation of
community education plans. 1.44 D 1.84 M 1.72 M 2.03 M 1.69 M 1.16 D 1.62 D 1.68 M 1.65 D
3. Resources are collectively and
judiciously mobilized and managed with
transparency, effectiveness, and
efficiency. 1.44 D 1.80 M 1.83 M 2.03 M 1.65 D 1.16 D 1.64 D 1.66 D 1.65 D
4. Regular monitoring, evaluation, and
reporting processes of resource management
are collaboratively developed and
implemented by the learning managers,
facilitators, and community stakeholders. 1.41 D 1.78 M 1.67 M 2.13 M 1.69 M 1.13 D 1.59 D 1.68 M 1.63 D
5. There is a system that manages the
network and linkages which strengthen and
sustain partnerships for improving resource
management. 1.38 D 1.78 M 1.83 M 2.09 M 1.69 M 1.12 D 1.64 D 1.66 D 1.65 D
6. 1.40 D 1.80 M 1.71 M 2.07 M 1.68 M 1.15 D 1.60 D 1.67 M 1.63 D
Category Mean 1.41 D 1.80 M 1.75 M 2.07 M 1.68 M 1.15 D 1.61 D 1.67 M 1.64 D
154
GRADUATE SCHOOL
As reflected above along management of resources, rated
highest by the school heads and teacher-respondents of
municipality 1, school heads of municipality 3, teacher-
respondents as a whole and over-all, is item number 2,which
states that “A regular dialogue for planning and resource
programming that is accessible and inclusive, continuously
engage stakeholders and support implementation of community
education plans,” with a mean of 1.44, 1.84, 1.69, 1.68 and
1.65 or “developing”, “maturing’, and “developing”
respectively. This means that although a regular meeting for
resource management programming is held, its implementation
is wanting. Besides not all stakeholders actively
participate in its planning and implementation. This school-
based management level of practice is still not felt by
everyone in the school and community. This item was also
rated lowest by the teacher-respondents of municipality 2
with a mean of 2.03.
Also rated highest by the school heads of municipality
1, school heads of municipality 2, as a whole and over-all
is item number 3, which describes that “Resources are
collectively and judiciously mobilized and managed with
transparency, effectiveness and efficiency” with a mean of
1.44, 1.83, 1.64, and 1.65 or “developing”, “maturing” and
“developing” respectively. This implies, that although

155
GRADUATE SCHOOL
resources are available, school head themselves are not
aware of its effective and efficient mobilization. They
alleged that this school-based management practice is yet to
be perfected or fully developed by them. This item was also
rated lowest by the teacher-respondents of municipality 2,
and as a whole, and by the school heads of municipality 3
and as a whole with a mean of 2.03, 1.66, 1.65, and 1.66 or
“maturing’ and “developing”, respectively. This indicates
that school heads in this type of practice are poor, because
they are only starting to develop such practice.
Rated lowest by the school heads of municipality 1, 3,
as a whole and over-all is item number 1 which says that
“Regular resource inventory is collaboratively undertaken by
learning managers, learning facilitators and community
stakeholders as basis for resource allocation and
mobilization,” with a mean of 1.38, 1.65, 1.59 and 1.63 or
“developing” respectively. This means that although there is
an annual resource inventory, this is not done
collaboratively. Only those people in-charge of things
inventoried participate, hence the very low rating.
Rated lowest by the school heads and teacher-
respondents of municipality 1, teacher-respondents of
municipality 3 and as a whole is item number 5, which states

156
GRADUATE SCHOOL
that “There is a system that manages the network and
linkages which strengthen and sustain partnerships for
improving resource management” with a mean of 1.38, 1.78,
1.12 and 1.66 or “developing,” “”maturing” and “developing”,
respectively. This means that although there is an in-place
coordinator for network and linkages in the schools, their
presence in the school and community are not felt.
Partnerships for improving resource management is still
underway. This item however, was rated highest by the school
heads of municipality 2, 3, as a whole and overall with a
mean of 1.83, 1.69, 1.64, and 1.65 or “maturing” and
“developing”, respectively. This means that although there
are existing coordinators for network and linkages that are
functioning well in some schools in the municipalities, some
schools are only starting to develop one.
Also rated lowest by the teacher-respondents of
municipality 1, school heads of municipality 2, as a whole
and overall, is item number 4 which reveals that “Regular
monitoring, evaluation and reporting processes of resource
management are collaboratively developed and implemented by
the learning managers, facilitators and community
stakeholders” with a mean of 1.78, 1.67, 1.59, and 1.63 or
“maturing” and “developing”, respectively. This reflects
that although there is a regular monitoring, evaluation and

157
GRADUATE SCHOOL
reporting, these are only done by persons who are tasked to
do the job. They are not done collaboratively by school
officials and other facilitators. This practice is still to
be embraced by them. Nonetheless, this item was ranked
highest by the teacher-respondents of municipality 2, school
heads of municipality 3 and teacher-respondents as a whole
with a mean of 2.13, 1.69, and 1.68 or “maturing”,
respectively. This implies that in these municipalities, a
collaborative monitoring, evaluation and reporting is
already slowly developed, although still in its early stage.
The category mean of the respondents in the 3
municipalities ranges from 1.15 to 2.07, a manifestation
that the school-based management level of practice among the
school heads along management of resources is only from
developing to maturing.
4.5. Summary on the Extent to Which the School-Head

Respondents Manifest their School-Based Management
158
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Level of Practice as Assessed by Themselves and

their Teachers
Table 5e
Summary Table on the Extent to Which the School Heads

Manifest their School-Based Management Level of
Practice as Assessed by Themselves
and their Teachers
Dimension Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole Overall

SH T SH T SH T SH T CM
CM DS CM DS CM DS CM DS CM DS CM DS CM DS CM DS CM DS
1. Leadership &
Governance 1.54 D 1.77 M 1.76 M 2.03 M 1.51 D 1.11 D 1.60 D 1.63 D 1.62 D
2. Curriculum &
Learning 1.40 D 1.80 M 1.59 D 2.01 M 1.67 M 1.16 D 1.55 D 1.66 D 1.61 D
3. Accountability
& Continuous
Improvement 1.39 D 1.86 M 1.67 M 2.06 M 1.65 D 1.20 D 1.57 D 1.70 M 1.64 D
4. Management
of Resources 1.41 D 1.80 M 1.75 M 2.07 M 1.68 M 1.15 D 1.61 D 1.67 M 1.64 D
Overall Mean 1.44 D 1.81 M 1.69 M 2.04 M 1.63 D 1.16 D 1.58 D 1.67 M 1.63 D
As seen above the school heads of municipality 1 and 2
rated highest leadership and governance with the category
mean of 1.54 and 1.76. This means that they excelled along
this dimension, although to a very minimal degree. However,
the teacher-respondents of municipality 1, school heads and
teacher-respondents of municipality 3 and teacher-
respondents as a whole rated it lowest with a category mean
of 1.77, 1.51, 1.11 and 1.63 or maturing “developing”,
respectively. This also reveals a very minimal practice of
their leadership and governance functions.
Rated lowest by the school heads of municipality 1 is
along accountability and continuous improvement, while the

159
GRADUATE SCHOOL
teacher-respondents of municipality 1, 3 as a whole and
over-all rated it highest with a category mean of 1.86,
1.20, 1.70 and 1.64 or maturing “developing” respectively.
Meanwhile, the school heads and teacher-respondents of
municipality 2, school heads as a whole and over-all rated
lowest curriculum and learning, with a category mean of
1.59, 2.01, 1.55, and 1.61. This means that although this is
one of the major roles of school heads, they did not perform
well in it based from the above assessment.
The teacher-respondents of municipality 2, school heads
of municipality 3, school heads as a whole and overall rated
highest management of resources with a category mean of
2.07, 1.68, 1.61 and 1.64. Although highest in rating, this
practice along management of resources is not well-
demonstrated by school heads based from the assessment.
Hence, this practice needs to be enhanced.
5. Comparison Between the Assessment of the Two Groups of

Respondents on the School-Based Management level of
Practice of the School Heads
5.1 Municipality 1
160
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Table 6a
Test of Difference Between the Assessment of the Two Groups

Of Respondents on the School-Based Management
Practice Level of the School Heads
Municipality 1
Dimension Respondents N Mean T Df Sig. (2-tailed) Decision
Leadership School Heads 34 2.0685
2.559 166 .011 Reject Ho
& Governance Teachers 134 1.7657
Curriculum School Heads 34 1.4600
-2.672 166 .008 Reject Ho
& Learning Teachers 134 1.7995
Accountability & School Heads 34 1.3991
-3.445 166 .001 Reject Ho
Continuous Imp. Teachers 134 1.8567
Management of School Heads 34 1.3982
-3.126 166 .002 Reject Ho
Resources Teachers 134 1.7970
As presented above there is a significant difference
between the assessment of the two groups of respondents of
the school-based management level of practice of the school
heads along leadership and governance, curriculum and
learning, accountability and continuous Improvement and
management of resources, hence the rejection of the null
hypothesis at .05 level of significance. This means that the
assessment of the school heads and the teacher-respondents
differ. There are items in the different dimensions where
the school heads rated themselves high but low from the
teacher-respondents or high from the teacher-respondents and
low from the school heads. The school heads perceived
themselves differently from that of the teacher-respondents.
This finding supports the study of Cagurangan (2013) on
“School Based Management Level of Practice in Relation to
Key Performance Indicators”, when he revealed that there is

161
GRADUATE SCHOOL
a significant difference between the level of practice of
both group of respondents.
5.2 Municipality 2
Table 6b

of respondents on the school- based management level of
practice of the school heads
Municipality 2
.875 80 .384 Accept Ho
-2.608 80 .011 Reject Ho
-2.935 80 .004 Reject Ho
-2.719 80 .008 Reject Ho
As revealed above, there is a significant difference
between the assessment of the groups of respondents on the
school-based management level of practice of the school
heads along curriculum and learning, accountability and
continuous improvement and management of resources, hence
the rejection of the null hypothesis at .05 level of
groups of respondents did not confirm each other’s beliefs
or awareness. The school heads assessed themselves
differently from that of the teacher-respondents.

162
GRADUATE SCHOOL
However, there is no significant difference between the
assessment of the two groups of respondents on the school-
based management level of practice of the school heads along
leadership and governance, hence the acceptance of the null
assessment of the school heads and teacher-respondents along
this dimension is the same.
5.3 Municipality 3
Table 6c

of respondents on the school – based management level of
practice of the school heads
Municipality 3
4.646 100 .000 Reject Ho
5.693 100 .000 Reject Ho
4.789 100 .000 Reject Ho
5.564 100 .000 Reject Ho
As manifested above, there is a significant difference
heads along the four dimensions namely: Leadership and
governance, curriculum and learning, accountability and

163
GRADUATE SCHOOL
continuous improvement and management of resources hence the
rejection of the null hypothesis at .05 level of
groups of respondents differ. While the school heads
assessed themselves high on certain items, the teacher-
respondents assessed them low, or vice versa.
5.4 As a whole
Table 6d

of respondents on the school-based management level of
practice of school heads
As A Whole
3.173 350 .002 Reject Ho
-1.176 350 .240 Accept Ho
Accountability School Heads 78 1.5422
& Continuous Teachers -2.126 350 .034 Reject Ho
274 1.7212
Imp.
-1.414 350 .158 Accept Ho
α = 0.05
It is indicated above, that as a whole, there is a
significant difference between the assessment of the two
groups of respondents on the school-based management level
of practice of the school heads along leadership and

164
GRADUATE SCHOOL
governance, and along accountability and continuous
improvement, hence the rejection of the null hypothesis
at .05 level of significance. This means that the assessment
of the school heads from that of the teacher-respondents are
not the same. The teacher-respondents assessed the school
heads differently.
heads along curriculum and learning and management of
resources, hence the acceptance of the null hypothesis
at .05 level of significance. This means that the
assessments of both respondents along the above dimensions
are the same.
6. Correlation Between the Extent to which the School Heads

Manifest their Leadership Skills and their School-Based
Management Level of Practice
6.1. Municipality 1
Table 7a
165
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Test of Relationship Between the Extent to which the School

Heads Manifest their Leadership Skills and their
School-Based Management Level of Practice
Leadership Skills / Leader-ship & Curriculum & Accountability & Mgmt. of

School-Based Management Governance Learning Continuous Imp. Resources
Pearson Correlation .277 .010 .025 -.065
Administrative
Sig. (2-tailed) .113 .955 .890 .713
Skills
N 34 34 34 34
Pearson Correlation .426* .129 .121 .044
Instructional
Sig. (2-tailed) .012 .466 .495 .805
Skills
N 34 34 34 34
Pearson Correlation .336 .044 .062 -.019
Interpersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .052 .804 .726 .913
Skills
N 34 34 34 34
Pearson Correlation .149 -.186 -.187 -.278
Intrapersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .401 .292 .289 .111
Skills
N 34 34 34 34
Pearson Correlation .173 -.178 -.171 -.261
Conceptual
Sig. (2-tailed) .328 .315 .334 .137
Skills
N 34 34 34 34
Pearson Correlation .403* -.038 -.035 -.133
Collaborative
Sig. (2-tailed) .018 .830 .846 .453
Skills
N 34 34 34 34
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
As presented above there is a significant relationship
between the extent to which the school heads manifest their
leadership skills and their school-based management level of
practice along instructional skills and leadership and
governance, and along collaborative skills and leadership
and governance, hence the rejection of the null hypothesis
at .05 level of significance. This means that the
instructional skills and collaborative skills of the school
heads influence the leadership and governance practice of
school heads. This further means that the way school heads
facilitate curriculum planning, implementation and
evaluation of learning effect the way they convey their

166
GRADUATE SCHOOL
development plan, network of leadership and governance and
how they facilitate their communication network. The way
they address problems and make decisions is influenced by
their leadership and governance skills.
On the other hand, the other dimensions on leadership
skills like administrative skills, interpersonal and
intrapersonal and conceptual skills are not significantly
related to the school-based management practice of school
heads along leadership and governance, curriculum and
learning, accountability and continuous improvement and
management of resources, hence the acceptance of the null
hypothesis at .05 level of significance.
6.2. Municipality 2
Table 7b

