Factors Affecting School Leadership Collegiality: Basis For School Organizational Climate Enhancements

Factors Affecting School Leadership Collegiality: Basis For School Organizational Climate Enhancements

John Mark F. Pueblo

Central Philippine Adventist College, Murcia, Negros Occidental, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0277

Received: 19 May 2025; Accepted: 22 May 2025; Published: 20 June 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examines school leadership collegiality within public secondary schools in a selected municipality in Negros Occidental, Philippines. Drawing on a descriptive-advanced correlational survey approach, the research explores the relationships between teacher collegiality, participatory school management, and school leadership collegiality. Findings reveal a moderately warm collegial environment among teachers, with observed strengths in collaboration yet opportunities for enhanced joint planning and assessment. Advisory School Council (ASC) functionality demonstrates moderate effectiveness, particularly in larger schools with male leadership. School leadership enjoys moderately warm collegiality with teachers, yet fostering a more collaborative spirit and prioritizing career development opportunities could further enhance school innovation and growth.

Additionally, fostering teacher collegiality and a functional advisory school council significantly improves school leadership collegiality, though the influence is moderated by principal gender and school size. Recommendations are provided for stakeholders to promote collaborative leadership practices and effective school governance.

Objective: This study aims to investigate the factors influencing school leadership collegiality within public secondary schools in a selected town in Negros Occidental, Philippines. It specifically explores how teacher collegiality and participatory school administration, particularly in the context of a functioning School Governing Council (SGC), contribute to shaping school leadership collegiality. The primary objectives of this research are as follows:

1. Examine the current level of school leadership collegiality within public secondary schools in the selected town of Negros Occidental.
2. Identify the key factors influencing school leadership collegiality, focusing on the roles of teacher collegiality and participatory school administration facilitated by a functional SGC.
3. Analyze the relationships between teacher collegiality, participatory school administration, and school leadership collegiality. This analysis will explore potential mediating or moderating effects of these factors.
4. Provide empirical evidence and practical insights to inform educational leaders, policymakers, and school practitioners. These insights will be used to develop strategies for enhancing school leadership collegiality within the selected town’s public secondary schools.

Research Implications: This research project serves as a springboard for the student researcher’s future endeavors. To maximize the valuable skills and connections gained, the researcher can leverage their data analysis, critical thinking, and research methodology expertise by taking advanced statistics courses, participating in research conferences to present findings, or even co-authoring a publication in a relevant journal. Additionally, the network of local stakeholders developed during the research process is a valuable asset. By staying connected, reaching out periodically, attending relevant industry events, and exploring potential mentorship opportunities, the researcher fosters long-term relationships that can open doors to future collaborations and professional opportunities.

Originality/Value: This research lays a strong foundation for future exploration of school leadership collegiality. To expand the existing knowledge base, future researchers can consider comparative studies across diverse contexts, such as rural versus urban schools or varying school sizes. Additionally, in-depth investigations into specific aspects like the influence of principal gender or leadership style on teacher collaboration would be valuable. By pursuing these avenues of inquiry, researchers can inform educational reform initiatives and contribute to improved school leadership practices across all educational settings.

Keywords: Teacher Collegiality, School Leadership Collegiality, Advisory School Council (ASC) Functionality, Organizational Climate

INTRODUCTION

This chapter serves as the foundation for the current investigation, providing a thorough examination of factors influencing school leadership collegiality. It delves into the significance of this topic and outlines the research questions that guide the exploration. The context and background of the study would be established by situating the problem within the contemporary educational landscape (Gronlund, 2020).

Background of the Study

Effective school leadership is paramount for fostering positive learning environments (Abanilla, 2018; Pellicer & Quintos, 2017). A crucial aspect of this leadership is collegiality, which emphasizes collaboration (Gonzales & Morales, 2016), shared decision-making (Mendoza & Atienza, 2020), and a strong sense of school community (Gulmatico et al., 2018). This study explores factors influencing school leadership collegiality in public high schools of the Philippines, focusing on teachers’ collegiality and participatory school management (Gervacio & Tuanquin, 2020). Collegial leadership refers to the extent school leaders engage in collaborative relationships with teachers, fostering shared responsibility and participation in decision- making (Javier & Labrador, 2021; Ocampo et al., 2019). Research consistently links collegiality to positive outcomes like increased teacher morale (Santos & Caballero, 2021), job satisfaction (Gonzales & Morales, 2016), professional development opportunities (Dimabuyu & Gonzales, 2017), and ultimately, improved student achievement (San Antonio & Villaruel, 2020). Understanding factors that influence collegial leadership is vital for establishing effective schools and enhancing educational outcomes (Magno & Miguel, 2018). Teachers’ collegiality significantly shapes school leadership collegiality (Sagun & Tiamzon, 2021; Güven, 2020). Collaborative teachers build trust, share resources, and collectively address challenges (Vidal & Olipas, 2021; Bautista et al., 2020). A collegial teacher environment can encourage school leaders to adopt a more participatory leadership style (Pagcaliwagan et al., 2020). Conversely, a lack of teacher collegiality may hinder collaborative relationships and impede a collegial school culture (Managuit, 2019; Lim & de Vera, 2019). Participatory school management, another factor influencing collegial leadership, involves including stakeholders, particularly teachers, in decision-making (Santos & Rodriguez, 2018; Gonzales & Morales, 2016). This empowers teachers, fosters engagement, and recognizes their expertise (Gorospe & Espinosa, 2018; Duque, 2017). School leaders who embrace participatory practices create a sense of shared ownership, trust, and a supportive environment that promotes collaboration (Güven, 2020; Balasabas & dela Cruz, 2016).

While existing research explores factors influencing school leadership collegiality, a knowledge gap exists regarding the specific factors shaping it within public high schools in a selected Philippine town. Bridging this gap is crucial, as it provides a local perspective on the factors influencing collegial leadership, considering the unique characteristics and challenges of the specific educational landscape. This study aims to investigate the relationship between teachers’ collegiality, participatory school management, and school leadership collegiality in public high schools within the researcher’s local town. The findings can inform educational leaders and policymakers on strategies to enhance collegial leadership, ultimately fostering positive school climates and improved educational outcomes.

Statement of the Problem

This study delves on measuring the degree of organizational climate in terms of school leadership collegiality among government owned secondary schools in a selected municipality in Negros Occidental. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What are the profile characteristics in terms of:

a. school head’s gender, and

b. type of school employed?

