ABSTRACT
This study investigated the curriculum leadership practices of school heads in Integrated Basic Education Schools (IBES) in relation to their impact on instructional quality. Anchored on Transformational Leadership, Instructional Leadership, and Distributed Leadership theories, the research employed a descriptive-quantitative design involving 80 respondents—school heads and teachers—selected through purposive sampling. Data were gathered using a validated and reliable survey questionnaire measuring curriculum leadership domains (planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation) and instructional quality indicators (lesson delivery, teaching strategies, assessment practices). Statistical treatments included frequency, percentage, weighted mean, and Pearson’s r correlation. Findings revealed that school heads generally demonstrated a high extent of curriculum leadership practices, particularly in facilitating collaborative planning, aligning curriculum with DepEd standards, and conducting systematic monitoring and evaluation. Instructional quality was likewise rated high, with strengths in varied teaching strategies and assessment practices, though certain areas required enhancement. Correlation analysis indicated a significant positive relationship between curriculum leadership practices and instructional quality, suggesting that stronger leadership engagement in curriculum matters contributes to more effective teaching and learning. The study highlights the importance of sustained professional development for school heads, the integration of shared leadership approaches, and the strategic use of monitoring data to inform instructional improvements. It recommends policy support for reducing non-instructional burdens on school leaders, fostering teacher-leader collaboration, and enhancing leadership preparation programs tailored to the integrated school context. The results provide empirical evidence for strengthening curriculum leadership as a lever for improving instructional quality in IBES across the Philippines.
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined operationally to provide clarity and ensure a consistent understanding of the variables and concepts used in this study on curriculum leadership practices of school heads in Integrated Basic Education Schools and their impacts on instructional quality. These definitions are based on the specific scope and focus of the research, as they apply to the respondents, setting, and methodology of the study.
1. Curriculum Leadership Practices. In this study, curriculum leadership practices refer to the strategic actions and decisions of school heads in planning, implementing, and monitoring the curriculum to ensure alignment with national standards and responsiveness to the needs of the school community. This includes setting clear learning goals, ensuring resource availability, guiding teachers in lesson preparation, and regularly evaluating curriculum delivery for continuous improvement.
2. School Head. The term school head refers to the principal or designated leader responsible for managing the operations of an Integrated Basic Education School. For this study, a school head’s role includes supervising curriculum execution, guiding teacher performance, and ensuring that instructional quality meets DepEd standards. The term is limited to those formally appointed to lead IBES within the research locale.
3. Integrated Basic Education Schools (IBES). Integrated Basic Education Schools are institutions that offer both elementary and junior high school levels under one administrative structure. In this study, IBES serve as the setting where curriculum leadership practices are examined, particularly in managing the continuity and coherence of instruction from lower to higher grade levels.
4. Curriculum Planning. Curriculum planning, in the context of this study, refers to the systematic process undertaken by school heads to organize, sequence, and allocate learning competencies and resources in alignment with DepEd’s K to 12 curriculum. It includes setting academic priorities, coordinating subject coverage, and scheduling activities to ensure effective lesson delivery.
5. Curriculum Implementation. Curriculum implementation is the process by which the planned curriculum is delivered in classrooms. For this study, it involves the school head’s role in supporting teachers, ensuring that instructional activities adhere to planned competencies, and providing the necessary materials and conditions for teaching and learning to occur effectively.
6. Curriculum Monitoring and Evaluation. This term refers to the systematic assessment of how the curriculum is being carried out in the school. In the study, it includes school heads observing classes, reviewing lesson plans, assessing student outputs, and using feedback to make necessary adjustments for improving instructional delivery and alignment with learning standards.
7. Instructional Quality. Instructional quality in this research pertains to the overall effectiveness of teaching as reflected in lesson delivery, use of varied teaching strategies, and sound assessment practices. It is measured through the perceptions of teachers and school heads, focusing on how these practices contribute to learner understanding and achievement.
8. Lesson Delivery. Lesson delivery is defined here as the manner in which teachers present and explain lesson content to students. This includes clarity of explanations, engagement techniques, pacing, and ability to connect lessons to learners’ prior knowledge. The study measures how leadership practices of school heads influence the quality of lesson delivery.
9. Teaching Strategies. Teaching strategies refer to the methods, techniques, and approaches teachers use to facilitate student learning. In this study, it includes both traditional and innovative methods encouraged or supported by school heads through leadership and professional development initiatives.
10. Assessment Practices. Assessment practices are the various tools and methods teachers use to measure student learning and provide feedback. This study looks at how school heads, through their curriculum leadership, influence the alignment of assessment with learning objectives, the variety of assessments used, and the integration of results into instructional improvement.