167
GRADUATE SCHOOL

Pearson Correlation .849* .303 .359 .488*
Administrative
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .222 .143 .040
Skills
N 18 18 18 18
Instructional
Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .525 .476 .208
Skills
N 18 18 18 18
Pearson Correlation .589* -.109 -.076 .069
Interpersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .668 .764 .784
Skills
N 18 18 18 18
Intrapersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .006 .988 .799 .545
Skills
N 18 18 18 18
Conceptual
Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .762 .902 .704
Skills
N 18 18 18 18
Collaborative
Sig. (2-tailed) .019 .435 .553 .961
Skills
N 18 18 18 18
As revealed above there is a significant relationship
between the extent to which the school heads manifests their
practice along administrative skills and leadership and
governance, administrative skills and management of
resources, instructional skills, interpersonal skills,
intrapersonal skills, conceptual skills and collaborative
and leadership and governance, hence the rejection of the
null hypothesis at .05 level of significance. This implies
that all the dimensions of leadership skills influence the
leadership and governance practices of school heads. The
administrative skills of the school heads also affect or
influence their management of resources. It also means that
the administrative skills manifested by the school heads

168
GRADUATE SCHOOL
affect the way they allocate, mobilize and implement
resources.
On the other hand there is no significant relationship
practice along the six dimensions of leadership along
curriculum and learning, accountability and continuous
improvement, and management of resources, hence the
acceptance of the null hypotheses at .05 level of
significance. This means that regardless of the leadership
skills of the school heads their curriculum and learning,
accountability and continuous improvement and management of
resources practices are still the same.
6.3. Municipality 3
Table 7c
169
GRADUATE SCHOOL


Pearson Correlation .126 .357 .292 .418*
Administrative
Sig. (2-tailed) .541 .073 .148 .034
Skills
N 26 26 26 26
Pearson Correlation .243 .361 .333 .432*
Instructional
Sig. (2-tailed) .231 .070 .097 .028
Skills
N 26 26 26 26
Pearson Correlation .222 .409* .375 .426*
Interpersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .276 .038 .059 .030
Skills
N 26 26 26 26
Pearson Correlation .140 .298 .235 .312
Intrapersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .495 .139 .248 .120
Skills
N 26 26 26 26
Pearson Correlation -.007 .258 .190 .319
Conceptual
Sig. (2-tailed) .974 .203 .354 .113
Skills
N 26 26 26 26
Pearson Correlation .064 .199 .168 .265
Collaborative
Sig. (2-tailed) .758 .329 .411 .190
Skills
N 26 26 26 26
As disclosed above, there is a significant relationship
practice along administrative skills and management of
resources and interpersonal skills and curriculum and
learning management of resources, hence the rejection of the
that administrative skills, instructional skills and
interpersonal skills influence the school heads management
of resources, while interpersonal skills also affect the
curriculum and learning practices of school heads.

170
GRADUATE SCHOOL
However, there is no significant relationship between
the extent to which the school heads manifest their
practice along administrative skills and instructional
skills leadership and governance, curriculum and learning,
accountability and continuous improvement and along
intrapersonal, conceptual and collaborative skills
leadership and governance, curriculum and learning,
accountability and continuous improvement and management of
at .05 level of significance. This means that regardless of
the leadership skills of the school heads, their school-
based management level of practices on the stated dimensions
do not change.
6.4. As a Whole
Table 7d
171
GRADUATE SCHOOL


Administrative
Sig. (2-tailed) .006 .145 .203 .129
Skills
N 78 78 78 78
Instructional
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .095 .125 .076
Skills
N 78 78 78 78
Interpersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .299 .329 .282
Skills
N 78 78 78 78
Pearson Correlation .241* .015 -.004 -.002
Intrapersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .034 .897 .969 .986
Skills
N 78 78 78 78
Pearson Correlation .180 .002 -.020 .016
Conceptual
Sig. (2-tailed) .114 .988 .865 .887
Skills
N 78 78 78 78
Collaborative
Sig. (2-tailed) .033 .963 .923 .889
Skills
N 78 78 78 78
As noted above there is a significant relationship
practice along administrative skills, instructional skills,
interpersonal skills, and intrapersonal skills and
collaborative skills and leadership and governance, hence
significance. This means that the five dimensions of
leadership stated above influence the leadership and
governance practice of the school heads. It also implies
that whatever leadership and governance style the school

172
GRADUATE SCHOOL
heads display, is due to the leadership skills that they
manifest.
However, there is no significant relationship between
the extent to which the school heads manifest their
practice along administrative, instructional, interpersonal,
intrapersonal, conceptual and collaborative skills and
curriculum and planning, accountability to continuous
improvement and management of resources and between
conceptual skills and leadership and governance, hence the
significance. This means that regardless of the leadership
skills the school heads manifest, their school-based
management practice is still the same.
7. Level of Morale of Teachers as Assessed by Themselves by

173
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Municipality and As A Whole
7.1. Rapport with the School Heads
Table 8a
Mean and Descriptive Scale on the Level of Morale of

Teachers as Assessed by Themselves by Municipality and As
Whole Relative to Rapport with the School Heads
Items Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. My school head makes real efforts to maintain close contact with
the teachers. 2.74 H 2.56 H 2.84 H 2.71 H
2. My school head shows concern for the problems of teachers. 2.78 H 2.56 H 2.91 H 2.75 H
3. My school head makes teachers’ work easier and more pleasant. 2.81 H 2.50 H 2.83 H 2.71 H
4. My school head endeavors to promote a sense of belongingness
among the teachers. 2.82 H 2.55 H 2.86 H 2.74 H
5. My school head shows no impartiality in their relations with the
teachers in the school. 2.78 H 2.50 H 2.87 H 2.72 H
6. I am not hesitant to discuss my problems with my school head. 2.71 H 2.50 H 2.83 H 2.68 H
7. My school head makes every teacher feels welcome to her office. 2.85 H 2.61 H 2.88 H 2.78 H
8. My school head recognizes the feelings, attitudes and values of
each teacher. 2.84 H 2.61 H 2.91 H 2.78 H
9. My school head makes every teacher feel comfortable and at ease
during conferences. 2.88 H 2.61 H 2.86 H 2.78 H
Category Mean 2.80 H 2.56 H 2.86 H 2.74 H
It is indicated above that for rapport with the school
heads the teacher-respondents of Municipality 1,
Municipality 2, and as a whole, rated highest item number 9
which states that “My school head makes every teacher feel
comfortable and at ease during conferences” with a mean of
2.88, 2.61 and 2.78 or “high morale”, respectively. This
means that during meetings and conferences school heads
establish a favorable and friendly atmosphere to make
teachers feel at ease and to make them develop self-
confidence.
174
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Rated lowest by the teacher-respondents of
Municipality 1, 2, 3 and as a whole is item number 6 which
stipulates that “I am not hesitant to discuss my problems
with my school head,” with a mean of 2.71, 2.50, 2.83 and
2.68 or “high morale,” respectively. Although this is rated
lowest, it still reveals a high morale on the part of the
teachers. This item also supports the earlier statement that
teachers are at ease with their school heads, hence can
discuss their problems or concerns with their school heads.
Since a trusting relationship exist between the teacher and
school heads, teachers can vent their problems readily to
their school heads.
Municipality 2 and as a whole is item number 7 which spells
that “My school head makes every teacher feels welcome to
her office” with a mean of 2.61 and 2.78 or “high morale,”
respectively. This means that teachers are comfortable with
their school heads who are approachable and welcoming in
their office. Teachers believe that their school heads do
not discriminate and show willingness to assist everyone.
Also rated highest by the teacher-respondents of
Municipality 2, Municipality 3 and as a whole is item number
8 which stipulates that “My school head recognizes the
feelings, attitudes and values of each teacher” with a mean

175
GRADUATE SCHOOL
of 2.61, 2.91 and 2.78 or “high morale” respectively. This
means that school heads empathize or are sympathetic to the
teachers. They understand how it is to be a teacher, because
they were once a teacher. They also recognize individual
differences among teachers.
Rated lowest by the teacher-respondents of Municipality
2 and 3 is item number 3, which states that “My school head
makes teachers’ work easier and more pleasant” with a mean
of 2.50 and 2.83 or “high morale,” respectively. This
manifests that since school heads are approachable, kind and
understanding, school work and other school programs are
easier and more pleasant to accomplish. Due to a conducive
and friendly working environment, teachers and school heads
can easily get along with each other, hence, work is very
easy to manage.
Municipality 2 is item number 5 which reveals that “My
school head shows no impartiality in their relations with
the teachers in the school,” with a mean of 2.50 or “high
morale,” This means that school heads are fair and just in
their treatment of their teachers.
The category mean of 2.80, 2.56, 2.86 and over-all mean
of 2.74 imply that along rapport with school heads, teachers

176
GRADUATE SCHOOL
have a high morale, which makes teaching and learning a very
enjoyable tasks.
7.2. Rapport Among Co-Teachers
Table 8b

Teachers as Assessed by Themselves by Municipality
and As A Whole Relative to Rapport Among Co-Teachers

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. There is a great deal of arguing and taking sides among teachers. 2.68 H 2.34 H 2.88 H 2.63 H
2. Teachers do not take advantage of one another. 2.83 H 2.58 H 2.86 H 2.75 H
3. Teachers cooperate with each other to achieve common personal
and professional goals. 2.87 H 2.61 H 2.87 H 2.78 H
4. Tenured teachers accept the new teachers as colleagues. 2.90 H 2.69 H 2.87 H 2.82 H
5. Every teacher feels she/he “belongs” and accepted. 2.96 H 2.75 H 2.91 H 2.87 H
6. Teachers work well together. 2.87 H 2.67 H 2.78 H 2.77 H
7. The cooperation of teachers makes their work enjoyable. 2.86 H 2.63 H 2.83 H 2.77 H
8. Teachers have high professional ethics. 2.93 H 2.72 H 2.84 H 2.83 H
9. Teachers have some tendencies to form cliques. 2.77 H 2.48 H 2.87 H 2.71 H
It is reflected on the above table that for rapport
among co-teachers, the teacher-respondents of Municipality
1, 2, 3 and as a whole rated highest item number 5 which
states that “Every teacher feels she/he “belongs” and
accepted,” with a mean of 2.96, 2.75, 2.91 and 2.87 or “high
morale” respectively. This implies that a smooth-
interpersonal relationship exists between and among
teachers. They believe that they are a family, where love
and harmony dwell.
1, Municipality 2 and as a whole is item number 1, which

177
GRADUATE SCHOOL
shows that “There is a great deal of arguing and taking
sides among teachers” with a mean of 2.68, 2.34 or 2.63 or
“high morale,” respectively. Although there is a great deal
of educational and professional discussions in school, these
are done on a friendly manner. Arguments and discussions are
conducted in a professional level and never taken personally
by the teachers. There is no “tayo-tayo” and “kami-kami”
syndrome in the school.
3 is item number 6 which states that “Teachers work well-
together,” with a mean of 2.78 or “high morale.” This
indicates the conducive and friendly atmosphere in school,
where teachers work cooperatively with each other. Due to
the camaraderie developed by the teachers, work is easier
and faster.
The category mean of the teacher-respondents in the
three schools and as a whole are 2.85, 2.61, 2.86 and 2.77
which indicate that teachers’ enjoy each other’s company,
and that a high morale along rapport among co-teachers is
very evident.
178
GRADUATE SCHOOL
7.3. Satisfaction in Teaching
Table 8c

Teachers as Assessed by Themselves by Municipality
and As A Whole Relative to Satisfaction in Teaching

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. Teaching enables me (them) to enjoy the material and cultural
things that I (they) like. 2.85 H 2.59 H 2.89 H 2.78 H
2. Teaching affords me (them) with the opportunity to make my
(their) contribution to society. 2.80 H 2.69 H 2.86 H 2.78 H
3. Teaching gives me (them) a great deal of personal satisfaction. 2.78 H 2.63 H 2.82 H 2.74 H
4. The teaching profession gives me (them) the prestige that I (they)
desire. 2.77 H 2.62 H 2.86 H 2.75 H
5. I (they) find my (their) contacts with the students very satisfying
and rewarding. 2.79 H 2.67 H 2.83 H 2.76 H
6. Teaching assures me (them) with enough security I (they) want in
an occupation. 2.75 H 2.59 H 2.89 H 2.74 H
7. If I (they) could plan my (their) career again, I (they) will not
choose teaching. 2.45 H 2.47 H 2.79 H 2.57 H
8. I (they) love to teach 2.80 H 2.61 H 2.80 H 2.74 H
9. In teaching, I am (they are) motivated and inspired to use my (their)
maximum potentials. 2.81 H 2.61 H 2.82 H 2.75 H
As indicated above along satisfaction in teaching, the
teacher-respondents of Municipality 1, Municipality 3 and as
a whole rated highest item number 1, which declares that
“Teaching enables me to enjoy the material and cultural
things that I like,” with a mean of 2.85, 2.89, and 2.78 or
“high morale,” respectively. This means that with teaching
as their job, teachers are able to provide their basic needs
and other personal needs. Teachers also declared that they
are able to eat in restaurants, watch movies and travel
locally, with their income.

179
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Rated lowest by teacher-respondents of Municipality 1,
2, 3 and as a whole is item number 7, which states that “If
I could plan my career again, I will not choose teaching,”
with a mean of 2.45, 2.47, 2.79 and 2.57 or “high morale,”
respectively. This implies that if teachers are to choose
again what profession to take, still they will choose
teaching. They affirmed that once’s a teacher, always a
teacher.
The teacher-respondents of Municipality 2 and as a
whole rated highest item number 2, which states that
“teaching affords me with the opportunity to make my
contribution to society,” with a mean of 2.69 and 2.78 or
“high morale” respectively. This connotes the teachers’
awareness that their role is not only confined within the
four walls of the room but extended to the community.
Teachers act as a community worker, election canvassers,
community advisers and census enumerators. These added tasks
serve as a contribution to the community.
The teacher-respondents of Municipality 3 also rated
highest item number 6, which reveals that “Teaching assures
me with enough security I want in an occupation,” with a
mean of 2.89 or “high morale,” this means that teachers in
their jobs are secured, since they enjoy security of tenure.