2. What are the levels of teacher collegiality for the entire population and when grouped by school head’s gender and school type?
3. What is the extent of Advisory School Council functionality for the entire population and when grouped by school head’s gender and school type?
4. What are the magnitudes of organizational climate in terms of school leadership collegiality for the entire population and when grouped by school head’s gender and school type?
5. Are there significant differences in teacher collegiality (TC), Advisory School Council (ASC) functionality, and organizational climate in terms of school leadership collegiality (SLC) when grouped by school head’s gender and school size?
6. Do teacher collegiality and Advisory School Council (ASC) functionality significantly affect organizational climate in terms of school leadership collegiality (SLC)?
7. Do school head’s gender and respondents’ type of school moderate the effect of teacher collegiality (TC) and Advisory School Council functionality (ASC) on school leadership collegiality (SLC)?
8. What school organizational climate enhancement program can be designed?

Hypotheses

Based upon the inferential statements as detailed above, the following null hypotheses are formed:

1. There are no significant differences in the levels of teacher collegiality (TC), extent of Advisory School Council (ASC) functionality, and magnitude of organizational climate in terms of school leadership collegiality (SLC) when grouped by school leader’s gender and school size.
2. Teacher collegiality and Advisory School Council (ASC) functionality do not have a significant effect on organizational climate in terms of school leadership collegiality (SLC).
3. School leader’s gender and respondents’ type of school do not moderate the effect of teacher collegiality (TC) and Advisory School Council functionality (ASC) on the magnitude of organizational climate in terms of school leadership collegiality (SLC).

Purpose of the Study

This study aims to investigate the factors influencing school leadership collegiality within public secondary schools in a selected town in Negros Occidental, Philippines. It specifically explores how teacher collegiality and participatory school administration, particularly in the context of a functioning School Governing Council (SGC), contribute to shaping school leadership collegiality. The primary objectives of this research are as follows:

1. Examine the current level of school leadership collegiality within public secondary schools in the selected town of Negros Occidental.
2. Identify the key factors influencing school leadership collegiality, focusing on the roles of teacher collegiality and participatory school administration facilitated by a functional SGC.
3. Analyze the relationships between teacher collegiality, participatory school administration, and school leadership collegiality. This analysis will explore potential mediating or moderating effects of these factors.
4. Provide empirical evidence and practical insights to inform educational leaders, policymakers, and school practitioners. These insights will be used to develop strategies for enhancing school leadership collegiality within the selected town’s public secondary schools.

Scope and Limitations

This study investigates the factors influencing school leadership collegiality within public secondary schools in a selected town in Negros Occidental, Philippines. It specifically focuses on the roles of teacher collegiality and participatory school administration facilitated by a functional School Governing Council (SGC).

Scope

Geographic Scope. The research is confined to a selected town in Negros Occidental, encompassing medium, large, and very large government-owned secondary schools. The town’s selection was based on specific criteria: (1) Availability of public secondary schools, (2) Willingness of schools and stakeholders to participate, (3) Researcher’s employment location, (4) Researcher safety considerations.

Participants. The study involves various stakeholders within the public secondary schools: school leaders (principals, heads, or administrators) – those being evaluated, teachers, School Governing Council (SGC) members – another evaluation body.

Purposive sampling ensures representation from different schools and key stakeholders involved in decision-making processes.

Variables. The study primarily focuses on two key independent variables: (1) Teacher Collegiality: This refers to the collaborative relationships and interactions among teachers within the school, (2) Participatory School Administration: This involves shared decision-making processes that include the involvement of various stakeholders, particularly with a functional SGC, (3) The dependent variable is School Leadership Collegiality, measured as the school head’s collegiality as perceived by the teachers they employ. This collegiality is evaluated based on three dimensions: support and trust, collective spirit, and generativity.

Data Collection. A survey approach was employed for data collection.

Quantitative data were gathered through questionnaires administered to teachers, with school leadership approval. These questionnaires aim to measure teacher perceptions of school leadership collegiality, teacher collegiality, functionality of the School Governing Council. Surveys were conducted within the school campus during official school days, with permission from the school or district management (Department of Education). Data collection was scheduled for the last week of April 2023.

Limitations

Limitations. The findings may not be generalizable to other regions or contexts due to the study’s focus on a single town in Negros Occidental, Philippines. Self-reported perceptions, which can be susceptible to response bias, are the basis of the study. The study does not assess the actual impact of school leadership collegiality on student outcomes.

Significance of the Study

The findings of the current research are expected to provide valuable assistance to some individuals in the education and other related organizations. The following individuals and/or groups maybe benefitted from this academic endeavor. Ample information are provided to serve as bases for further intervention or action plan. Thus, this study is deemed beneficial to the following:

Student Researcher. (1) Academic Contribution: This research allows the student researcher to enrich the existing body of knowledge regarding school leadership collegiality in the Philippine setting (Gardner, 2018). By conducting empirical research in a specific locale, the student has the opportunity to generate insights that fill gaps in literature and expand understanding in the field of educational leadership (Kaplan & Owings, 2017). (2) Practical Implications: Findings from this study can offer practical recommendations for enhancing collaborative decision-making processes within schools (Dimmock & Walker, 2018). Implementing evidence-based strategies can lead to improved school performance and teacher effectiveness, aligning with broader educational goals (Sergiovanni, 2018). (3) Local Relevance: Conducting research within a specific town in Negros Occidental allows for tailored interventions that address local needs and challenges (Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2018). This local relevance enhances the applicability and significance of the study within the community (Leithwood et al., 2017). (4) Professional Development: Engaging in this research project provides valuable skills for the student’s future career as a researcher or educational leader (Harris & Muijs, 2017). Skills such as data analysis and critical thinking are essential for effective leadership in education (Day & Leithwood, 2017). (5) Networking and Collaboration: Through this research, the student researcher can establish connections and collaborations with local stakeholders, enriching their professional network and paving the way for future opportunities (Smylie & Hart, 2017).

District Supervisors. (1) Informed Decision Making: The study’s findings can inform District Supervisors’ decisions and strategies to enhance school leadership collegiality across the district (Robinson et al., 2019). (2) Policy Development: Insights from the research can guide the development of policies that promote collaborative leadership practices and support effective school governance (Spillane et al., 2017). (3) Professional Development: Engaging with the research process enhances District Supervisors’ knowledge and skills in educational leadership, facilitating ongoing professional growth (Day & Leithwood, 2017). (4) Monitoring and Evaluation: The study’s outcomes can serve as benchmarks for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving school leadership collegiality (Leithwood & Louis, 2017). (5) Networking and Collaboration: Participating in the study fosters collaboration and knowledge-sharing among District Supervisors, contributing to their professional development (Smylie & Hart, 2017).

