Return to site




· Volume III Issue I


This research was conceptualized to determine the level of instructional leadership of respondent-department heads of the secondary schools in Pangasinan Division II. The descriptive-correlational research design was utilized to assess the instructional leadership capacities of the department heads.  Respondents were sixty-five department heads from the mother high schools of the three congressional districts of Pangasinan Division II.T-test for independent samples, Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) with Scheffe as PostHoc Test, Spearman Chi-Square were used to treat the data statistically.  Findings revealed that the profile variables such as age, civil status, highest educational attainment, position, area of specialization and number of hours of relevant trainings are not a source of variation as to the level of instructional leadership of the respondent-department heads.However, instructional leadership of department heads is influenced by their sex and length of service respectively. The department heads are very satisfactory in their instructional leadership in the following areas such as assessment for learning, developing programs and/or adapting existing programs, implementing programfor instructional improvement and instructional supervision. However, it is notable that the department heads have a low rating on developing/adapting research-based school program. In conclusion, this implies that the instructional leadership along Developing/Adapting Programsthrough research needs sound and functional guidelines to improve. Hence, it signifies the need for the department heads as administrators to actively involve themselvesin the conduct of research. From this, the Strategic Development Plan was constructed for the department heads. It serves as the planning guide in order to achieve the desired outcomes of an enhanced research- based Instructional Leadership.

Keywords: instructional leadership, correlates, strategic development plan, research-based school program


The Philippine Development Plan which was published by the National Economic and Development Authority of the Philippines in 2017 details the country’s aspirations for the next five years. This plan envisions the Philippines becoming an upper-middle income country by 2022, hence, the key element to be able to attain this as stated in WENR World Education News + review is human capital development which is the force behind various political reforms over the past years.

UNESCO (2008) stated that recent education reforms have sought to boost enrollment levels, graduation rates, and many years of schooling in elementary and secondary education, and to improve the quality of higher education. Many of these reforms were adopted against a backdrop of declining educational standards in the Philippine education system during the first decade of the 21st century.

 Today, improving school leadership ranks high on the list of priorities for school reform.  In a detailed 2010 survey, school and district administrators, policymakers, and others declared principal leadership as among the most pressing matters on a list of issues in public school education. Teacher quality stood above everything else withan Administrator’s leadership as next in rank(National Association of Elementary School Principals NAESP, 2014)

It is generally believed that the achievement of the school is affected by the administrator’s inadequacy in performing his role as an academic leader. Some test results reveal that many schools underachieve in terms of students’ academic performance. Such underachievement may be attributed to the weak supervisory functions of the administrators. 

Moreover, the heads and administrators as educational leaders are both administrators and supervisors. They organize, develop, and implement the educational program. They supervise the planning and development of the school curricula. They direct and inspire people to work hard for the attainment of the institutional goal and educational philosophy. However, problems in all aspects of educational governance are inevitable. Hence, an in-depth appreciation, understanding of the nature of academic leadership of administrators will be an excellent and invincible weapon in overcoming any hindrances or obstacles to growth and development in the educational system.

According to EDCOM report (1991), there are two (2) main reasons why secondary schools fail to teach the competence the average citizen needs to become responsible, productive, and self-fulfilling. One reason is poor management of the school by their administrators. (EDCOM, 1991). Last January 3, 2020, Manila Bulletin reports that senators push for the revival of EDCOM. Senator Angara lamented that years have passed since the EDCOM report came out and the report still showed that the same problems were reported since EDCOM report of 1991. No significant improvement in Philippine Education is seen over the years.

see PDF attachment for more information