180
GRADUATE SCHOOL
The category mean which ranges from 2.61 to 2.84
suggest that teachers enjoy a very high morale and
satisfaction in teaching.
7.4. Teacher’s Salary
Table 8d
Mean and Descriptive Scale on the Level of Morale

of Teachers as Assessed by Themselves by Municipality
and As A Whole Relative to Teacher’s Salary

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. Salaries are reasonable. 2.54 H 2.30 M 2.82 H 2.55 H
2. Salary scale recognizes the teachers’ competency to the full extent. 2.51 H 2.28 M 2.86 H 2.55 H
3. Salary is sufficient to maintain my (their) standard way of living. 2.52 H 2.23 M 2.80 H 2.52 H
4. Teachers understand the policies governing salary increase. 2.58 H 2.42 H 2.78 H 2.59 H
5. Salary policies are administered fairly and justly. 2.51 H 2.28 M 2.84 H 2.55 H
6. The Department of Education follows a tight policy regarding
teachers’ benefits. 2.53 H 2.38 H 2.86 H 2.59 H
7. The teachers feel that there is competitive and meet their
expectations. 2.55 H 2.33 M 2.82 H 2.57 H
8. Teachers manifest satisfaction with their salary. 2.50 H 2.25 M 2.83 H 2.53 H
9. Teachers salary is less than the teachers deserve. 2.31 H 2.34 M 2.83 H 2.50 H
Category Mean 2.51 H 2.31 M 2.82 H 2.55 H
The data above on teachers’ salary show that the
a whole rated highest item number 4, which stipulates that
“Teachers understand the policies governing the salary
increase,” with a mean of 2.58,2.42 and 2.59 or” high
morale,” respectively. This means that teachers are aware of
the teachers’ salary standardization law and that teachers’
salaries are based from teacher’s classification position.
They are also aware that salary increases are given in four
tranches. This item was however rated lowest by the

181
GRADUATE SCHOOL
teachers-respondents of municipality 3 with a mean of 2.78
or still “high morale.” These were the ratings of teachers
who are new in the profession.
1 and as a whole is item number 9 which points out that
“Teachers’ salary is less than what the teachers deserve”
with a mean of 2.31 or 2.50 or “moderate” and “high morale,”
respectively. This means that due to the other tasks and
roles of the teachers which are not only confined within the
school, they feel that their salaries are not adequate
enough. They believe that they deserve higher salaries,
because their works are also extended to both the home and
the community.
The teacher-respondents of Municipality 2 also rated
lowest item number 3 which states that “Salary is sufficient
to maintain my standard way of living” with a mean of 2.33
or “moderate.” This comment was given by teachers with big
family members, where they claim that their salaries are not
enough to sustain their needs.
The teacher-respondents of Municipality 3 rated highest
item number 2 and 6 which convey that “Salary scale
recognizes the teachers’ competency to the full extent,” and
“The Department of Education follows a tight policy

182
GRADUATE SCHOOL
regarding teachers’ benefit,” with a mean of 2.86 or “high
morale” respectively. This was also rated highest as a whole
with a mean of 2.59 or also “high morale.” Teachers are
aware that their salaries are based from their teacher
classification position which are clearly spelled-out in the
salary standardization law scale. They are also aware that
promotions are based from the educational qualifications and
other exemplary school performance and accomplishments
through an assessment.
The over-all category mean of 2.55 implies that
teachers have a “high morale” along teachers’ salary.
7.5. Teacher’s Teaching Load
Table 8e
Mean and Descriptive Scale on the Level of Morale of Teachers as

Assessed by Themselves by Municipality and As A Whole
Relative to Teacher’s Teaching Load
183
GRADUATE SCHOOL

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. Teachers are satisfied with their teaching load. 2.66 H 2.34 H 2.86 H 2.62 H
2. The number of hours a teacher must work is reasonable. 2.66 H 2.22 M 2.74 H 2.54 H
3. Teachers spend much of their time on detailed reports. 2.57 H 2.39 H 2.75 H 2.57 H
4. Teachers are expected to do an unreasonable amount of record
keeping and clerical works. 2.55 H 2.23 M 2.72 H 2.50 H
5. Teaching enriches teachers’ knowledge of non- professional
activities. 2.62 H 2.33 M 2.75 H 2.57 H
6. The school head provides a very reasonable class program for
teachers. 2.72 H 2.45 H 2.70 H 2.62 H
7. Teachers’ current load is reasonable. 2.68 H 2.42 H 2.76 H 2.62 H
8. The subjects have a great influence on the values and attitudes that
teachers personally develop. 2.74 H 2.48 H 2.72 H 2.65 H
Along teacher’s teaching load, it is shown that the
a whole rated highest item number 8 which states that “The
subjects have a great influence on the values and attitudes
that teachers personally develop,” with a mean of 2.74,
2.48, and 2.65 or “high morale,” respectively. This implies
that the subject/lessons that teachers teach affect or
influence their values and attitudes, because teachers live
what they teach. In other words, teachers “walk their talk.”
The application part of their lesson is often connected or
immersed to the present-day world.
1 and as a whole is item number 4 which is “Teachers are
expected to do an unreasonable amount of record keeping and
clerical works,” with a mean of 2.55 and 2.50 or “high
morale,” respectively. In fact, 50% of the teachers’ work is

184
GRADUATE SCHOOL
spent on record keeping and recording. This includes lesson
planning, test preparations, checking of test papers,
assignments and projects, computation of grades, recording
results, report and permanent school forms preparation and
others. These are also transmitted electronically to
concerned offices.
The teacher-respondents of Municipality 2 rated lowest
item number 2 which is “The number of hours a teacher must
work is reasonable” with a mean of 2.22 or “moderate.” This
means that although teachers are required to render eight
(8) hours a day, many times these are extended to the home
and community due to paper works and home visitation.
item number 1, which conveys that “Teachers are satisfied
with their teaching loads” with a mean of 2.86 or “high
morale.” Teachers’ teaching loads are based from their grade
level assignments, and from their educational qualifications
and experiences. Although some subjects are
departmentalized, others are taught “take all” by the
advisers or self-contained classes.
3 is item number 6, which states that “The school heads
provide a very reasonable class program for teachers,” with

185
GRADUATE SCHOOL
a mean of 2.70 or “high morale.” This means that every
teacher follows a class program prepared either by the
school heads, master teachers or coordinators.
The category mean which ranges from 2.36 to 2.75 reveal
that teachers are seemingly satisfied in their teaching
loads thereby manifesting a high morale.
7.6. Curriculum Issues
Table 8f

Relative to Curriculum Issues

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. Keeping up professionally is too much a burden for the teachers. 2.16 M 2.05 M 2.71 H 2.31 M
2. The curriculum makes reasonable provisions for the students’
individual differences. 2.64 H 2.36 H 2.78 H 2.59 H
3. The school heads’ leadership challenges stimulate teachers’ growth. 2.64 H 2.39 H 2.78 H 2.60 H
4. The school follows a well – balanced curriculum. 2.69 H 2.44 H 2.72 H 2.62 H
5. Teachers feel free to discuss controversial issues in their classes. 2.52 H 2.28 M 2.75 H 2.52 H
6. Teachers are well-equipped for their profession. 2.69 H 2.45 H 2.76 H 2.63 H
7. The curriculum needs revision. 2.32 M 2.28 M 2.76 H 2.46 H
8. The purpose and objectives of the school are achieved in our
present curriculum. 2.52 H 2.38 H 2.66 H 2.52 H
9. Teachers possess freedom to learn and grow at their own rate. 2.62 H 2.41 H 2.71 H 2.58 H
As disclosed above for curriculum issues, the teacher-
respondents of Municipality 1, Municipality 2 and as a whole
rated highest item number 6 which declares that “Teachers
are well-equipped for their profession” with a mean of 2.69,
2.45 and 2.63 or “high morale,” respectively. This means
that the teachers believe that then pre-service trainings of

186
GRADUATE SCHOOL
four years or more, plus the in-service trainings that they
attend are adequate or sufficient enough to equip them
professionally and personally in their teachings.
On the other hand rated lowest by the teacher-
is item number 1, which states that “Keeping up
professionally is too much a burden for the teachers” with a
mean of 2.16, 2.05 and 2.31 or “moderate” respectively. This
means that for the teacher-respondents in these schools,
going back to school, attending seminars and workshop
especially when they have babies and small children to take
care is a problem. Although, they are willing to grow
professionally, sometimes family concerns matter.
Municipality 3 are items number 2 and 3 which specify that
“The curriculum makes reasonable provisions for the
students’ individual differences” and “The school heads’
leadership challenges/stimulates teachers’ growth,” with a
mean of 2.78 or “high morale,” respectively. This implies
that when teachers choose what method and technique of
teaching to use, what resource materials to utilize, they
always consider the needs and interests of the learners.
Teachers utilize various methods of teaching and resource

187
GRADUATE SCHOOL
materials to provide for individual differences. They also
ask questions based on the learners’ strengths and
weaknesses. Many teachers claim that what they are now
professionally is due to their school heads who continue to
encourage and challenge them to grow professionally. Lowest
in rating by the teacher-respondents of Municipality 3 is
item number 8 which denotes that “The purpose and objectives
of the school are achieved in our present curriculum,” with
a mean of 2.66 or “high morale.” This means that teachers
are able to achieve the objectives of the school through
their daily teachings, achievement tests and other school
programs and activities that are successfully conducted.
The category mean of 2.53, 2.34 and 2.74 spell a high
morale along curriculum issues. The over-all mean of 2.54
reveals that curriculum which refers to all the activities
inside and outside of the school for which the school
assumes responsibility, is carried out successfully of which
teachers take pride in its accomplishment.
7.7. Teacher’s Status
Table 8g

Relative to Teacher’s Status

M DS M DS M DS M DS
188
GRADUATE SCHOOL
1. Teaching position gives the teachers the social status they desire. 2.69 H 2.34 H 2.76 H 2.60 H
2. The teachers manifest a great deal of initiative and certainty in their H H H H
teaching assignment. 2.73 2.44 2.74 2.64
3. The teachers have the desirable influence on the values and H H H H
attitudes of the students. 2.76 2.50 2.74 2.67
4. The school heads make effective use of the individual teachers’ H H H H
capacity and talent. 2.72 2.50 2.74 2.65
5. The “stress and strain” resulting from teaching is undesirable for H H H H
teachers. 2.51 2.36 2.76 2.55
6. Teachers are appreciative of the work of their fellow teachers. 2.70 H 2.47 H 2.75 H 2.64 H
7. Teachers’ work is judged poorly by the school heads. 2.25 H 2.14 M 2.70 H 2.36 H
8. Teachers consider the teaching profession as a dignified work. 2.78 H 2.59 H 2.76 H 2.71 H
9. Teachers feel that they are competent. 2.75 H 2.48 H 2.76 H 2.67 H
It is manifested that for teachers’ status, rated
highest by the teacher-respondents of Municipality 1, 2, 3
and as a whole, is item number 8 which states that “Teachers
consider the teaching profession as a dignified work” with a
mean of 2.78, 2.59, 2.76 and 2.71 or “high morale,”
respectively. In fact teachers firmly believe that “Teaching
is the noblest of all professions.” They too believe, that
there’s no better profession than teaching, because teachers
are the makers of other professions.
Rated lowest by the teacher-respondents from the three
Municipalities and as a whole is item number 7 which conveys
that “Teachers’ work is judged poorly by the school heads”
with a mean of 2.25, 2.14, 2.70 and 2.36 or “moderate” and
“high morale,” respectively. This means that there are
teachers who are not convinced or satisfied with how their
school heads assess them. This is normal since, school heads
cannot satisfy everyone. In any organization, there are

189
GRADUATE SCHOOL
heroes and villains, hence there are teachers who believe
that their school heads assessed them objectively, while
others believe that they are assessed subjectively.
The teacher-respondents of Municipality 3 further rated
highest item number 1, 5 and 9 which states that ”Teacher
position gives the teachers the social status they desire,”
the “stress” and strain “Resulting from teaching is
undesirable for teachers” and “Teachers feel that they are
competent” with a mean of 2.76 or “high morale,”
respectively. This means that when teachers are classified
as master teachers, this gives them a feeling of prestige.
Besides, it is not desirable for teachers to be stressed or
strained, because they might bring this to their classrooms,
and learners might be the shock absorber of their anger and
stress. Moreover, teachers are very confident that they are
competent and productive teachers.
The various category mean reflect that the teachers
very much enjoy their teacher’s status, hence have a high
morale as teachers.
7.8. Community Pressures
Table 8h
190
GRADUATE SCHOOL

Relative to Community Pressures

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. Our community does not require the teachers to participate
in too many social activities. 2.10 M 2.05 M 2.72 H 2.29 M
2. Community demands from the teachers are reasonable. 2.43 H 2.31 M 2.76 H 2.50 H
3. The community treats the teachers with respect and H
confidence. 2.72 H 2.53 H 2.76 H 2.67
4. Students/pupils irritate the teachers. 2.03 M 2.08 2.71 H 2.27 H
5. Teachers manifest interest in community affairs. 2.69 H 2.39 H 2.74 H 2.61 H
6. Teachers are free to share ideas for the improvement of the H H
community. 2.69 H 2.45 H 2.74 2.63
7. The people in the community have a sincere and
wholehearted interest toward education in spite of their work
schedule. 2.63 H 2.48 H 2.68 H 2.60 H
8. Community pressures challenge teachers’ creativity and H H
initiative. 2.49 H 2.33 M 2.70 2.51
Category Mean 2.47 H 2.33 M 2.73 H 2.51 H
As presented above for community pressures, the
teacher-respondents from the three respondent Municipalities
and as a whole, rated highest item number 3, which
stipulates that “The community treats the teachers with
respect and confidence,” with a mean of 2.72, 2.53, 2.76 and
2.67 or “high morale,” respectively. This is because people
in the community see and consider teachers as persons in
authority and with dignity. The people in the community
look-up to teachers whom they consider as the “loco-
parentis” of their children. Furthermore, the teacher-
respondents of Municipality 3 rated highest item number 2
which adds that “Community demands from the teachers are
reasonable,” with a mean of 2.76 or “high morale.” This also
means that as teachers, the community people expect them to

191
GRADUATE SCHOOL
be models of behavior persons with dignified values customs
and beliefs. They expect them to be kind, respectful,
courageous and trustworthy.
whole rated lowest item number 4 which states that
“Students/pupils irritate the teachers” with a mean of 2.03
and 2.27 or “moderate,” respectively. This means that due to
pupils with problems or misbehaving pupils teachers at times
are irritated. However, they have to control their emotions
since punishment of any type whether physical or mental are
not allowed. Bullying is also not allowed in the school
premises or elsewhere. Besides, there is a child protection
law which teachers should abide.
item number 1, while the teacher-respondents of Municipality
3 rated lowest item number 7 with a mean of 2.05 for
Municipality 2 or “moderate” and 2.68 for Municipality 3
with a mean of 2.68 or “high morale.” Item number 1 states
that “Our community does not require the teachers to
participate in to many social activities.” This means that
the community does not pressure parents to attend to social
activities, however teachers feel that they to attend for
the sake of commitment, and responsibility. It is voluntary