INTRODUCTION
The educational landscape continually evolves, shaped by shifting societal needs, technological advancements, and global goals for student learning. In many countries, the imperative to prepare students for the complexities of the 21st-century workplace has pushed educational systems toward greater integration, interdisciplinarity, and holistic development (Ralebese, Jita, & Badmus, 2025). In this context, conversations around curriculum leadership have become central: who designs, directs, and stewards the curriculum ultimately influences how instruction unfolds in classrooms, how teachers are supported, and how learners are empowered. Understanding curriculum leadership not merely as administrative oversight but as dynamic, instructional guidance underscores its significance in shaping educational quality at scale.
Within schools, the institution’s leadership—particularly the school head or principal—plays a pivotal role in mediating between policy intent and classroom realities. As custodians of curriculum implementation, school heads must align national or regional standards with local nuances (Chabalala & Naidoo, 2021). Their leadership practices influence teacher development, resource allocation, collaborative culture, and the ongoing adjustments that keep instruction relevant, rigorous, and inclusive. In many systems, the role of school leaders has shifted from managerial to instructional leadership, signaling the recognition that student outcomes are closely tied to the quality of curriculum enactment and the environment cultivated in schools.
Globally, international bodies such as UNESCO and rigorous comparative educational research highlight that strong curriculum leadership correlates with improved instructional quality and learning outcomes. In countries across Europe, North America, and Asia, principals who engage in curriculum design, observe classrooms, mentor teachers, and facilitate professional learning communities are more likely to foster sustained school improvement (Dellomas & Deri, 2022). In Finland, for example, national curriculum frameworks are designed with input from school-based leaders to ensure adaptability and relevance. In Canada and Australia, school leaders often act as lead learners themselves—modeling best practices, coaching teachers, and fostering reflective instruction. These leadership practices stimulate collective responsibility and adaptability in the face of shifting educational demands, from digital literacy to inclusive pedagogy.
Moreover, empirical studies worldwide reveal that curriculum leadership is associated not only with technical compliance but with innovation. In Singapore, curriculum leaders in schools spearhead inquiry-based learning and collaborative planning sessions, fostering a culture of continuous improvement (Gading, 2024). Research in the United Kingdom suggests that head teachers who prioritize distributed leadership—empowering department heads and teacher leaders in curriculum decision-making—report higher levels of instructional coherence and better student engagement (Bellibas, Gumus, & Liu, 2021). Equally, in parts of Latin America and Africa where educational systems are decentralized, effective school-level leadership helps mediate disparities in resource availability and teacher preparation, reinforcing equitable access to quality instruction.
At the same time, global trends like the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the need for agile curriculum adaptations. School leaders worldwide had to manage transitions to remote learning, redesign assessment practices, and support teachers navigating new pedagogies (Kemethofer, Helm, & Warwas, 2025). The most effective school heads were those who demonstrated curriculum leadership through clear communication, swift curricular redesign, ongoing teacher support, and attentiveness to learner well being. As a result, attention to curriculum leadership in policy circles has grown, with frameworks emerging that emphasize leadership not as static policy execution, but as iterative, responsive practice geared toward instructional excellence.
Yet despite these global insights, challenges remain in translating curriculum leadership theory into consistent, high-impact practice across diverse contexts. The relationship between leadership routines, teacher capacity, and instructional outcomes remains complex (Abonyi & Sofo, 2021). Questions persist about how school heads balance managerial tasks with instructional leadership, how they engage teachers meaningfully, and how they navigate constraints such as resources, class size, and external accountability pressures. These global patterns underscore the need for context-specific studies that can illuminate how curriculum leadership actually plays out in practice, and how it can be strengthened to uplift instructional quality.
In the Philippines, curriculum leadership practices are embedded within a robust framework of laws, memorandums, and reform programs designed to elevate basic education. Republic Acts such as RA 9155 (Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001) and RA 10533 (Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013) define the roles of school heads and local school boards in crafting and implementing curriculum. DepEd issuances—including DepEd Order No. 21 s. 2019 initiating the K to 12 curriculum review, and DepEd Order No. 8 s. 2020 mandating a rationalized organization structure—directly call for school heads to lead curriculum alignment and deployment (Lambrecht, Lenkeit, & Hartmann, 2022). These national directives situate school heads as key agents in ensuring that teaching practices reflect the K to 12 learning competencies, contextualized content, and varied assessment modalities.