Principals. (1) Enhanced Leadership Practices: Principals can utilize the study’s findings to enhance their leadership practices and foster a culture of collaboration within their schools (Harris & Muijs, 2017). (2) Improved School Climate: Addressing factors influencing leadership collegiality can contribute to creating a positive and inclusive school climate, benefiting both staff and students (Robinson et al., 2019). (3) Professional Development: Engaging with the research process enables principals to enhance their research literacy and critical thinking skills (Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2018). (4) Networking and Collaboration: Participation in the study facilitates networking and collaboration among principals, promoting continuous learning and improvement (Leithwood et al., 2017).

ASC Members. (1) Informed Participation: ASC members can leverage the study’s findings to actively contribute to participatory school governance and advocate for inclusive decision-making processes (Dimmock & Walker, 2018). (2) Professional Development: Engaging with the research process enhances ASC members’ knowledge and skills in educational leadership and governance (Sergiovanni, 2018). (3) Networking and Collaboration: Participating in the study provides ASC members with opportunities to collaborate with other stakeholders and share best practices (Spillane et al., 2017).

Future Researchers. (1) Building on Existing Knowledge: The study contributes to the existing body of knowledge, providing a foundation for future research on school leadership collegiality (Harris & Muijs, 2017). (2) Informing Educational Reform: Insights from the study can inform policy decisions and educational reform initiatives aimed at improving school leadership practices (Leithwood & Louis, 2017). (3) Comparative Analysis: Future researchers can build upon this study by conducting comparative analyses across different contexts, further enriching our understanding of leadership collegiality (Robinson et al., 2019).

Definition of Terms

This section in a thesis paper serves to establish a shared understanding of key concepts, eliminate ambiguity, enhance research validity, and facilitate future research and collaboration within the academic community. In order to facilitate better understanding on part of the readers, important terms in the study are defined conceptually and/or operationally.

Advisory school council conceptually refers to a collaborative body consisting of representatives from various stakeholders within a school community, including parents, teachers, administrators, and community members. The council serves as a platform for communication and consultation, providing advice and recommendations to the school administration on matters related to school policies, programs, and initiatives. Advisory School Councils aim to foster partnerships between schools and their communities, ensuring that decision-making processes incorporate diverse perspectives and address the needs and interests of all stakeholders involved (Hopkins & Lin, 2018; Henderson & Mapp, 2017; Haydon, Mancini, & Campbell, 2017).

Operationally, this term refers to a body of elected stakeholders that participate in school’s decision making with teachers and school heads in order to contribute to school’s balanced leadership via collective decision making processes. An advisory school council is a collaborative body consisting of representatives from various stakeholders within a school community, including parents, teachers, administrators, and community members. The council serves as a platform for communication and consultation, providing advice and recommendations to the school administration on matters related to school policies, programs, and initiatives. Advisory school councils aim to foster partnerships between schools and their communities, ensuring that decision-making processes incorporate diverse perspectives and address the needs and interests of all stakeholders involved (Hopkins, & Lin, 2018; Henderson, & Mapp, 2017; Haydon, Mancini, &Campbell, 2017). Locally, it is termed by the Department of Education as School Governing Body or Council. This ASC or SGC functions as a structure for shared governance and a feedback mechanism at the school level. It also serves as an overarching consultative and coordinating body for all committees, associations, and organizations in schools as described by DepEd and as mandated by the Department Orders. A school governing body in the context of the Department of Education in the Philippines refers to a collective entity responsible for the governance and management of a school. It is composed of representatives from various stakeholders, including parents, teachers, school administrators, community members, and sometimes students. The primary role of the school governing body is to provide strategic direction, support, and oversight to ensure the effective functioning of the school and the attainment of its educational goals (DepEd, 2018). In this study, DepEd’s definition of School Governing Body will be used in define ASC or Advisory School Council.

Collegiality refers to a collaborative and mutually supportive relationship among educational leaders and teachers within a school setting. It encompasses shared values, trust, respect, and open communication that enable school leaders and teachers to work together effectively, fostering a sense of collective responsibility and promoting a positive school climate (Leithwood et al., 2020; Fuller & Young, 2019; Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2017; Kutsyuruba & Walker, 2016).

Operationally, it refers to the cooperative relationship among teachers and school heads in the research locale. Moreover, this is divided into teacher and school head collegiality and was measured using different data gathering instruments. Teacher collegiality was measured using TCS questionnaire (adapted) and school leadership collegiality is measured using SLC questionnaire (self-constructed).

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expectations, and identities that societies assign to individuals based on their perceived sex. It encompasses a range of characteristics, attributes, and roles that are traditionally associated with femininity and masculinity, shaped by cultural, social, and psychological factors (Connell, 2019; Butler, 2016).

In this study, it refers to being male of female of teachers and principals as respondents of this study. It is identified by their selection of options that are situated in the research questionnaires.

Organizational climate refers to the overall atmosphere, attitudes, perceptions, and shared experiences within an organization that influence the behavior, motivation, and satisfaction of its members. It represents the collective perceptions of employees regarding the working conditions, interpersonal relationships, communication patterns, leadership styles, and organizational values within their organization (James & Sells, 2019; Pescosolido & Perry, 2017).

Operationally, organizational climate refers to the shared perception or impression that teachers and school heads have of the working environment and culture of the organization they work for. Such is limited to parameters like teacher and school heads’ collegiality levels or degrees.

Participatory school leadership conceptually refers to a collaborative approach in which school leaders actively involve teachers, staff, students, parents, and other stakeholders in decision-making processes, fostering a sense of shared responsibility and ownership over the school’s vision, goals, and practices (Harris, 2018; DeMatthews & Capper, 2017).

In this the study, the term refers to the presence of Advisory school council as an active counterpart of the school head in the management and leadership process execution among government owned secondary schools in a selected town in Negros Occidental.

School leadership collegiality refers to a collaborative and supportive relationship among school leaders, characterized by mutual respect, shared goals, and a commitment to professional growth and development (Townsend & Adams, 2019; Pashiardis & Aligieri, 2018). Operationally, school leadership collegiality refers to the cooperative and person approach leadership of the school heads in this research. It is measured using a self- constructed instrument with concentrations in generativity, trust with support, and collective spirit. It is measured using survey method wherein the teachers or educators of a school evaluated the collegiality of leadership by evaluating their school heads performances in terms of collegiality constructs.