192
GRADUATE SCHOOL
for teachers to attend. Item number 7 conveys that “The
people in the community have a sincere and wholehearted
interest toward education.” This interest is manifested in
their attendance to school programs, attendance to Parent-
Teachers-Association (PTA) meetings, getting their
children’s report card and participation in “Brigada
Eskwela.”
The category mean of 2.47, 2.33, 2.73 by Municipality
1, 2, 3 and an over-all mean of 2.51 suggest that teachers
can work well with the people in the community, hence do not
feel pressures from the community. They believe that the
school and the community should work together for better
teaching-learning results.
7.9. Summary on the Level of Morale of Teachers as

Assessed by Themselves
Table 8i
Summary Table on the Level of Morale of Teachers as Assessed

by Themselves by Municipality and As A Whole
Dimension Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole

193
GRADUATE SCHOOL
CM DS CM DS CM DS CM DS
1. Rapport w/ School Heads 2.80 H 2.56 H 2.86 H 2.74 H
2. Rapport Among Co-Teachers 2.85 H 2.61 H 2.86 H 2.77 H
3. Satisfaction in Teaching 2.75 H 2.61 H 2.84 H 2.73 H
4. Teacher’s Salary 2.51 H 2.31 M 2.82 H 2.55 H
5. Teacher’s Teaching Load 2.65 H 2.36 H 2.75 H 2.59 H
6. Curriculum Issues 2.53 H 2.34 H 2.74 H 2.54 H
7. Teacher’s Status 2.66 H 2.43 H 2.75 H 2.61 H
8. Community Pressures 2.47 H 2.33 M 2.73 H 2.51 H
Overall Mean 2.65 H 2.44 H 2.79 H 2.63 H
As seen above the teacher-respondents of Municipality
1, 2, 3 and as a whole rated highest dimensions rapport
among co-teachers, with a category mean of 2.85, 2.61, 2.86
and 2.77 or “high morale” respectively. This means that
teachers have trusting relationship between and among their
co-teachers. There is harmony and a give and take
relationship among them. Teacher-respondents of Municipality
2 also rated highest the dimension satisfaction in teaching
with a category mean of 2.61. This means that said
respondents love and enjoy teaching, while teacher-
respondents of municipality 3 also rated the dimension along
rapport with school heads with a category mean of 2.86. This
means that a harmonious relationship also exists between and
among the school heads and teachers.
1, 3 and as a whole is along community pressures. Although
the teachers can work well with the people in the community,
they feel that working with them is just an added

194
GRADUATE SCHOOL
responsibility since their primary function is on
instruction. However, they don’t feel pressured from the
community. For Municipality 2, teacher-respondents rated
lowest is along teacher’s salary with a category mean of
2.31 or “moderate”. These respondents believe that their
salaries are still inadequate.
The overall category mean of 2.63 implies that the
teachers enjoy a high teachers morale. They are happy that
they are teachers, because to them teaching is the noblest
profession.
8. Comparison among the Assessments of the Teachers on

their Level of Morale
Table 9
Test of Difference among the Assessments of the

Teachers on their Level of Morale
Dimension Fc Sig. (2-tailed) Decision

Rapport with school heads 15.203 .000 Reject Ho
Post Hoc
Municipality 1 & 2 .000
Rapport among co-teachers 20.359 .000 Reject Ho
195
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Post Hoc
Satisfaction in Teaching 8.033 .000 Reject Ho
Post Hoc
Teacher’s Salary 25.135 .000 Reject Ho
Post Hoc
Teacher’s Teaching Load 17.766 .000 Reject Ho
Post Hoc
Curriculum Issues 18.674 .000 Reject Ho
Post Hoc
Teacher’s Status 12.722 .000 Reject Ho
Post Hoc
Community Pressures 18.653 .000 Reject Ho
Post Hoc
α = 0.05
As reflected above there is a significant difference
among the assessments of the three groups of respondents on
their level of morale along rapport with school heads,
rapport among co-teachers, satisfaction in teaching,
teacher’s salary, teacher’s teaching load, curriculum
issues, teacher’s status and community pressures, hence the

196
GRADUATE SCHOOL
significance. This implies that the teacher-respondents
assessed their level of morale differently. These
differences in their assessments are attributed to school
assignments. Post Hoc analysis reveals that for rapport with
school heads, the differences are between Municipality 1,
and Municipality 2, and between Municipality 2, and 3. For
rapport with co-teachers, post hoc analysis states that the
differences are between Municipality 1 and 2, and between
Municipality 2, and 3. Post hoc analysis also reveals that
for satisfaction in teaching, the differences are between
Municipality 1 and 2, and Municipality 2 and 3. For
teachers’ salary, post hoc analysis reveals that the
differences are between Municipality 1 and 2, Municipality 1
and 3 and Municipality 2 and 3. For teachers’ teaching load,
the differences as per post hoc analysis are between
Municipality 1 and 2 and Municipality 2 and 3. For
curriculum issues, Post Hoc analysis also reveals that the
differences are between Municipality 1 and 2, Municipality 1
and 3 and Municipality 2 and 3. Post hoc analysis further
reveals that for teacher’s status, the differences are
between Municipality 1 and 2 and Municipality 2 and 3. For
community pressures the differences as per post hoc analysis

197
GRADUATE SCHOOL
are between Municipality 1 and 2, Municipality 1, 3 and
Municipality 2 and 3.
9. Correlation between the Leadership Skills of the School

Head-Respondents and the Level of Morale of Teacher
Respondents by Municipality and As a Whole
9.1. Municipality 1
Table 10a
Test of Relationship between the Leadership Skills of the

School Head-Respondents and the Level of Morale
of Teacher-Respondents
Leadership Skills / Rapport Rapport Satisfac- Teacher’s Commu-

Level of Morale w/ school among co- tion in Teacher’s teaching Curricu- Teacher’s nity
heads teachers teaching salary load lum issues status pressures
Pearson Correlation .224* .097 .115 -.063 .219* .114 .029 .059
Administrative
Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .263 .185 .472 .011 .191 .742 .499
Skills
N 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134
Pearson Correlation .078 .155 .031 .031 .290* .011 .056 -.067
Instructional
Sig. (2-tailed) .371 .074 .723 .724 .001 .896 .520 .444
Skills
N 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134
Pearson Correlation .333* .224* .001 -.085 .249* .289* .176* .181*
Interpersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .009 .988 .331 .004 .001 .042 .036
Skills
N 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134
Pearson Correlation .481* .176* .003 -.026 .299* .264* .193* .227*
Intrapersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .041 .974 .763 .000 .002 .025 .008
Skills
N 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134
Pearson Correlation .401* .100 .237* .059 .291* .121 .165 .055
Conceptual
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .248 .006 .496 .001 .164 .057 .529
Skills
N 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134
Pearson Correlation .466* .132 .085 .083 .206* .006 .026 -.032
Collaborative
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .128 .329 .339 .017 .943-+41 .767 .718
Skills
N 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134
As revealed in the above data for municipality 1, there
is a significant relationship between the leadership skills
of the school heads and teacher-respondents level of
morale along the administrative skills and rapport with
school heads and between administrative skills and teachers’
teaching load; along instructional skills and teachers’

198
GRADUATE SCHOOL
teaching load; along interpersonal and intrapersonal skills
and rapport with school heads, rapport among co-teachers,
teachers’ teaching load, curriculums issues, teachers’
status and community pressures; along conceptual skills and
rapport with school heads, satisfaction in teaching and
teachers’ teaching load and along collaborative skills and
rapport with school heads and teachers’ teaching load. This
implies that all the dimensions of leadership skills
influence the teachers’ level of morale along rapport with
school heads, rapport among co-teachers, satisfaction in
teaching, teachers’ teaching load, curriculum issues,
teachers’ status and community pressures. It further implies
that the greatest influence of leadership skills to
teachers’ level of morale is along teachers’ teaching load
and rapport with school heads. This means that school heads
are in judicious in assigning teachers’ teaching load and in
dealing with their leaders. School heads leadership skills
can make or unmake teachers.
On the other hand the six dimensions of leadership
skills specified above is not significantly related to
teachers’ level of morale along teachers’ salary, hence the
significance. This is so, because teachers’ salary is
legislated and controlled by the salary standardization law.

199
GRADUATE SCHOOL
9.2. Municipality 2
Table 10b


Pearson Correlation .567* .534* .505* .340* .498* .430* .486* .328*
Administrative
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .006 .000 .000 .000 .008
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Instructional
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .006 .000 .001 .000 .001
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Interpersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .007 .001 .001
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Intrapersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .004 .000 .003 .001 .001
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Conceptual
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .004 .000 .001
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Collaborative
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
For municipality 2, it is observed that there is a
significant relationship between the leadership skills of
the school heads and the level of morale of the teacher-
respondents along the six dimensions of leadership skills
and 8 areas of teachers’ level of morale, hence the
significance. This means that administrative skills,
instructional skills, interpersonal and intrapersonal
skills, conceptual and collaborative skills, influence or
affect the teachers’ level of morale along rapport with
school heads, rapport among co-teachers, satisfaction in

200
GRADUATE SCHOOL
teaching, teachers’ salary, curriculum issues, teachers’
teaching loads, teachers’ status and community pressures.
The way school heads practice their leadership skills have
something to do with teachers’ level of morale.
9.3. Municipality 3
Table 10c


Pearson Correlation .197 .175 .322* .127 -.011 -.052 -.064 -.097
Administrative
Sig. (2-tailed) .088 .131 .005 .275 .922 .655 .582 .405
Skills
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Pearson Correlation .094 .159 .164 .213 .082 -.068 -.013 -.119
Instructional
Sig. (2-tailed) .418 .171 .156 .065 .483 .560 .913 .308
Skills
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Pearson Correlation .262* .254* .296* .219 .058 .068 .086 .027
Interpersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .022 .027 .010 .057 .616 .559 .462 .820
Skills
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Pearson Correlation .254* .218 .373* .258* .128 .060 .122 .003
Intrapersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .027 .059 .001 .024 .272 .607 .294 .981
Skills
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Pearson Correlation .115 .166 .300* .215 .069 -.008 .073 .027
Conceptual
Sig. (2-tailed) .324 .152 .008 .062 .553 .945 .531 .817
Skills
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Pearson Correlation .348* .417* .461* .541* .260* .329* .302* .140
Collaborative
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .000 .000 .023 .004 .008 .229
Skills
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
As presented above for municipality 3 there is a
the schools and the level of morale of the teacher
respondents along administrative skills and satisfaction in
teaching; along interpersonal skills and rapport with school
heads, rapport among co-teachers and satisfaction in
teaching; along intrapersonal skills and rapport with school

201
GRADUATE SCHOOL
heads, satisfaction in teaching and teachers ’salary along
conceptual skills and satisfaction in teaching and along
collaborative skills and rapport with school heads, rapport
with co-teachers, satisfaction in teaching, teacher’s
salary, teacher’s teaching load, curriculum issues,
teacher’s status and community pressures. This means that
leadership skills like administrative, interpersonal,
intrapersonal, conceptual and collaborative skills, affect
or influence the teachers’ level of morale along rapport
with school heads, rapport among co-teachers, satisfaction
in teaching, teachers’ salary, teachers’ teaching load,
curriculum issues and teachers’ status. Collaborative skills
have the greatest influence on teachers’ level of morale,
while satisfaction in teaching is greatly affected by the
school heads’ leadership skills.
However, instructional skills is not significantly
related to teachers’ level of morale hence, the acceptance
of the null hypothesis at .05 level of significance. This
means that instructional skills do not influence teachers’
morale because this is built-in, in every school head’s
responsibilities. Moreover, the leadership skills of school
heads are not significantly related to teacher’s morale
along community pressures, because these are add-ons to the
roles and functions of school heads and teachers.

202
GRADUATE SCHOOL
9.4. As A Whole
Table 10d


Administrative
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .002
Skills
N 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274
Instructional
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .006
Skills
N 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274
Interpersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Skills
N 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274
Intrapersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Skills
N 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274
Conceptual
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Skills
N 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274
Collaborative
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Skills
N 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274
As a whole, it is shown that there is a significant
relationship between the leadership skills of the school
heads and the level of morale of the teacher-respondents
along administrative, instructional, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal skills, conceptual and collaborative skills
and rapport with school heads, rapport with co-teachers,
satisfaction in teaching, teachers’ salary, teachers’
teaching loads, curriculum issues, teachers’ status and
community pressures, hence the rejection of the null

203
GRADUATE SCHOOL
leadership skills of school heads greatly influence or
affect the teachers’ level of morale.
10. Job Satisfaction Level of the Teacher-Respondents as

10.1. Supervision Factor
Table 11a
Mean and Descriptive Scale on the Job Satisfaction Level of

the Teacher-Respondents as Assessed by Themselves by
Municipality and As A Whole Relative to Supervision Factor

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. My immediate supervisor gives me assistance when I need help. 2.84 H 2.58 H 2.76 H 2.73 H
2. My immediate supervisor praises good teaching. 2.88 H 2.64 H 2.82 H 2.78 H
3. My immediate supervisor provides assistance for improving
instruction. 2.85 H 2.64 H 2.71 H 2.73 H
4. I receive recognition from my immediate supervisor. 2.71 H 2.56 H 2.71 H 2.66 H
5. My immediate supervisor backs me up. 2.81 H 2.58 H 2.74 H 2.71 H
6. My immediate supervisor explains what is expected of me. 2.81 H 2.61 H 2.75 H 2.72 H
7. My immediate supervisor is willing to listen to suggestions. 2.81 H 2.58 H 2.74 H 2.71 H
8. My immediate supervisor treats everyone equally. 2.84 H 2.66 H 2.76 H 2.75 H
9. My immediate supervisor makes me feel comfortable. 2.82 H 2.61 H 2.78 H 2.74 H
10.When I teach a good lesson, my immediate supervisor notices. 2.84 H 2.61 H 2.74 H 2.73 H
11.My immediate supervisor offers suggestions to improve my
teaching. 2.81 H 2.59 H 2.71 H 2.70 H
12. My immediate supervisor makes available the material I need to
do my best. 2.71 H 2.53 H 2.71 H 2.65 H
13. My immediate supervisor does not turn one teacher against
another. 2.74 H 2.58 H 2.70 H 2.67 H
14. I receive too many meaningful instructions from my immediate
supervisor. 2.69 H 2.56 H 2.67 H 2.64 H
As indicated above, the teacher-respondents of
Municipality 1, municipality 3 and as a whole rated highest
item number 2 which states that “My immediate supervisor
praises good teaching” with a mean of 2.88, 2.82 and 2.78 or
“highly satisfied” respectively. This means that they