Moreover, the Department of Education has rolled out programs like the School-Based Management (SBM) and Performance-Based Bonus system, both of which incentivize school heads to foster quality instruction and monitor school performance indicators. Through the Schools Division Office, they receive training and technical assistance in curriculum supervision, monitoring classroom implementation, and facilitating professional development sessions (Shava & Heystek, 2021). Meanwhile, local government units and School Boards oversee adaptation of instructional programs and ensure resources are provided. Together, these regulatory frameworks and support structures aim to strengthen curriculum leadership as a lever to improve learning outcomes across elementary and junior high education.
At the school level, principals in the Philippines are expected to conduct regular Learning Action Cell sessions, oversee preparation and implementation of School Improvement Plans (SIPs), and facilitate collaborative curriculum planning among teachers. These practices reflect the DepEd’s emphasis on instructional leadership, moving beyond administrative tasks toward curriculum-centered leadership (Sanjani, 2024). Memorandums also require school heads to collect and analyze classroom observation data, guide remedial or enriching interventions, and align school-level initiatives with division and regional assessment data. In urban and rural contexts alike, school heads are tasked with bridging policy, teaching, and community engagement to ensure cohesive curriculum delivery.
These mandates and programs exist within a broader national priority to improve learner outcomes as measured in national assessments like the National Achievement Test (NAT), the Basic Education Exit Profile, and various international benchmarks (Abella, Kilag, Andrin, & Taniza, 2024). The Philippine government continues to launch initiatives to address gaps in instructional quality, especially in remote and under-resourced areas. Despite these frameworks, variations persist among schools in how curriculum leadership is enacted and how these practices translate to improved teacher performance and student learning. Some school heads demonstrate strong facilitative leadership, while others remain constrained by managerial burdens or limited professional development opportunities. The Philippines also faces systemic challenges including teacher shortages, high pupil–teacher ratios, logistical issues in implementing multiple learning modalities, and variable access to technology (Darling-Hammond, 2021). These factors complicate efforts to sustain consistent curriculum leadership across regions and school types. Although policy and legal structures articulate the responsibilities and expectations for school heads, the extent to which these translate into effective leadership practice, and consequently instructional quality, remains under-examined in the Philippine context.
At the local level—for instance in Integrated Basic Education Schools (IBES), which serve both elementary and junior high grade levels—the role of the school head is particularly demanding. They must oversee a wider span of grade levels, multiple curricular subjects, and diverse teacher teams (Gore, Rosser, Jaremus, & Miller, 2024). Managing curriculum coherence across kindergarten through Grade 10 requires intentional planning, ongoing teacher collaboration, and monitoring across different stages of learner development. Limited research has explored how school heads in such integrated contexts balance curriculum continuity, teacher support, and instructional evaluation across these broader responsibilities.
Within this local landscape, disparities emerge based on geographic location, school size, and resource levels. Some IBES benefit from strong administrative support, engaged teaching staff, and active community stakeholders, enabling robust curriculum leadership practices (Puruwita, Jamian, & Abdul Aziz, 2022). Others face constraints—insufficient mentoring for teachers, limited time for planning, and heavy non-instructional duties—that limit their ability to exercise strategic curriculum leadership. These variations suggest the need for localized inquiry into how curriculum leadership unfolds in IBES and how it affects instruction in real classrooms.
Given the global and national imperatives for curriculum leadership to drive instructional quality, the IBES context offers a unique vantage point to study its impact. Integrated schools operate at the intersection of elementary and secondary curriculum frameworks, raising questions about continuity of pedagogy, progression of learning, and alignment of standards (Ruloff & Petko, 2025). Consequently, studying curriculum leadership in these settings can yield insights into how school heads orchestrate coherent instructional approaches and support teachers across multi grade levels. Despite policy frameworks and the recognized importance of instructional leadership, there is limited empirical research examining how school heads in Philippine IBES enact curriculum leadership, and how this, in turn, affects instructional quality in classrooms. There is a need to understand the specific leadership practices, facilitation of teacher learning, monitoring of curriculum implementation, and adjustments based on performance data. Moreover, the research gap encompasses identification of barriers and enablers that affect leadership impact in integrated settings, offering evidence to inform both policy refinement and practical interventions.
Therefore, undertaking a study focused on Curriculum Leadership Practices of School Heads in Integrated Basic Education Schools and their Impacts on Instructional Quality is timely and essential. Such research can illuminate the ways in which leadership translates national curriculum mandates and local needs into effective, coherent instruction; identify supports and constraints faced by school heads; and offer evidence-based recommendations for enhancing leadership preparation, policy guidance, and school-level capacity to uplift instructional quality in IBES across the Philippines.
see PDF attachment for more information