Size of school refers to the number of enrolled students in a particular educational institution, categorized into small, medium, large, and very large based on the number of employed teachers among secondary schools (DepEd, 2022). Operationally, size of schools refers to school category in terms of the number of employed teachers among secondary schools, especially those that are owned and operated by the government under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education.

Pertinent Department Order grouped such into small, medium, large, and very large school with specification on the minimum and maximum number to teachers to be identified or marked in such a category. Small schools in provincial category for secondary schools have 1 to 10 teachers. Medium schools have 11 – 25 teachers. Large schools have 26 to 100 teachers. Very large or mega schools have more than 100 employed teachers.

Teacher collegiality refers to a collaborative and supportive relationship among teachers within a school or educational institution, involving mutual respect, shared goals, and a culture of collaboration and professional development (Opfer & Pedder, 2019; Bryk & Schneider, 2017; Little, 2016).

Operationally, teacher collegiality refers to the cooperative relationship among teachers and school heads in the research locale. It is measured using the Teacher Collegiality Scale (TCS). The adapted instrument has seven (7) dimensions/components of collegiality among secondary school teachers: demonstrating mutual support and trust, observing one another teaching, joint planning and assessment, sharing ideas and expertise, teaching each other, and sharing resources.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study’s theoretical framework was constructed to analyze the influence of collegial leadership practices on the organizational climate within government secondary schools (Littleton, 2017). It outlines the key concepts, theories, and their interrelationships that guided the investigation.

Three central concepts were central to this research: (1) School Leadership Collegiality (SLC). This refers to a collaborative leadership style where school leaders shared decision-making power with teachers. This fostered a sense of shared responsibility and ownership within the school (Leithwood & Seashore Louis, 2018); (2) Teacher Collegiality (TC). This concept highlighted the collaborative culture among teachers. It was characterized by open communication, mutual respect, and a willingness to work together to improve teaching and learning practices (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2018); (3). Organizational Climate. This referred to the overall quality of the work environment within a school. It encompassed factors like trust, collaboration, shared values, and teacher well-being (Hoy & Moeller, 2017).

Two key theories underpinned this research: (1) Distributed Leadership Theory and (2) The Social Exchange Theory.

Distributed Leadership Theory

Distributed leadership theory challenges the traditional view of the school principal as the sole leader. Developed by scholars like James Spillane (2004), this theory posits that leadership is not a singular entity but rather a collective endeavor shared among various stakeholders within a school. The theory’s origins lie in the study of cognition. Building on the work of Edwin Hutchins (1995), who explored distributed cognition on naval ships, Spillane (2004) argued that leadership, like knowledge, can be distributed across individuals and contexts. This perspective shifted the focus from the traits and behaviors of individual leaders to how leadership is enacted through interactions and collaboration among teachers, administrators, and even students (Spillane & Diamond, 2007).

At its core, distributed leadership theory emphasizes the importance of shared decision-making and collaborative practices within schools. When leadership is distributed through collegial interactions, it fosters a sense of ownership and teacher collaboration (Leithwood & Seashore Louis, 2012). This collaborative approach is believed to lead to improved teacher morale, increased innovation, and ultimately, better student outcomes (Bryer, 2017).

This theory’s key concepts and their interrelations are as follows: (1) Shared leadership. This core concept emphasizes the distribution of leadership responsibilities among various individuals within a school. This can include teachers taking on leadership roles in curriculum development, instructional coaching, or professional development initiatives (Spillane, 2004). (2) Collegial practices. Distributed leadership thrives on collaboration. Collegial practices, such as professional learning communities (PLCs) and shared planning time, provide opportunities for teachers to work together, share expertise, and make collective decisions (Leithwood & Seashore Louis, 2012). (3) Teacher empowerment. Distributing leadership empowers teachers by giving them ownership over their work and a voice in decision-making. This fosters a sense of professionalism and intrinsic motivation, leading to increased teacher engagement (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2019). (4) Improved student outcomes. The theory posits that a collaborative school culture fostered by distributed leadership leads to improved student learning. This can happen through enhanced teacher collaboration on instruction, a more responsive curriculum, and a stronger focus on student needs (Bryer, 2017).

In wrapping up, distributed leadership theory offers a compelling alternative to traditional leadership models in schools. By emphasizing shared decision-making, collaboration, and teacher empowerment, this theory has the potential to create a more dynamic and effective learning environment for all stakeholders (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2019).

Social Exchange Theory

On the other hand, Social exchange theory, developed by scholars like Richard Emerson (1962) and Peter Blau (1964), provides a valuable lens for understanding social interactions in educational settings. This theory, as applied by researchers like Russell Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005), suggests that individuals are motivated by a cost- benefit analysis in their social exchanges. In the context of schools, social exchange theory focuses on the interactions between teachers and school leadership. When collegial leadership practices are implemented, it creates a sense of trust and reciprocity among teachers (Bryk & Schneider, 2018). This reciprocity fosters a positive social exchange, leading to several key benefits for the school community.

This theory’s core concepts and their interconnections are: (1) Social exchange. This foundational concept emphasizes that individuals weigh the costs and benefits of their social interactions. In a school setting, teachers may consider the effort involved in collaboration (cost) versus the potential benefits of shared expertise or improved student outcomes (rewards). (2) Trust and reciprocity. When collegial leadership practices, such as shared decision-making or collaborative planning, are implemented, teachers feel valued and respected (Bryk & Schneider, 2018). This fosters trust and a sense of reciprocity, where teachers are more likely to contribute their time and expertise, knowing that the effort will be reciprocated by colleagues and leadership. (3) Increased collaboration. As trust and reciprocity build, teachers become more open to collaboration. This could involve working together on lesson plans, co-teaching classes, or sharing best practices through professional learning communities (PLCs) (Hopkins, 2017). (4) Higher morale and positive climate. Effective collaboration fostered by positive social exchange can lead to a more positive school climate. Teachers feel supported and valued, leading to increased job satisfaction and higher morale (Bryk & Schneider, 2018).

It is important to remember that social exchange theory offers valuable insights into how collegial leadership practices can cultivate a positive and collaborative school environment. By fostering trust, reciprocity, and a sense of shared purpose, social exchange can contribute to a thriving learning environment for both teachers and students.