204
GRADUATE SCHOOL
appreciate the way their school heads commend them for every
good performance, and for every extra ordinary
accomplishment they do in their teaching.
Rated lowest by the teacher-respondents in Municipality
1, Municipality 3 and as a whole is item number 14 which
denotes that “I receive too many meaningful instructions
from my immediate supervisor” with a mean of 2.69, 2.67, and
2.64 or “highly satisfied” respectively. This means that too
often, teachers receive a lot of instructions from their
school heads, that at times they are confused, or bothered
on what to start first. At any rate, although lowest they
are still highly satisfied on this matter.
Municipality 2 is item number 8, which points that “My
immediate superior treats everyone equally” with a mean of
2.66 or “highly satisfied.” This means that school heads are
fair in their treatment of teachers. They are very objective
on how they monitor and evaluate their teachers.
2 is item number 12, which tells that “My immediate superior
makes available the material I need to do my best,” with a
mean of 2.53 or “highly satisfied.” This means that
instructional resources and other materials needed by

205
GRADUATE SCHOOL
teachers are not delivered on time. This sometimes dampen
the spirit of teachers to perform well in their jobs.
The category mean of the teacher-respondents in
Municipality 1, 2, 3 are 2.80, 2.63 and 2.73, while the
overall mean is 2.72. This manifests that the teacher-
respondents are highly satisfied on the aspect of
supervision factor as a dimension on job satisfaction. They
are highly satisfied on the amount of regulation and control
provided to them and on the interpersonal relationships they
have with their school heads.
10.2. Colleagues Factor
Table 11b

Municipality and As A Whole Relative to Colleagues Factor
206
GRADUATE SCHOOL

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. I like the people with whom I work. 2.90 H 2.73 H 2.74 H 2.79 H
2. I prefer to work with people whom I share common likes. 2.82 H 2.78 H 2.74 H 2.78 H
3. My colleagues do not seem unreasonable to me. 2.63 H 2.61 H 2.78 H 2.67 H
4. I get along well with my colleagues. 2.82 H 2.77 H 2.76 H 2.78 H
5. I get cooperation from the people I work with. 3.10 H 2.78 H 2.75 H 2.88 H
6. My colleagues stimulate to do better work. 2.79 H 2.77 H 2.71 H 2.76 H
7. My colleagues are not highly critical of one another. 2.72 H 2.59 H 2.71 H 2.67 H
8. I have made lasting friendship among my colleagues. 2.82 H 2.66 H 2.70 H 2.72 H
9. My interests are similar to those of my colleagues. 2.67 H 2.58 H 2.71 H 2.65 H
10. My colleagues provide me with suggestions or feedback about my
teaching. 2.69 H 2.61 H 2.59 H 2.63 H
As revealed above the teacher-respondents of
Municipality 1, Municipality 2 and as a whole rated highest
item number 5, which states that “I get cooperation from the
people I worked with,” with a mean of 3.00, 2.78 and 2.88 or
“highly satisfied.” This means that teachers have a very
good working relationship and can get along with each other
easily.
1 is item number 3, which points out that “My colleagues do
not seem unreasonable to me” with a mean of 2.63 or “highly
satisfied.” This means that their co-teachers treat them
well, and that they can relate and work well with each
other. However, this was rated highest by the teacher-
respondents of Municipality 3, with a mean of 2.78 or
“highly satisfied.” This means that their co-workers
understand them well and are not indifferent with each

207
GRADUATE SCHOOL
other. Also rated highest by the teacher-respondents of
Municipality 2 is item number 2, which states that “I prefer
to work with people whom I share common likes” with a mean
of 2.78 or “highly satisfied.” This means that teachers like
to work well with teachers with whom they have the same
interests, likes and dislikes.
2 is item number 9, which is “My interests are similar to
those of my colleagues,” with a mean of 2.58 or still
“highly satisfied.” This means that teachers still adhere to
the old adage “Birds of the same feather stay together.”
3 and as a whole is item number 10, which states that “My
colleagues provide me with suggestion or feedback about my
teaching” with a mean of 2.59 and 2.63 or “highly
satisfied,” respectively. This means that it’s just alright
for the teachers’ co-worker to give feedbacks or comments to
their teaching. To them, this serves as an avenue for them
to further improve in their teaching.
The category mean of the teacher-respondents in the
three respondent municipalities are 2.80, 2.69 and 2.72,
while as a whole is 2.73. This means that teacher-

208
GRADUATE SCHOOL
respondents table comments or suggestions from their
colleagues positively.
The above findings support the findings of the study
undertaken by Nyamubi (2017) entitled “Determinants of
Secondary School Teachers’ Job Satisfaction in Tanzania.”
Results of the study showed that teachers’ friendship and
cooperation with co-workers and students as well as the
respect of community members enhanced their satisfaction in
teaching.
10.3. Working Conditions Factor
Table 11c
Mean and Descriptive Scale on the Job Satisfaction Level

of the Teacher-Respondents as Assessed by Themselves
by Municipality and As A Whole Relative to
Working Conditions Factor

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. Working Conditions in my school are good. 2.86 H 2.70 H 2.79 H 2.78 H
2. Working Conditions in my school are comfortable. 2.84 H 2.67 H 2.80 H 2.77 H
3. Physical surroundings in my school are pleasant. 2.75 H 2.69 H 2.80 H 2.75 H
4. The administration in my school clearly defines its policies. 2.86 H 2.69 H 2.78 H 2.77 H
5. The administration in my school communicates its policies well. 2.83 H 2.67 H 2.78 H 2.76 H
6. Working conditions in my school could not be worse. 2.72 H 2.64 H 2.71 H 2.69 H
7. Working conditions in my school can be improved. 2.75 H 2.69 H 2.75 H 2.73 H
As indicated from the above data, teacher-respondents
from Municipality 1, Municipality 2 and as a whole rated
highest item number 1, which states that “Working conditions
in my school are good” with a mean of 2.86, 2.70 and 2.78 or
“highly satisfied” respectively. This means that there is a

209
GRADUATE SCHOOL
harmonious working relationship between and among the
teachers. The school environment is conducive for teaching
and learning process. Also rated highest by the teacher-
respondents of Municipality 1 is item number 4 which is “The
administration in my school clearly defines its policies”
with a mean of 2.86 or “highly satisfied.” This means that
policies in school are clearly defined hence confusion and
misunderstandings are avoided. Policies are disseminated
both orally and through hard copies.
1, 2, 3 and as a whole is item number 6 which states that
“Working conditions in my school could not be worse” with a
mean of 2.72, 2.64, 2.71 and 2.69, or “highly satisfied,”
respectively. This means that working conditions in the
school is desirable.
Municipality 3 are items number 2 and 3 which point out that
“Working conditions in my school are comfortable” and
“physical surroundings in my school are pleasant” with a
mean of 2.80 or “highly satisfied” respectively. This means
that the working environment is comfortable because everyone
is cooperative, and can work well with each other. The

210
GRADUATE SCHOOL
environment is friendly and there is a smooth-interpersonal
relationship with each other.
The category mean of 2.80, 2.68 and 2.77 or “highly
satisfied” indicate that school policies are clearly set,
while the over-all of 2.75 suggests that the physical and
social environment of their school satisfies them all.
The finding supports Gu, Xiaoyan (2016) in his study
entitled “Teacher Job Satisfaction in Public Schools: The
Relation to the Years of Teaching Experience”. The result
showed that there was a moderate negative relationship
between teacher job satisfaction of operating procedures and
years of teaching experience, which means with the increase
of the years of teaching experience, teachers in public
schools were more dissatisfied about their heavy workload.
10.4. Pay Factor
Table 11d

Municipality and As A Whole Relative to Pay Factor
211
GRADUATE SCHOOL

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. Teacher income is enough to live on. 2.43 H 2.14 S 2.78 H 2.45 H
2. Teacher income is adequate for normal expenses. 2.47 H 2.25 S 2.78 H 2.50 H
3. Teaching provides me with financial security. 2.66 H 2.27 S 2.79 H 2.57 H
4. I am well paid in properties to my ability. 2.43 H 2.31 S 2.79 H 2.51 H
5. Teacher income is less than I deserve. 2.24 S 2.16 S 2.72 H 2.37 H
6. Sufficient income keeps me from living the way I want to live. 2.48 H 2.34 H 2.72 H 2.52 H
7. Receives same pay with similar jobs in other school districts. 2.47 H 2.44 H 2.79 H 2.57 H
Category Mean 2.45 H 2.27 S 2.77 H 2.50 H
As seen above the teacher-respondents of Municipality
1, Municipality 3 and as a whole rated highest item number
3, which states that “Teaching provides me with financial
security” with a mean of 2.66, 2.79, and 2.57 or “highly
satisfied,” respectively. This implies the awareness and
belief of the teacher-respondents, that teaching provided
them and their family with financial security. With teaching
as their job, they are able to sustain their needs and that
of their family.
tells that “Teachers’ income is less than I deserve,” with a
mean of 2.24, 2.72, and 2.37 or “satisfied” and “highly
satisfied,” respectively. Teachers however believe, that
with the bulk of work they have which is not only confined
within the classroom, they lament that their pay or salary
is not adequate enough, compared to other professions.

212
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Municipality 2, Municipality 3 and as a whole is item number
7 which admonishes that “Receives same pay with similar jobs
in other school districts” with a mean of 2.44, 2.79, and
2.57 or “highly satisfied’ respectively. This means that
since teachers are provided with teacher classification, and
that salaries are standardized, as per standardization law,
teachers are aware that teachers with the same teacher
classification, receive the same pay.
item number 1, which reveals that “Teacher income is enough
to live on” with a mean of 2.14 or “satisfied.”
This implies that since salaries are standardized, teachers
believe that they have to content themselves of what they
receive, and that they have to live within their means.
Municipality 3 is item number 6 which specifies that
“Sufficient income keeps me from living the way I want to
live” with a mean of 2.72 or “highly satisfied.” This means
that teachers have to live only within their means. Their
way of life is controlled or determined by the amount of
income they have on hand.

213
GRADUATE SCHOOL
The category mean of 2.45, 2.27 and 2.77 imply that
teachers’ salary is just enough for their basic needs, and
could hardly make both ends meet, especially for teachers
with big family members.
The over-all category mean of 2.50 means that most of
them are highly satisfied with the monetary compensation for
the work they perform.
10.5. Responsibility Factor
Table 11e

Municipality and As A Whole Relative
to Responsibility Factor

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. I get along well with my students. 2.92 H 2.78 H 2.67 H 2.79 H
2. I try to be aware of the policies of my school. 2.91 H 2.77 H 2.70 H 2.79 H
3. I am interested in the policies of my school. 2.94 H 2.78 H 2.72 H 2.82 H
4. I do have responsibility for my teaching. 2.90 H 2.77 H 2.70 H 2.79 H
5. My students respect me as a teacher. 2.92 H 2.78 H 2.75 H 2.82 H
6. I am responsible for planning my daily lessons. 2.90 H 2.81 H 2.72 H 2.81 H
7. Teaching provides me the opportunity to help my students learn. 2.96 H 2.80 H 2.75 H 2.83 H
8. I am responsible for my actions. 2.95 H 2.81 H 2.74 H 2.83 H
It is shown above that the teacher-respondents of
item number 7 which states that “Teaching provides me the
opportunity to help my students learn” with a mean of 2.96,
2.75 and 2.83 or “highly satisfied,” respectively. This

214
GRADUATE SCHOOL
proves the teachers’ love for teaching and love for children
which to them is more of a mission than a profession.
1, Municipality 2 and as a whole is item number 4 which is
“I do have responsibility for my teaching” with a mean of
2.90, 2.77 and 2.79 or “highly satisfied” respectively. This
means that teachers affirm or recognize their accountability
in their teaching job. They believe that their job is to
cause effective and efficient learning among their learners,
and that everyone should know how to read with
comprehension. Although lowest in rating, the numerical
equivalent is very high. Also rated lowest by the teacher-
respondents of Municipality 1, but rated highest by teacher-
respondents of Municipality 2 is item number 6 which is “I
am responsible for planning my daily lessons,” with a mean
of 2.90 and 2.81 or “highly satisfied” respectively. This
means that teachers value planning their lessons, which is
an integral part of their role as facilitators of learning.
Also rated highest by teacher-respondents of
Municipality 2 and as a whole is item number 7 which states
that “I am responsible for my actions” with a mean of 2.81
and 2.83 or “highly satisfied” respectively. This jibes with

215
GRADUATE SCHOOL
the earlier statement that teachers are accountable for
anything they do pertaining to their teaching job.
Municipality 2 is item number 2, which is “I try to be aware
of the policies of my school,” with a mean of 2.77 and 2.79
or “highly satisfied” respectively. This means that teachers
endeavor to know and understand the policies of the school
because it is one of their responsibilities. Besides
“Ignorance of the law excuses no one.”
3 and as a whole is item number 1 which is, “I get along
well with my students” with a mean of 2.67 and 2.79 or
“highly satisfied”, respectively. This implies that since
teachers love to deal with children, getting along with them
is just an easy task.
item number 5 which is “My students respect me as a teacher”
with a mean of 2.75 or “highly satisfied”. This means that a
symbiotic relationship between and among teachers and pupils
exist. As teachers respect their pupils, so do the pupils to
their teachers.
The category mean of 2.92, 2.79, 2.72 and the over-all
category mean of 2.81, imply that the teachers are

216
GRADUATE SCHOOL
satisfactorily doing their responsibilities as stewards of
the teaching-learning process.
10.6. Work Itself Factor
Table 11f

Municipality and As A Whole Relative to Work Itself Factor

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. Teaching encourages originality. 2.84 H 2.75 H 2.68 H 2.76 H
2. Teaching is very interesting work. 2.84 H 2.67 H 2.71 H 2.74 H
3. Teaching encourages me to be creative. 2.90 H 2.75 H 2.74 H 2.79 H
4. Teaching provides me the chance to develop new methods. 2.92 H 2.77 H 2.74 H 2.81 H
5. The work of a teacher consists of routine activities. 2.84 H 2.73 H 2.71 H 2.76 H
6. Teaching provides an opportunity to use a variety of skills. 2.92 H 2.75 H 2.76 H 2.81 H
7. I am interested toward teaching. 2.90 H 2.73 H 2.75 H 2.80 H
8. I have the freedom to take my own decisions. 2.81 H 2.72 H 2.74 H 2.75 H
9. The work of a teacher is very pleasant. 2.90 H 2.67 H 2.75 H 2.77 H
As reflected in the data or work itself factor, the
a whole rated highest item number 4, which states that
“Teaching provides me the chance to develop new methods,”
with a mean of 2.92, 2.77 and 2.81 or “highly satisfied”,
respectively. This indicates the teachers’ creativity and
resourcefulness as they continuously search for newer
methods and techniques of presenting their lessons. They
always update and upgrade themselves by adopting new trends
and issues suited for their learners. Also rated highest by
the teacher-respondents of Municipality 1, Municipality 3
and as a whole is item number 6 which points out that

217
GRADUATE SCHOOL
“Teaching provides an opportunity to use a variety of
skills,” with a mean of 2.92, 2.76 and 2.81 or “highly
satisfied.” This means that teachers highly regard teaching
as a noble profession, as an interesting job for it
motivates them to be creative, active and resourceful.
Teaching provides them the avenue to maximize their
potentials to the fullest.
1 is item number 8 which says that “I have the freedom to
take my own decisions.” With a mean of 2.81 or “highly
satisfied.” This supports the earlier statement that
teachers are accountable for their actions, hence teachers
are free to do what they deem proper within the bounds of
law.
Rated lowest by teacher-respondents of Municipality 2
and as a whole is item number 2 which specifies that
“Teaching is very interesting work.” With a mean of 2.67 and
2.74 or “highly satisfied” respectively. This indicates that
teaching is really interesting because teachers deal with
people whom they can interact with. People with a heart whom
they are willing to touch. Also rated lowest by the teacher-
respondents of school b is item number 9 which is “The work
of a teacher is pleasant,” with a mean of 2.67 or “highly

218
GRADUATE SCHOOL
satisfied.” This means that teaching is really a noble job
for the teachers who transform students into a productive
and law-abiding citizen.
The teacher-respondents of Municipality 3, also rated
lowest item number 1 which states that “Teaching encourages
originality” with a mean of 2.68 or “highly satisfied.” This
means that teachers can transform ordinary things into
extraordinary ones for creativity.
The over-all category mean of the teacher-respondents
in the three schools show that the daily tasks and routines
of the teachers including the autonomy that they enjoy
provide them a high degree of satisfaction as manifested by
a category mean of 2.78.
10.7. Advancement Factor
Table 11g

Municipality and As A Whole Relative to Advancement Factor

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. Teaching provides me a good opportunity for advancement. 2.77 H 2.56 H 2.74 H 2.69 H
2. Teaching provides me a good opportunity for promotion. 2.81 H 2.55 H 2.75 H 2.70 H
3. Teaching provides me with an opportunity to advance
professionally. 2.78 H 2.61 H 2.75 H 2.71 H
4. Teaching provides equal opportunities for advancement. 2.74 H 2.50 H 2.74 H 2.66 H
5. I am getting ahead in my present teaching position. 2.72 H 2.47 H 2.78 H 2.65 H
219
GRADUATE SCHOOL
As revealed in the table for advancement factor, the
teacher-respondents of Municipality 1 rated highest item
number 2 which states that “Teaching provides me a good
opportunity for promotion “with a mean of 2.81 or “highly
satisfied.” This implies the awareness of teachers that they
can be promoted from their teacher-classification based from
their own efforts and creativeness. One of the reasons why
many teachers are going back to school for their master’s
degree, is because of the possibility of being promoted.
1, municipality 2 and as a whole is item number 5, which
states that “I am getting ahead in my present teaching
position,” with a mean of 2.72, 2.47 and 2.65 or “highly
satisfied” respectively. This means that due to educational
and personal qualifications of teachers many of them have
been promoted. Although rated lowest, many teachers hailed
this item because of the opportunity folded to them. This
item however, was rated highest by the teacher-respondents
of Municipality 3 with a mean of 2.78 or “highly satisfied.”
This means that many teachers in the said municipality
enjoyed the opportunity of getting ahead in their teacher
classification, hence the high rating.

220
GRADUATE SCHOOL
whole rated highest item number 3 which states that
“Teaching provides me with an opportunity to advance
professionally,” with a mean of 2.61 and 2.71 or “highly
satisfied,” respectively. This means that teaching provides
or offers them avenues to get promoted or progress in their
careers.
item number 1 and 4 which states that “Teaching provides me
a good opportunity for advancement” and “Teaching provides
equal opportunities for advancement” with a mean of 2.74 or”
“highly satisfied” respectively. This means that their jobs
help them to grow professionally and provide them to enhance
their knowledge and skills through attendance to seminars
and trainings.
The over-all mean of 2.68 manifests that teaching
provides avenues or opportunities for promotion and
advancement.
The findings support the study of Gumaru (2018)
entitled “School Heads’ level of Spirituality: Its Influence
on Teachers’ Organizational Commitment and Job
Satisfaction”. Results of the study showed that the school
heads have a very high level of spirituality yet, this did

221
GRADUATE SCHOOL
not influence the extent to which the teacher-respondents
manifest their organizational commitment and their job
satisfaction to a maximum degree. It is because commitment
is already embedded in the system of teachers. Only ethical
dimension influences the teachers’ job satisfaction on
advancement because teachers cannot do otherwise but to work
in accordance with the standards of the Department of
Education.
10.8. Security Factor
Table 11h

Municipality and As A Whole Relative to Security Factor

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. I am afraid of losing my teaching job. 2.66 H 2.56 H 2.62 H 2.62 H
2. Teaching provides for a secure future. 2.74 H 2.63 H 2.67 H 2.68 H
3. I feel secure in my teaching job. 2.72 H 2.56 H 2.71 H 2.67 H
222
GRADUATE SCHOOL
It is seen above that for security factor, the teacher-
rated highest item number 2 which states that “Teaching
provides for a secure feature” with a mean of 2.74, 2.63 and
2.68 or “highly satisfied,” respectively. This implies that
teachers firmly believe that teaching provides them a safe
future or security of tenure.
1, 2, 3 and as a whole is item number 1 which is “I am
afraid of losing my teaching job,” with a mean of 2.66,
2.56, 2.62 and 2.62 or “highly satisfied” respectively. This
means that since teachers love teaching and children, they
affirmed that they will remain in the teaching profession.
From an informal interview, they agreed that they will stay
in the teaching profession no matter what.
2, but highest among the teacher-respondents of Municipality
3 is item number 3 which stipulates that “I feel secure in
my teaching job.” With a mean of 2.56 and 2.71 or “highly
satisfied,” respectively. This supports the earlier
statement that teaching provides them a security of tenure.
The category mean of 2.71, 2.58, 2.67 of the three
groups of respondents and the over-all category mean of 2.65

223
GRADUATE SCHOOL
suggest that while teaching provides them with the necessary
support to grow professionally and personally, their
satisfaction level for security factor which is optimal can
still be raised higher.
10.9. Recognition Factor
Table 11i

Municipality and As A Whole Relative to Recognition Factor

M DS M DS M DS M DS
1. I receive full recognition for my successful teaching. 2.66 H 2.45 H 2.66 H 2.59 H
2. Everyone tells me that I am a good teacher. 2.50 H 2.45 H 2.68 H 2.55 H
3. I receive recognition for my good performance. 2.69 H 2.50 H 2.71 H 2.63 H
As indicated above for recognition factor, all the
teacher-respondents in the three municipalities and as a
whole rated highest item number 3 which states that “I
receive recognition for my good performance,” with a mean of
2.69, 2.50, 2.71 and 2.63 or “highly satisfied,”
respectively. This means that school heads praise teachers
for their exemplary teaching performance and other task that
they do extraordinarily. A monthly convocation is held to
recognize teachers’ good performance by awarding them with
plaques and certificates of recognition.

224
GRADUATE SCHOOL
tells that “Everyone tells me that I am a good teacher,”
with a mean of 2.50, 2.45 and 2.55 or “highly satisfied,”
respectively. This means that teacher themselves are
flattered of what their co-teachers comment about them
especially on classroom teaching matters.
Municipality 2 and 3 is item number 1 which is “I receive
full recognition for my successful teaching.” With a mean of
2.45 and 2.66 or “highly satisfied,” respectively. This
means that teachers are satisfied well on how their
performances are appraised. They believe that their school
heads are fair when it comes to recognition.
The category mean of 2.62, 2.47, 2.68 and 2.59 as a
whole imply that teachers re highly satisfied in terms of
appreciation, attention and prestige in their job.
10.10. Summary on the Job Satisfaction Level of the

Teacher-Respondents as Assessed by Themselves
Table 11j
Summary Table on the Job Satisfaction Level of the Teacher-

Respondents as Assessed by Themselves by Municipality
and As A Whole Relative to Work Itself Factor
Dimension Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole

CM DS CM DS CM DS CM DS
225
GRADUATE SCHOOL
1. Supervision Factor 2.80 H 2.63 H 2.73 H 2.72 H

2.Colleagues Factor 2.80 H 2.69 H 2.72 H 2.73 H
3. Working Condition
Factor 2.80 H 2.68 H 2.77 H 2.75 H
4. Pay Factor 2.45 H 2.27 H 2.77 H 2.50 H
5. Responsibility Factor 2.92 H 2.79 H 2.72 H 2.81 H
6. Work Itself Factor 2.87 H 2.73 H 2.73 H 2.78 H
7. Advancement Factor 2.76 H 2.54 H 2.75 H 2.68 H
8. Security Factor 2.71 H 2.58 H 2.67 H 2.65 H
9. Recognition Factor 2.62 H 2.47 H 2.68 H 2.59 H
Overall Mean 2.75 H 2.60 H 2.73 H 2.69 H
Table 11j shows that the teacher-respondents of
responsibility factor with a category mean of 2.92, 2.79 and
2.81 or “highly satisfied,” respectively. This means that
the teachers’ sense of accountability in their work as well
as their active role in the performance of their duties and
responsibilities in the teaching-learning process is very
well-inculcated in them. They believe that their major role
is instruction, so they must excel and put more efforts to
this role. Rated lowest by the teacher-respondents of
Municipality 1, Municipality 2 and as a whole is pay factor
with a mean of 2.45, 2.27 and 2.50 or “highly satisfied,”
“satisfied” and “highly satisfied,” respectively. This
reveals the sentiments of some teachers that their pay or
salary is still in adequate, although for the teacher-
respondents of Municipality 3, pay factor is adequate since
they rated this highest with a mean of 2.77 or “highly

226
GRADUATE SCHOOL
satisfied.” Moreover, the teacher-respondents of
Municipality 3, rated highest working condition factor, with
a mean of 2.77 or “highly satisfied.” This means that their
working environment is conducive, friendly and everyone
shows the spirit of cooperation. The teacher-respondents of
Municipality 3 rated lowest security factor with a mean of
2.67 or still “highly satisfied.”
The over-all category mean of 2.69 denotes the teacher-
respondents have diverse and varied levels of job
satisfaction which can be attributed to the differences in
the professional and personal profile variables and the kind
of school heads they have.
11. Comparison among the Assessments of the Teacher-

Respondents on their Job Satisfaction Level
Table 12
Test of Difference among the Assessments of the Teacher-

Respondents on their Job Satisfaction Level
Dimension Fc Sig. (2-tailed) Decision

Supervision Factor 6.614 .002 Reject Ho
Post Hoc
Colleagues Factor 2.085 .126 Accept Ho
Working Condition Factor 2.586 .077 Accept Ho
Pay Factor 17.783 .000 Reject Ho
Post Hoc
Responsibility Factor 11.778 .000 Reject Ho
Post Hoc
227
GRADUATE SCHOOL

Work Itself Factor 7.101 .001 Reject Ho
Post Hoc
Advancement Factor 6.758 .001 Reject Ho
Post Hoc
Security Factor 1.763 .173 Accept Ho
Recognition Factor 3.769 .024 Reject Ho
Post Hoc
α = 0.05
As indicated above, there is a significant difference
among the assessments of the teacher-respondents on their
job-satisfaction level along supervision factor,
responsibility factor, work itself factor, advancement
factor and recognition factor, hence the rejection of the
that the teacher-respondents have different job satisfaction
level, based upon their personal and professional needs.
Post Hoc analysis however, reveals that the difference
in job satisfaction level for supervision factor is between
Municipality 1 and 2. For pay factor, post hoc analysis
tells that the difference is between Municipality 1 and 2,
Municipality 2 and 3. Post Hoc analysis for responsibility
factor, mentions that the difference is between Municipality
1 and 2, Municipality 2 and 3 and Municipality 1 and 3. Post

228
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Hoc analysis for work itself factor reveals that the
difference is between Municipality 1 and 2 and Municipality
1 and 3. For advancement factor the difference as per Post
Hoc analysis is between Municipality 1 and 2 and
Municipality 2 and 3 and for recognition factor as per Post
Hoc analysis is between Municipality 2 and 3.
between the job Satisfaction level of the teacher-
respondents along colleagues’ factor, working condition
factor and security factor, hence, the acceptance of the
that regardless of the school where the teacher-respondents
are assigned, their satisfaction level is still the same.
12. Correlation between the Leadership Skills of the School

Head-Respondents and the Job Satisfaction Level of
Teacher-Respondents by Municipality and As a Whole
12.1. Municipality 1
Table 13a