As previously claimed, this research integrated both Distributed Leadership Theory and Social Exchange Theory to examine the relationship between school leadership collegiality, teacher collegiality, and organizational climate. The researchers posited that when school leaders engaged in collegial practices (sharing decision-making, fostering collaboration), it strengthened the social exchange between leaders and teachers (increased trust, reciprocity). This, in turn, led to increased teacher collegiality (collaboration, shared goals) and ultimately contributed to a more positive organizational climate (improved morale, teacher well-being). The framework was applied to analyze the data collected on school leadership practices, teacher collegiality, Advisory School Council (ASC) functionality (an indicator of school-community collaboration), and the overall organizational climate. By examining these factors through the lens of the chosen theories, the research gained a deeper understanding of how collegial leadership practices influenced the school environment.

This theoretical framework was particularly suitable for this research because it focused on the collaborative aspects of school leadership and their impact on the overall school climate. Distributed Leadership Theory provided a framework for understanding how shared decision-making and teacher involvement could lead to positive outcomes. Social Exchange Theory shed light on the motivational processes underlying collaboration within schools. By integrating these theories, the research explored the complex interplay between leadership practices, teacher collaboration, and the overall school environment.

TABLES

Respondents of the Study

 Table 2 School Leadership Collegiality Scaled Responses

Table 3 Legend of Teacher Collegiality Scaled Responses

Table 4 Answering Legend of the Advisory School Council Functionality Scaled Responses

Table 5 Profile Characteristics of Respondents

Table 6 Teacher Collegiality

Table 7 Advisory School Council Functionality

Table 8 Organizational Climate – School Leadership Collegiality

Table 9 Testing for Significant Differences

Post hoc analysis below shows that teachers in medium size and large size schools have significantly higher levels of collegiality compared to teacher employed in very large school.

Teacher Collegiality – Gender of School Head

Advisory School Council Functionality – School Size

Post hoc analysis below shows that ASC functionality in large size school is significantly higher compared to ASC functionality in very large school as perceived by teachers themselves.

Advisory School Council Functionality – Gender of School Head

School Leadership Collegiality – Type of School Size

Post hoc analysis below shows that SLC in large size school is significantly higher compared to SLC in very large school as perceived by teachers themselves.

School Leadership Collegiality – Gender of the School Head

Table 10 Hypotheses Testing Summary – Significant Influence Simple linear regression (TCSSLC)

Simple linear regression (ASCSLC)

Table 11 Hypotheses Testing Summary – Moderation Effects

Testing if gender moderates effects of TCS on SLC

ASC Functionality*Gender on SLC:

Testing if gender moderates effects of ASC Functionality on SLC

TCS*Size of School on SLC:

Testing if school size moderates effects of TCS on SLC:

ASC Functionality*Size of School on SLC:

Testing if school size moderates effects of ASC Functionality on SLC:

FIGURE TITLE

Conceptual Framework Shows That Organizational Climate In Terms Of Teacher Collegiality And School Leadership Collegiality Were Measured. Also, Participatory School Administration Through (Asc) Advisory School Council Was Measured. Profile Characteristics Of Teachers In Terms Of Gender Of School Head, And School Size Used As Moderator Variables In Determining The Ability Of Asc And Slc To Influence Levels Of Slc In The Locale Of The Study.

Schematic Diagram of the Study

METHODOLOGY

The effectiveness of a school hinges not only on its curriculum but also on the environment it fosters for educators. This chapter delves into the methodological framework employed to investigate how collegial leadership practices contribute to a positive school organizational climate. Here, the researcher unveils the research design, setting, participants, instruments utilized for data collection, and the statistical tools that will be harnessed to analyze the findings. This section serves a dual purpose: first, to equip readers with a clear understanding of the research journey undertaken; and second, to facilitate the evaluation of the study’s rigor, validity of results, and the replicability of the research process itself. By ensuring transparency in the methodology, the researcher aims to reinforce the overall credibility of this investigation.

Research Design

Research design serves as the roadmap for acquiring knowledge and addressing research questions with empirical data (Creswell, 2018). A meticulous design guarantees that methodologies align with research objectives, leading to appropriate data analysis (Chinn, 2019). This particular study adopted a descriptive-advanced correlational survey approach. It investigated the levels of school leadership collegiality, teacher collegiality, and Advisory School Council (ASC) functionality within secondary schools of a chosen municipality in Negros Occidental, Philippines. Furthermore, it explored the existence, characteristics, and strength of the relationship between teacher collegiality and ASC functionality, considering the influence of school leadership collegiality (Polit & Beck, 2017).

The suitability of the descriptive-advanced correlational design is emphasized by Aggarwal (as cited in Alias, 2013). This design centers on gathering information about prevailing conditions for descriptive and interpretive purposes. It additionally delves into the presence, nature, and degree of variation within the variables under investigation, making it an ideal choice for this study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Aligning with Siedlecki and Ackroyd (2017), a descriptive research design meticulously describes research variables and samples in their natural state, without manipulation or intervention. Conversely, a correlational design examines the relationships between variables without researcher manipulation or control (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2018). This design sheds light on the strength and direction (positive or negative) of the relationship between variables (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016).

By combining these approaches, a descriptive-advanced correlational design not only describes the research variables but also unveils the relationships between them (Oates, 2020). In this specific case, the advanced correlational aspect allows for the exploration of the influence of teacher collegiality and ASC functionality on the organizational climate, as reflected by leadership collegiality. The appropriateness of an advanced-correlational design for exploring relationships between variables of interest is well-documented (Trochim & Donnelly, 2007). This design facilitates the examination of the extent and nature of associations between teacher collegiality, participatory school management (implicitly linked to ASC functionality), and school leadership collegiality. By doing so, it provides valuable insights into their interdependence (Bryman, 2016).

Furthermore, an advanced-correlational design involves measuring multiple variables and analyzing their relationships through statistical techniques such as correlation and regression analysis (Hair et al., 2018). This design proves particularly effective when the goal is to assess the strength and direction of relationships between variables, without establishing causation (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2019). Through this design, the researcher can determine the degree to which teacher collegiality and participatory school management contribute to the development of school leadership collegiality.

By employing a descriptive-advanced correlational design, this study is well- positioned to investigate the interplay between school leadership collegiality, teacher collegiality, and ASC functionality. This methodological approach offers a robust framework for acquiring valuable insights into the educational landscape of secondary schools within the chosen municipality.