School Head-Respondents and the Job Satisfaction
Level of the Teacher-Respondents
Leadership Skills / Super- Collea- Working Respon- Work Advance- Security Recogni-
Job Satisfaction Level vision gues Condition Pay sibility Itself ment Factor tion
Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor
Pearson Correlation .742* .373* .537* .202 .366* .464* .413* .376* .343*
Administrative
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .002 .000 .110 .003 .000 .001 .002 .005
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Pearson Correlation .725* .491* .587* .269* .480* .536* .449* .451* .437*
Instructional
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .031 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Interpersonal Pearson Correlation .779* .333* .509* .342* .328* .373* .380* .306* .344*
Skills Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .007 .000 .006 .008 .002 .002 .014 .005
229
GRADUATE SCHOOL
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Intrapersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000 .136 .002 .000 .003 .007 .009
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Conceptual
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .024 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Collaborative
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .008 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
As manifested above, there is a significant
relationship between the leadership skills of the school
head-respondents and job satisfaction level of the teacher-
respondents along administrative skills and supervision-
factor, colleagues factor, working condition factor,
responsibility, working itself, advancement, security and
recognition factor, and along instructional skills,
interpersonal skills, conceptual and collaborative skills
and supervision factor, colleagues factor, working condition
factor, pay, responsibility, work-itself, advancement,
security and recognition factors, hence the rejection of the
null hypothesis at .05 level of significance. Moreover,
instructional skills, interpersonal, conceptual and
collaborative skills are significantly related to pay
factor, hence the rejection of the null hypothesis at .05
level of significance. This means that the way the school
head respondents display their leadership skills influence
or affect the teacher-respondents job satisfaction level.
School heads who are strict but kind, approachable, fair,

230
GRADUATE SCHOOL
friendly, understanding and optimistic make teachers enjoy
and love their jobs.
However, administrative skills and intrapersonal skills
are not significantly related to pay factor, hence the
significance.
Table 13b

Administrative
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .002 .000 .110 .003 .000 .001 .002 .005
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Instructional
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .031 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Interpersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .007 .000 .006 .008 .002 .002 .014 .005
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Intrapersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .000 .136 .002 .000 .003 .007 .009
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Conceptual
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .024 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Collaborative
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .008 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001
Skills
N 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
231
GRADUATE SCHOOL
It is revealed in the above data, that there is a
the school head-respondents and the job satisfaction level
of the teacher-respondents along administrative skills,
instructional skills, interpersonal, intrapersonal,
conceptual and collaborative skills and supervision factor,
colleagues, working condition, responsibility, work-itself,
pay, advancement, security and recognition factors, hence
significance. This means that the leadership skills
demonstrated or practiced by school head-respondents,
influence the job satisfaction-level of teacher-respondents.
Administrative skills and intrapersonal skills do not
affect or influence the teacher’s pay factor, hence the
significance. This is so because teachers’ pay is determined
by law and not by administrative skill.
Table 13c

Pearson Correlation .222 .117 .137 .123 .171 .139 .226* .152 .083
Administrative
Sig. (2-tailed) .054 .312 .237 .290 .139 .230 .050 .191 .474
Skills
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
232
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Pearson Correlation .080 .087 .073 .033 .040 .056 .110 -.043 .217
Instructional
Sig. (2-tailed) .493 .455 .529 .778 .733 .629 .343 .715 .060
Skills
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Pearson Correlation .126 .173 .172 .170 .250* .248* .161 .215 .315*
Interpersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .278 .134 .138 .142 .029 .031 .166 .062 .006
Skills
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Pearson Correlation .094 -.031 .048 -.028 .053 .088 .071 .056 .100
Intrapersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .422 .789 .683 .811 .649 .450 .542 .634 .392
Skills
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Pearson Correlation .041 -.013 -.026 -.021 .075 .044 .032 .057 .051
Conceptual
Sig. (2-tailed) .722 .914 .822 .859 .521 .705 .783 .626 .661
Skills
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Pearson Correlation .252* .268* .250* .142 .411* .127 .264* .246* .225
Collaborative
Sig. (2-tailed) .028 .019 .030 .222 .000 .274 .021 .033 .051
Skills
N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
As seen above, there is a significant relationship
between the leadership skills of the school head-respondents
and the job satisfaction level of the teacher-respondents,
along administrative skills and advancement factor; along
interpersonal skills and responsibility factor, work-itself
and recognition factor and along collaborative skills and
supervision factor, colleagues factor, working condition
factor, responsibility factor, advancement and security
factor, hence the rejection of the null hypothesis at .05
level of significance. This means that administrative,
interpersonal and collaborative leadership skills of school
head-respondents influence the above-mentioned dimensions of
job satisfaction among teacher-respondents.
However, the instructional leadership skills of school
head-respondents and their intrapersonal, administrative and
conceptual skills are not significantly related to the nine
dimensions of job-satisfaction of the teacher-respondents as

233
GRADUATE SCHOOL
stated above, hence the acceptance of the null hypothesis at
.05 level of significance. This implies that the above
stated leadership skills, do not influence the teacher-
respondents job satisfaction level.
12.4. As A Whole
Table 13d

Administrative
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .002 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .001 .003
Skills
N 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274
Instructional
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .002 .000 .000 .000 .003 .000
Skills
N 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274
Interpersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .000 .008 .000
Skills
N 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274
Intrapersonal
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .005 .000 .001 .024 .005
Skills
N 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274
Conceptual
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000
Skills
N 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274
Collaborative
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Skills
N 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 274
It is presented in the above data as a whole, that
there is a significant relationship between the leadership

234
GRADUATE SCHOOL
skills of the school heads-respondents and the job
satisfaction level of the teacher-respondents in all the
areas of leadership skills and all the dimensions of
teachers’ job satisfaction, hence the rejection of the null
leadership skills observed or practiced by the school head-
respondents have a great impact on the job satisfaction
level of teacher-respondents.
This finding is corroborated in the study of Richard
Grimm (2017)” The Impact of Leadership on Job Satisfaction
within the Department of Navy (DON)in Liberty University” A
study from Virginia United States of America revealed that
Leadership skills have a great impact on the job
satisfaction of the civilian workforce in the Department of
Navy, Liberty University.

235
GRADUATE SCHOOL
13. Correlation between the Profile Variables of the School

Head-Respondents and their Leadership Skills and
School-Based Management Level of Practice by
Municipality and As a Whole
Table 14a
Test of Relationship between the Profile Variables of the

School Head-Respondents and their Leadership Skills and
Profile Variables / Leadership Skills/ Accoun-

School-Based Management Leader- tability Manage
Adminis Instruc- Interper Intraper Concep- Collabo- ship & Curricu- & -ment of
-trative tional -sonal sonal tual rative gover- lum & impro- resour-
skills skills skills skills skills skills nance learning vement ces
Pearson Correlation -.069 -.163 -.074 -.005 -.142 -.067 .210 .179 .139 .205
Age Sig. (2-tailed) .697 .357 .678 .978 .423 .705 .233 .310 .434 .244
N 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
Pearson Correlation .195 .026 .175 .036 .132 .037 -.029 .103 .154 .148
Gender Sig. (2-tailed) .269 .883 .322 .840 .458 .833 .872 .564 .383 .403
N 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
Pearson Correlation -.076 -.022 -.086 .056 .013 -.031 -.147 -.171 -.122 -.135
Civil Status Sig. (2-tailed) .669 .903 .630 .754 .940 .862 .408 .334 .493 .448
N 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
Highest Pearson Correlation -.312 -.222 -.296 -.357* -.180 -.331 -.232 -.152 -.152 -.165
Educational Sig. (2-tailed) .073 .206 .089 .038 .308 .056 .186 .390 .392 .350
Attainment N 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
Pearson Correlation -.287 -.188 -.242 -.335 -.352* -.283 .264 .274 .230 .289
Position
Sig. (2-tailed) .100 .288 .167 .053 .041 .105 .132 .117 .191 .097
Classification
N 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
Length of Pearson Correlation -.170 -.165 -.179 -.107 -.104 -.179 .100 .057 -.003 .088
Service Sig. (2-tailed) .336 .350 .310 .546 .559 .310 .575 .750 .987 .621
236
GRADUATE SCHOOL
N 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
Number of Pearson Correlation .370* .362* .356* .408* .347* .310 -.127 -.127 -.121 -.216
Relevant Sig. (2-tailed) .031 .036 .039 .017 .044 .074 .476 .476 .494 .221
Trainings N 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34
For municipality 1, it is revealed that there is a
significant relationship between the profile variables of
the school head-respondents and their leadership skills
along highest educational attainment and intrapersonal
skills; position classification and conceptual skills, and
number of relevant trainings and administrative skills,
instructional skills, interpersonal skills, intrapersonal
skills and conceptual skills, hence the rejection of the
that highest educational attainment, position classification
and number of relevant trainings influence some dimensions
of leadership skills like intrapersonal, conceptual,
administrative, instructional and interpersonal skills. This
means that the higher the educational attainment of school
heads, the more they display self-esteem, become more open,
minded and able to understand and manage their emotions.
Moreover, the higher the position classification of school
heads, the better they understand complex scenarios and
develop creative solutions to problems. Furthermore, the
greater number of relevant trainings school heads attend,
the more they can manage an organization and complete tasks
like paper work, meeting with internal and external

237
GRADUATE SCHOOL
stakeholders. They also include such actions such as
planning, structuring, focusing and managing, and able to
interact with others effectively.
On the other hand, profile variables such as age,
gender, civil status, and length of service are not
significantly related to the leadership skills of the school
heads-respondents along administrative, instructional,
interpersonal, intrapersonal, conceptual and collaborative
level of significance.
Table 14a, further reveals that there is no significant
relationship between the profile variables of the school
heads-respondents and their school-based management level of
practice hence, the acceptance of the null hypothesis at .05
level of significance. This means that the profile variables
of the school head-respondents do not influence or affect
their school-based management practice. Regardless of the
personal and professional profiles of school head-
respondents their school-based management practices are
still the same.

238
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Table 14b


Age Pearson Correlation -.238 -.139 -.259 -.116 -.109 -.100 -.474* -.307 -.272 -.417
Sig. (2-tailed) .341 .584 .300 .647 .667 .694 .047 .215 .276 .085
N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Gender Pearson Correlation -.391 -.253 -.350 -.342 -.345 -.344 -.438 .230 .144 -.132
Sig. (2-tailed) .109 .311 .155 .164 .161 .162 .069 .359 .567 .602
N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Civil Status Pearson Correlation .028 .090 .066 .030 -.068 -.009 .076 .100 .007 -.100
Sig. (2-tailed) .913 .723 .795 .906 .789 .973 .763 .693 .977 .694
N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Highest Pearson Correlation -.325 -.149 -.328 -.342 -.350 -.246 -.327 -.213 -.319 -.435
Attainment N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Position Pearson Correlation -.193 -.123 -.474* -.182 -.349 -.367 -.292 .052 .097 -.057
Classification Sig. (2-tailed) .442 .628 .047 .469 .156 .134 .240 .839 .702 .821
N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Length of Pearson Correlation -.216 -.067 -.316 -.107 -.277 -.277 -.346 -.038 -.040 -.173
N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Number of Pearson Correlation .026 -.028 .148 -.096 -.075 -.060 .061 -.006 -.091 -.049
Trainings N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
239
GRADUATE SCHOOL
The above data reflect that there is a significant
relationship between the school heads’ profile along
position classification and school head-respondents’
leadership along interpersonal skills, hence the rejection
means that the position classification of school head-
respondents influence their leadership along interpersonal
skills. It further manifests that the higher the position
classification of school head-respondents, the better they
interact with others effectively, and work well with others
to achieve a goal.
Contrastingly, there is no significant relationship
between the profile variables of the school head-respondents
and their leadership skills along age, gender, civil status,
highest educational attainment, length of service and number
of relevant trainings attended and along administrative,
instructional, intrapersonal, conceptual and collaborative
level of significance. This means that regardless of the
profile variables of school head-respondents, their
leadership skills remain the same.
The data further reflect, that there is a significant

240
GRADUATE SCHOOL
head-respondents along age and school head-respondents
school-based management level of practice on leadership and
governance, hence the rejection of the null hypothesis
at .05 level of significance. This means that the older the
school head-respondents are, the better they perform their
leadership and governance practice because of experience.
Their experiences give them an edge over younger school
leaders.
On the contrary, there is no significant relationship
between the profile variables of the school head-respondents
and their school-based management level of practice along
gender, civil status, highest educational attainment,
position classification, length of service and number of
relevant trainings attended and along curriculum and
learning, accountability and improvement and management of
at .05 level of significance. This means that the above-
mentioned profile variables do not have any impact on the
school head-respondents’ school-based management level of
practice.
241
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Table 14c


Age Pearson Correlation -.162 -.208 -.221 -.078 -.138 -.081 -.029 -.098 -.124 -.148
Sig. (2-tailed) .429 .307 .278 .706 .500 .693 .888 .632 .547 .471
N 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
Gender Pearson Correlation .454* .391* .450* .396* .422* .267 -.086 .214 .034 .214
Sig. (2-tailed) .020 .048 .021 .045 .032 .187 .678 .294 .870 .294
N 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
Civil Status Pearson Correlation .277 .264 .255 .287 .290 .273 .360 .310 .303 .297
Sig. (2-tailed) .171 .192 .209 .155 .150 .178 .071 .123 .132 .141
N 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
Highest Pearson Correlation -.302 -.222 -.250 -.251 -.234 -.291 .116 -.059 -.115 -.084
Attainment N 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
Position Pearson Correlation -.550* -.517* -.473* -.412* -.492* -.495* .219 .028 .106 -.076
N 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
Length of Pearson Correlation -.379 -.435* -.352 -.341 -.360 -.352 -.745* -.556* -.540* -.599*
N 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
Number of Pearson Correlation .064 .110 .243 .207 .162 .243 .284 .085 .126 .154
Trainings N 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
242
GRADUATE SCHOOL
It is presented above that there is a significant
head-respondents and their leadership skills along gender
and administrative, instructional, interpersonal,
intrapersonal and conceptual skills and along position
classification and administrative skills, instructional,
skills and length of service and instructional skills, hence
significance. This means that the above-mentioned profile
variables influence the leadership skills of the school
head-respondents. This means that gender plays a significant
role in defining leadership roles and determining the
quality of services in school organization. Moreover, gender
role is an important personality trait that influences
leadership skills. The longer the length of service school
head-respondents render, the more they become knowledgeable
and experience in their instructional tasks, hence can work
well and manage people better.
Adversely, there is no significant relationship between
the profile variables of school head-respondents and their
leadership skills along age, civil status, highest
educational attainment and number of relevant trainings
attended on the administrative, instructional,

243
GRADUATE SCHOOL
level of significance. This implies that the profile
variables mentioned do not in any way influence or affect
the school head-respondents leadership skills.
It is further presented that there is a significant
head-respondents and their school-based management level of
practice along length of service on leadership and
governance, curriculum and learning, accountability and
improvement and management of resources, hence the rejection
means that the length of service has something to do with
the school head-respondents school-based management level of
practice. It means that the longer they are in their
positions as school heads, the better they are equipped to
implement school-based management level of practices.
However, age, gender, civil status, highest educational
attainment, position classification and number of relevant
trainings attended are not significantly related to school-
based management level of practices of school head-
respondents.
244
GRADUATE SCHOOL
13.4. As A Whole
Table 14d