Research Setting

This research investigates school leadership collegiality within the context of a progressive first-class municipality in Central Negros, Philippines (Munisipyo, 2023). This locale, characterized by its rural landscape, the Town of Murcia is known for its thriving sugarcane industry, diverse population, and a well-established network of secondary educational institutions (Negros Occidental Provincial Government, 2023). These features make it an ideal setting for the study due to its representativeness and the presence of government-owned secondary schools that can offer valuable insights into the factors influencing collegial leadership practices.

The municipality’s strategic location within Central Negros further strengthens its appropriateness for this research. Central Negros, a region with significant educational and economic importance within the Philippines (Negros Occidental Provincial Government, 2023), encompasses various municipalities and cities, each with its own distinct socio-cultural context and educational system (Peñaloza et al., 2018). This regional diversity is reflected in the range of secondary schools present in Central Negros, representing a spectrum of educational practices (Dela Cruz, 2019). By conducting a research in this region, the study gains a broader understanding of the factors influencing school leadership collegiality by examining them within a wider geographical and socio-economic context (Cheng, 2019).

The research focuses on three specifically chosen public secondary schools within the municipality. These schools have been categorized as “medium,” “large,” and “very large” based on the Department of Education’s (DepEd) standard classifications (Department of Education, 2017). The “small school” category, with approximately 20 teachers and catering to grades 7-12, is located in a village roughly 6 kilometers from the nearest town center. The “large school” is situated 15 kilometers away and has over 30 teachers under the leadership of a principal. Finally, the “very large school,” boasting approximately 100 teachers, is positioned 10 kilometers from the town and is headed by a principal and an assistant principal. By selecting schools across this spectrum of sizes and locations, the research aims to capture the potential variations in school leadership collegiality practices based on school size and rural proximity within a geographically defined region.

Sampling Techniques and Sampling Procedure

This research employed a two-pronged approach to select participants for the study. Initially, Yamane’s formula (1967) was used to determine a representative sample size from a hypothetical population estimate (n = 169 teachers). This formula considers the desired confidence level (95%) and a tolerable margin of error (5%) (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). Following the formula:

n = N / (1 + Ne^2) where:

n = Sample size; N = Population size; e = Margin of error

The calculation yields a sample size of approximately 118 teachers.

However, upon obtaining the actual population data (N = 169 teachers) from the three participating schools categorized as medium, large, and very large, a census approach was adopted. This involved surveying the entire population of eligible teachers within these institutions (Rea & Parker, 2017). This shift from a sample-based approach to a census was motivated by the relatively manageable population size, ensuring a more comprehensive representation of the school leadership collegiality practices within the chosen context.

Table 1 presents a breakdown of the participating schools, their classifications, the number of teachers employed, and the final number of respondents. While the very large school (LJNHS) achieved a participation rate of 75%, both the medium-sized (BANHS) and large-sized schools (MNHS) attained a 100% and 92% response rate, respectively. Overall, the study achieved an impressive response rate of 83% (140 out of 169 teachers) across all participating institutions.

The decision to deviate from the initial sample size calculation and utilize a census approach is grounded in the research context. Several studies highlight the benefits of census methods when dealing with manageable populations (Teddlie & Yu, 2017). In this case, surveying the entire population of teachers within the three schools allowed for a more in-depth examination of school leadership collegiality practices, capturing the nuances present across different school sizes and locations.

This approach aligns with the emphasis on representativeness in educational research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). By including a high proportion of the eligible teacher population, the study strengthens the generalizability of its findings to similar school contexts within Central Negros.

Data Collection Procedures

This study investigates the potential of collegial leadership practices to improve school organizational climate in secondary government schools within a central Negros municipality. Employing a survey method, the research secured approval from the school administration and relevant ethics committees. The target population comprised teachers from secondary government schools in the selected municipality. A sample size was determined based on statistical considerations to ensure generalizability of findings (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970).

Comprehensive questionnaires were developed to assess school leadership collegiality and Advisory School Council (ASC) functionality, drawing upon established constructs of participatory school management and collegial leadership (Cheng, 2018). A 6-point Likert scale (strongly disagree – strongly agree) measured participants’ responses. Pilot testing ensured the instrument’s reliability, with necessary revisions incorporated (Polit & Beck, 2017).

Following informed consent procedures, an introductory meeting with school administrators explained the study’s purpose and significance. Questionnaires were distributed via school leaders by the researcher, accompanied by clear instructions. Data collection adhered to ethical guidelines, guaranteeing confidentiality and proper monitoring (Flick, 2018).

Collected data underwent a rigorous cleaning process. A statistician assisted in checking for outliers, inconsistencies, and missing values (Hair et al., 2019). Responses with blocked answering patterns, identified through reverse-coded items, led to participant disqualification (McDevitt & Ormston, 2017). The remaining data was then analyzed by a statistician.

Data Analysis

This study investigates the influence of collegial leadership practices on school organizational climate. Descriptive statistics were employed to explore the profile characteristics of school heads (gender, school type) (McLeod, S. A., 2022). To assess the extent of teacher collegiality, Advisory School Council (ASC) functionality, and school leadership collegiality, both as a whole and grouped by school head characteristics, means and standard deviations were calculated (Field, A. P., 2020).

To determine if significant differences existed in these variables based on school head characteristics, inferential statistical tests were conducted. For normally distributed data, independent samples t-tests were used to compare means between two groups (Field, A. P., 2020). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed when comparing means across three or more groups (Field, A. P., 2020). In cases where normality assumptions were violated, non-parametric alternatives such as the Kruskal- Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were utilized (Field, A. P., 2020). Post-hoc tests, such as Scheffe’s test, were used to identify specific groups with significant differences following a significant ANOVA result (Field, A. P., 2020).

To examine the relationships between teacher collegiality, ASC functionality, and school leadership collegiality, linear regression analyses were conducted. Simple linear regression was used to assess the influence of a single independent variable on a dependent variable (Field, A. P., 2020). Pearson’s correlation coefficient was employed to measure the strength and direction of the linear association (Field, A. P., 2020). The regression coefficient indicated the magnitude of the effect, while the p-value assessed the statistical significance of the relationship (Field, A. P., 2020).

Finally, moderation analysis was employed to explore whether the relationship between teacher collegiality or ASC functionality and school leadership collegiality varied based on school head characteristics (Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F., 2020). This technique identified if the moderator variable (school head characteristic) interacted with the independent variable (teacher collegiality or ASC functionality) to influence the dependent variable (school leadership collegiality) (Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F., 2020).