Age Pearson Correlation -.163 -.196 -.182 -.077 -.154 -.098 -.088 .005 -.008 -.006
Sig. (2-tailed) .154 .085 .110 .504 .180 .392 .442 .963 .943 .962
N 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Gender Pearson Correlation .295* .186 .217 .175 .221 .109 .191 .092 .016 .046
Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .102 .057 .125 .052 .341 .094 .421 .891 .692
N 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Civil Status Pearson Correlation .075 .102 .059 .117 .082 .066 .155 .079 .065 .033
Sig. (2-tailed) .515 .375 .608 .309 .473 .566 .175 .494 .575 .773
N 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Highest Pearson Correlation -.311* -.215 -.277* -.318* -.240* -.296* -.123 -.125 -.166 -.182
Attainment N 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Position Pearson Correlation -.381* -.301* -.320* -.328* -.398* -.345* -.049 .119 .136 .067
N 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Length of Pearson Correlation -.285* -.257* -.286* -.212 -.235* -.273* -.364* -.124 -.133 -.121
N 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Number of Pearson Correlation .204 .195 .221 .202 .186 .162 .230* -.028 -.041 -.048
Trainings N 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78
Table 14d shows that there is a significant

245
GRADUATE SCHOOL
head-respondents and their leadership skills along gender
and administrative skills, highest educational attainment
and interpersonal, intrapersonal, conceptual and
collaborative skills; position classification and
administrative, instructional, interpersonal, intrapersonal,
conceptual and collaborative skills; length of service and
administrative, instructional, interpersonal, conceptual and
collaborative skills, hence the rejection of the null
hypothesis at .05 level of significance. This means that
gender, highest educational attainment, position
classification and length of service influence the above
stated leadership skills of the school head-respondents. It
also means that the higher the educational attainment of
school head-respondents, the more they become more organized
in their jobs, better communicator and have enhanced
customer/client service skills. The longer the school head-
respondents are in their position the better they develop
more awareness of themselves and others and become more
confident of themselves.
In contrary, there is no significant relationship
between the profile variables of the school heads-
respondents as a whole and their leadership skills along
age, civil status, and number of relevant trainings attended
on administrative, instructional, interpersonal,

246
GRADUATE SCHOOL
intrapersonal, conceptual and collaborative skills, hence
the acceptance of the null hypothesis at .05 level of
significance. This means that age, civil status and number
of relevant trainings, have nothing to do with the school
head-respondents leadership skills.
It is further shown on table 14d that there is a
significant relationship between the profile variables of
school head-respondents and their school-based management
level of practice along length of service and number of
relevant trainings attended on leadership and governance,
hence the rejection of the null hypothesis at .05 level of
significance. This means that length of service and number
of relevant trainings attended influence the leadership and
governance styles of school head-respondents. It means that
the longer the school head-respondents stay in their
position and the greater number of relevant trainings they
attend, the better administrators they become. It also
manifests that the number of years they rendered, make them
implement the school-based management level of practices
more efficiently, and effectively. The saying “Experience is
the best teacher,” applies to this situation.
However, age, gender, civil status, highest educational
attainment and position classification are not significantly

247
GRADUATE SCHOOL
related to the school head-respondents school-based
management level of practice, hence the acceptance of the
null hypothesis at .05 level of significance. This implies
that the said profile variables do not in any way influence
the school-based management practices of school head-
respondents. Regardless of their profile variables their
practice of school-based management is still the same.
14. Leadership skills and School-based management level of
practice least manifested by the School head-respondents
 The leadership skills least manifested by the
school head-respondents are conceptual skills
and intrapersonal skills
 The school-based management level of practice
least manifested by the school head-
respondents are leadership and governance and
curriculum and learning
15. Proposed Action Plan to Enhance the Leadership Skills
and School-based management level of Practice of School
heads
I. Title of the Proposed Plan: Enhancing the Leadership
Skills and School-based management Level of Practice
of the School Heads

248
GRADUATE SCHOOL
II. Identifying Data:
Proponent : Rowena D. Gaffud
Beneficiaries : School Heads of the Municipalities
of Enrile, Penablanca and Solana
III. Introduction:
Leadership plays a very important role in the
management of an organization. In the school setting,
the school head is the most important person within the
school organization. He/she leads the way in setting
the school’s vision, mission, goals and objectives.
He/She is the implementer of the different school
programs, projects and activities of the school that
help the pupils develop their knowledge, skills,
abilities and attitudes. He/She is responsible in
attaining the ultimate goal of the Department of
Education which is providing quality education for all
learners. In order to perform well, he/she must be
equipped with adequate skills in the performance of the
continuous improvement plan of the school he/she is
managing.
Along this line, it is important to note that the
leadership skills least manifested by the school head-

249
GRADUATE SCHOOL
respondents along conceptual skills and intrapersonal
skills and their least manifested school-based
management level of practice along leadership and
governance and curriculum and learning be addressed.
It is for this reason that the researcher came up
with this action plan.
IV. Objectives
This action plan aims to:
1. Improve the leadership skills of the
school heads along conceptual skills
and intrapersonal skills
2. Enhance the school-based management
level of practice of the school heads
along leadership and governance and
curriculum and learning
V. Target Participants:
School heads of Enrile, Penablanca and Solana
VI. Implementation Period:

INSET, School Year 2021 – 2022
VII. Budget:
The needed financial resource and other expenses
that will be incurred during the implementation of this
action plan will be charged to MOOE/other school funds.

250
GRADUATE SCHOOL
VIII. Action Plan
Key Result Areas Objectives Strategies/Activities People Time Source of Success

(KRA) Involved Frame Fund Indicators
Leadership Skills
of School heads
 To further enhance  Attend leadership

 Conceptual the critical thinking, seminars, workshops MOOE/
decision making, and trainings in Other
Skills School Year school Competent
and problem-solving “Enhancing the
Heads Round funds school heads
abilities of school Critical Thinking,
heads Decision Making and
Problem-Solving
Skills of School
Heads”.
 Attend trainings,
 To improve the workshops, meetings
 Intrapersonal
intrapersonal skills that focus on change
Skills
of school heads in management,
change management, motivation strategies
motivation strategies and conflict resolution
and conflict
resolution
School based
Management
Level of Practice
 Leadership  To further  Attendance of school

strengthen the heads to training School Year MOOE/ Competent
and
leadership and workshops on the Heads Round Other school heads
Governance
governance Development of school
capabilities of School Improvement funds
school heads along Plan with the
School Improvement participation of
Plan (SIP) crafting stakeholders and for
and facilitating making decisions and
communication solving learning and
between and among administrative
school and problems.
community leaders
for decision- making
to solve school
251
GRADUATE SCHOOL
community wide-
learning problems.
 Observe classes and

conduct post
 Curriculum conference with
and Learning teachers regularly
(virtual)
 Conduct Seminar on
Instructional
 Monitor the use of Teachers,
Supervision
books and other
 Conduct Focus Group School
references. Year MOOE/
Discussion (FGD) on Heads
round Other
the use of books,
school Well -
 Check the learning modules and other
funds supervised
condition/situations references
learning
in the classroom/  Physical checking of
home the learning conditions
in the classroom/home
Prepared by: Approved:
ROWENA D. GAFFUD GILDA B. TRINIDAD

Researcher/Proponent Public Schools District Supervisor
252
GRADUATE SCHOOL
16. Teachers’ Level of morale and job satisfaction level,
assessed low
 Level of morale
 The teacher-respondents assessed community
pressures and curriculum issues low.
 Job Satisfaction Level
 The teacher-respondents assessed pay factor
and recognition factor low.
17. Proposed Plan of action or Program Interventions to
strengthen teachers’ morale and job Satisfaction.
I. Title of the Proposed Action Plan: Strengthening
teachers’ Morale and their Job Satisfaction level
II. Identifying Data:
Proponent: ROWENA D. GAFFUD
Beneficiaries: Classroom Teachers of the
Municipalities of Enrile, Penablanca
and Solana Cagayan

253
GRADUATE SCHOOL
III. Introduction:
Learning outcomes depend so much on the quality of
instruction in the classroom. Curriculum was designed in
order to shape learners fit to the nation’s need. The
government allocates so much fund to education because it is
considered as a key factor of economic social, cultural and
political development of human societies which play a vital
role in the development of a nation. A strong nation is
built by well-educated citizen who are able to transform
what they have learned into something beneficial to
themselves and to the society in general.
The role of the teacher is considered so vital in order
to attain the desired result of the curriculum. Hence,
teachers should be provided with appropriate support in
terms of leadership, technical assistance, warmth and
affection in order to bring out the best in them.
Rewarding teachers whose performance exceeds
expectations and developing performance improvement plan for
them are significant in increasing job fulfillment. Teachers
who feel that they are valued tend to have better
performance records and remarkable work. Praising and
recognizing teachers for their efforts and providing regular

254
GRADUATE SCHOOL
feedback is a trait of a dedicated and functional school
head. Successful school heads motivate and uplift teachers’
morale and job satisfaction by communicating and modelling
enthusiasm, commitment, integrity, flexibility and
innovation.
It is for this reason that the researcher is prompted
to conceptualize this program intervention.
IV. Objectives:
This proposed action plan aims to:
1. Sustain and strengthen the teachers’ morale
and job satisfaction level
2. Uplift the level of the job satisfaction of
Teachers
V. Target Participants:
Teachers of the municipalities of Enrile, Penablanca
and Solana Cagayan
VI. Implementation Period:
INSET, School Year 2021 – 2022

255
GRADUATE SCHOOL
VII. Budget:
The needed financial resource and other expenses
that will be incurred during the implementation of this
action plan will be charged to MOOE/other school funds.
VIII. Program Intervention
Key Result Areas Objectives Strategies\ People Time Source of Success

(KRA) Activities Involved Frame Funds Indicators
Teachers’ Morale
Curriculum Issues Further strengthen the Facilitate capability

management skills of building programs
teachers along Initiate peer groups or
curriculum issues pairing of teachers for
monitoring and evaluation Year MOOE/
Conduct curriculum Teachers Round Other Competent
adjustment between school Teachers
subject area, teaching funds
resources, student
activities and evaluation
Community pressures Improve the Conduct regular PTA

interpersonal meeting’s
relationships of teachers Conduct consultation
in the community meetings with community
Enhance parent teachers leader
and community Involve pupils and parent MOOE/
participation in the in policy formations, Other
governance of school to planning and project school Competent
initiate change and avoid implementation. Teachers Year funds Teachers
conflicts Formulate and implement Round
a clear grievance\
complaints procedure and
charter for parents and
pupils in consultation with
stakeholders
Job satisfaction Effective

Year MOOE and efficient
Recognition factor To raise the level of Giving of recognition and Teachers Round teachers
teachers’ job satisfaction awards to teachers with
through merit and exemplary performance
recognition during Teachers’ Day
Celebration and End of
School Year Rites
256
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Team Building activities
Help teachers understand

Pay Factor that salaries are
legislated
Encourage teachers to Attending seminars on MOOE/
upgrade themselves compensation and benefits Teachers other Teachers are
Year
professionally in order to and financial management school contented of
Round
improve their teachers’ funds their salaries
classification Benchmarking
Require teachers to Teachers
upgrade themselves
promoted in
professionally
Conduct symposium on rank or
compensation and benefits teacher
classification
Prepared by: Approved:
ROWENA D. GAFFUD GILDA B. TRINIDAD

Researcher/Proponent Public Schools District Supervisor

Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF CAGAYAN VALLEY

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation

of data gathered with the use of questionnaire and the

summary of the quantitative data has been presented with the

use of tables and various statistical tools.

1. Profile of the School-Head Respondents

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of

Age Range Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole

As reflected in the above data, school heads in

Municipality 1 with the highest number or percentage is 16

or 47.06% belong to age bracket 51-60, and the lowest is 2

or 5.88% belong to age bracket 61-70, with a total mean age

of 50.50. In municipality 2, the highest is 9 or 50.00% of

is 1 or 5.56% from age bracket 31-40, with total mean age of

49.39. Moreover, in Municipality 3, the highest is 13 or

50.00% of the school heads belong to age bracket 41-50 and

51-60. The lowest is 2 or 2.56% from age bracket of 61-70,

with total mean age of 48.96.

As a whole, most of the school heads’ respondents

belong to ages 41-60. This implies that they are just in

their right age for the position; a transition period for

new adjustment to new interest, values, and pattern of

behavior; and a right age to have acquired extensive

knowledge, whether from years of experience gained, or via

study for an advanced degree.

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of

Gender Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole

It is manifested above, that most of the school heads

in Municipality 1 and 2 are females with 29 or 85.29% and 16

or 88.89%, respectively. While Municipality 3 has 16 or

61.54% males and 10 or 38.46% females. As a whole, there are

55 or 70.51% female school heads.

This implies that as a whole, the school head position

is still a female dominated. This finding is similar with

the findings in the previous researches, similar or the same

with the present study.

1.3. Civil Status

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of School Head-

Civil Status Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole

As revealed in the table, 30 or 88.24% of the

respondents in Municipality 1 are married, and 1 or 2.94% is

widow. Likewise, respondents in Municipality 2 are mostly

married with 15 or 83.33%, and 1 or 5.56% is single.

Further, there are 24 or 92.31% of the respondents in

Municipality 3 are married, and 1 or 3.85% widow and single,

As a whole, 69 or 88.46% are married, and 4 or 5.13 are

widows. The data imply, that since majority of the

respondents are married, they are expected to be good

managers with a high degree of responsibility, as marriage

1.4. Highest Educational Attainment

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of School Head-

Highest Municipality 1 Municipality 2 Municipality 3 As A Whole

As gleaned in the above data, 23 or 67.65% of the

school heads in Municipality 1 are holders of Master’s

degree, and 3 or 8.82% are doctorate degree holders. Most of

the school heads in Municipality 2 are likewise Master’s

degree graduate with 14 or 77.78%, and 2 or 11.11% are

doctorate graduate. While 18 or 69.23% of the school heads

in Municipality 3 are also Master’s degree holders, and 1 or

3.85% is a doctorate degree holder.

As a whole, 55 or 70.51% are Master’s degree holders