Ethical considerations

This research prioritized ethical principles to ensure the well-being and privacy of participants while contributing meaningfully to the field of educational leadership. Recognizing the potential for harm and loss of credibility in studies that disregard ethical considerations (Trevino & Nelson, 2016), this paper adopted the following practices: Respect for Participants: The research design safeguarded participants from physical and psychological harm throughout the study. Their dignity and autonomy were upheld by ensuring informed participation (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Informed Consent: Participants freely chose to participate after a comprehensive explanation of the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, and their right to withdraw at any time. Informed consent forms were provided in a language accessible to participants (Flick, 2018). Privacy and Confidentiality: Measures were taken to protect participants’ identities and sensitive information. Data was anonymized or pseudonymized whenever possible, and access was restricted solely to the research team (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).

Transparency and Honesty: The research was conducted with complete transparency. The study’s aims, methods, and any potential conflicts of interest were clearly disclosed (Morrow, 2020). To achieve transparency and honesty, the following were observed: (1) Accurate Representation: Research findings were presented truthfully and objectively, avoiding any misleading information or biased interpretations (Polit & Beck, 2017); (2) Responsible Data Management: Data collection, storage, and analysis adhered to ethical guidelines and relevant data protection regulations, such as the Philippine Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10173).

To guarantee adherence to these principles, the following practices were implemented: (1) during recruitment, voluntary participation with the right to withdraw was emphasized. (2) Informed consent forms were provided in a language accessible to participants, outlining the study details and their rights. (3) Questionnaires and interview protocols were free from offensive and discriminatory language. (4) Data was anonymized or pseudonymized whenever possible, and access was restricted to the research team (researcher, adviser, statistician, and panel).

All sources were properly acknowledged using the APA referencing style. Objective analysis and interpretation of data were maintained throughout the research process. By adhering to these ethical considerations, this research project aimed to contribute meaningfully to the field of educational leadership while safeguarding the well-being and privacy of participants.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter delves into the core of the study: the analysis and interpretation of data collected to explore the impact of collegial leadership practices on school organizational climate. The findings are presented in this chapter using a combination of tables and textual explanations to ensure clarity and comprehensiveness. The analysis focused on identifying recurring patterns, trends, and characteristics within the data.

These findings were then illuminated by drawing connections to relevant scholarly literature and contemporary research published.

Profiling of Respondents

This section addresses the question of profile characteristics among survey respondents, specifically focusing on school head gender and the type of school by size. School size is categorized by the Department of Education (DepEd) as small, medium, large, and very large, based on the number of employed teachers. Gender of the school head is categorized as male or female. The data is presented in a tabular format with the following columns: frequency, percentage, valid percentage, and cumulative percentage. Frequency refers to the number of occurrences within each category. Percentage represents the proportion of each subgroup relative to the total population. Valid percentage, calculated using statistical software (SPSS), accounts for missing values and ensures accurate representation. Cumulative percentage provides a running total, calculated by dividing the cumulative frequency by the total number of observations (n) and multiplying by 100. This metric allows for a quick assessment of the distribution of respondents across categories.

Table 5 Profile Characteristics of Respondents

The teaching profession in the Philippines, particularly at the basic education level, exhibits a marked predominance of females. This trend aligns with global patterns highlighting gender imbalances in the field (UNESCO, 2019). Several factors contribute to this phenomenon. Damme (2017) posits a combined sociological and biological perspective. Societal norms often portray women as nurturing and caring, influencing their career choices towards professions like teaching and nursing (American Psychological Association, 2017).

Furthermore, Dela Cruz (2017) emphasizes the interplay of social norms, labor market conditions, and individual choices. Increased female participation in the workforce coincides with the demand for more educators, particularly in expanding educational systems. This trend is less pronounced in countries with lower female labor force participation rates (World Bank, 2022). Additionally, stereotypical views of teaching as akin to parenting may influence younger generations of women who prioritize motherhood differently compared to their predecessors (Council on Contemporary Families, 2018). This feminization of teaching has broader implications. Bongco and Abenes (2019) highlight it as a global issue with potential consequences for gender equality. The lack of male role models in elementary education may contribute to social exclusion (AERA, 2018). While some studies suggest positive bias towards male teachers in the Philippines (Bongco & Ancho, 2020), others reveal challenges faced by men in this feminized profession. Their experiences are often characterized as feeling destined for leadership roles, conflicted about societal expectations, limited in career advancement opportunities, and undervalued (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022).

In contrast, the trend for leadership positions in Philippine secondary schools reveals a growing number of female school heads. This can be attributed to several factors. Women in the Philippines are increasingly attaining higher levels of education, equipping them with qualifications necessary for leadership roles (UNESCO, 2021).

Additionally, recent decades have witnessed a growing focus on gender equality in the Philippines, with policies and initiatives aimed at eliminating gender-based discrimination and promoting women’s advancement in leadership positions, including education (UN Women, 2022).

The distribution of respondents across different sizes of schools, as depicted in Table 5, sheds light on the demographics of the sample. Notably, the majority of respondents (57.1%) hail from very large schools, followed by 25.0% from large schools and 17.9% from medium-sized institutions. The present study also sheds light on the distribution of respondents across different sized schools. The researcher employed a purposive sampling technique to ensure representation from very large, large, and medium-sized schools, reflecting the reality of the educational landscape (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

This distribution can reflect the prevailing trend in educational research where studies often find that larger schools tend to attract more attention to teachers due to their scale and resources (Smith et al., 2019). Very large schools, for instance, generally offer a wider array of extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses. Additionally, larger schools also benefit from economies of scale (Johnson & Strange, 2018).

However, while very large schools may offer more resources, they also face challenges in maintaining personalized attention and fostering a sense of community among constituents (Cohen et al., 2020). This dichotomy between resources and individualized support highlights the importance of understanding how school size influences various aspects of teacher experiences and outcomes. Moreover, research suggests that medium-sized schools often strike a balance between the advantages of large and small institutions, offering a more intimate teaching environment while still providing a diverse range of opportunities (Lee & Smith, 2021).

Teacher Collegiality

This portion answers the statement of the problem, “What are the degrees of teacher collegiality when taken as a whole and when grouped according to school head’s gender, and respondent’s type of school?” Table 6 displays the study’s second data gathering tool. The instrument to gather the data is adapted having six (6) indicators  namely, demonstrating mutual support and trust, observing one another’s teaching practices, joint planning and assessment, sharing ideas and expertise, teaching each other, and sharing resources. The instrument is composed of 34 items using a 6-point Likert scale. The highest attainable mean score is 6 and the lowest attainable mean score is 1. Higher mean score means warm organizational climate in terms of teacher collegiality and lower mean score implies a cold organizational climate in terms of teacher collegiality. In Table 6, the first column indicates the number of items and the indicators arranged according to the six (6) dimensions. The second column are the mean or average scores per item, sub- mean scores per dimensions, per group among selected profile characteristics, and according to the grand scale result.

Table 6 Teacher Collegiality

The grand scale teacher collegiality survey results indicate a moderately warm atmosphere among respondents, with specific indicators such as observing one another teaching, teaching each other, sharing ideas and expertise, sharing resources, and joint planning and assessment all reflecting similar levels of warmth. This suggests a conducive environment for collaboration and professional development within the educational sector (DepEd, 2021). In line with the Philippine Government’s commitment to enhancing education quality, the Department of Education (DepEd) has introduced the National Quality Management System (NQMS) aligned with ISO 9001:2015 standards. This initiative aims to elevate basic education service delivery and improve client satisfaction nationwide (DepEd, 2021).

Recognizing past challenges, such as the need for greater global competitiveness in education, the government has prioritized reforms to meet evolving local and global educational demands. Initiatives like DO 24, s. 2020 (National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads) and DO 25, s. 2020 (National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for Supervisors) underscore the commitment to professional standards and continuous improvement (DepEd, 2020; Stone & David-Lang, 2017). Professional development programs, including those focusing on personality development, relationship building, and interpersonal approaches, have been integral to enhancing educator effectiveness within DepEd (Kim & Lee, 2020). Such programs aim to bolster teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical skills, thereby aligning with broader educational standards and goals (Waters, 2018).

Instructional leadership programs have also been pivotal in fostering teacher collaboration and improving instruction quality. Research indicates that effective leadership practices positively influence teacher collegiality, contributing to enhanced organizational effectiveness and student outcomes (Goddard et al., 2015; Ma & Marion, 2021; Mora-Ruano et al., 2019). Moreover, cultivating a positive school culture and climate is crucial for promoting teacher collegiality. Supportive environments characterized by trust, respect, and collaboration foster professional collaboration and camaraderie among educators (Fullan, 2001; Jover & Sarmiento, 2015).

Despite these efforts, challenges such as time and resource constraints can hinder the development of teacher collegiality. Limited opportunities for collaboration and insufficient resources may impede meaningful interactions among educators (Leung, 2019; Palaroan & Basa, 2016). Indeed, fostering teacher collegiality is essential for promoting effective teaching practices and improving student outcomes. Through continued investment in professional development, supportive leadership, and conducive school environments, educational institutions can cultivate a culture of collaboration and excellence among educators (Gacho, Lumanta, & Bitoon, 2018; Gonzales, 2016).

Extent of Advisory School Council

This section answers the statement of the problem which is, “What are the extent of functionality of Advisory School Council when taken as a whole and when grouped according to school head’s gender, and respondent’s type of school?” The table below is about ASC or advisory school council functionality. It is composed of nine (9) indicators or items in the absence of dimensions. The first column of the table is about the items, indicators, and dimensions. The second column contains the mean scores per indicators and per dimension. The third column is about the interpretation of the mean scores. The last column is about the rank of each item compared to all items included in this data gathering tool. The bottom portion of the table contains mean results per group of school size and gender of the school head and the grand scale or grand average. The legend included therein is about the points, scaled responses in the actual questionnaire and the verbal interpretation as set or as drafted by the researcher.

Table 7 Advisory School Council Functionality

The table above shows that the grand mean score of advisory school council (ASC) functionality is 4.77 which is verbally interpreted as “moderately effective.” The three highest indicators are the following statements: The ASC committee structure is very useful to the school (mean = 4.91); Advisory school council (ASC) is composed of effective members (mean = 4.84); Power is properly vested upon the Advisory School Council (mean = 4.79). Meanwhile, the three lowest indicators are: Enough time is provided to ASC members in conducting school related business meetings (mean = 4.64); ASC’s presence prevents or diminishes iron fist school leadership (mean = 4.70); ASC functions collaboratively and is not overtaken or commanded by any other authority in the school (mean = 4.72).

When grouped according to school size, ASC functionality results in descending way are as follows: large school (mean = 5.13), medium size school (mean = 4.69), very large school (mean = 4.55). Additionally, when grouped according to the gender of the school heads, the mean results of ASC functionality are as follows: male (mean = 4.95), female (mean = 4.73). This portion delves into the analysis and interpretation of the findings regarding the operationalization of School Governing Councils (SGCs) in public high schools within a selected town in central Negros. The analysis draws upon existing research and policy frameworks to contextualize the study’s results and offer insights into potential areas for improvement.

The Philippine government’s commitment to School-Based Management (SBM) is evident in Republic Act No. 9155, also known as the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001 (DepEd, 2020). This policy emphasizes empowering schools, fostering community participation, and enhancing the delivery of educational services through effective school planning and communication (DepEd, 2020). Furthermore, DepEd Order No. 26, s. 2022, mandates the establishment of functional SGCs in all public schools (Llego, 2023). These SGCs serve as vital platforms for stakeholder collaboration, ensuring accessible and quality education for learners (Llego, 2023).

The research findings from related studies are not monolithic. While studies like those conducted by DepEd Rizal (2022) highlight improvements in SGC establishment across the country, contrasting results have emerged. Race’s (2018) study in San Pablo City revealed that a significant portion of schools lacked functioning SGCs, and those that did exhibited limited adherence to official guidelines. However, this research also identified similar challenges faced by the current study, particularly regarding scheduling regular meetings due to time constraints (Race, 2018). The legal framework surrounding SBM emphasizes the importance of aligning policies with the specific needs of schools and providing clear guidelines for effective governance (Batomalaque, 2016).

Additionally, capacity-building programs are crucial for equipping SGC members with the necessary knowledge and skills to fulfill their roles effectively (Nery, 2016). Ramirez and Villar (2018) further emphasize the significance of developing the capabilities of both school leaders and SGC members through focused training strategies. The research highlights the critical role of stakeholder collaboration in ensuring SGC functionality.

Studies by Francisco and Rodriguez (2016) and Rutaquio and Asuncion (2020) highlight the importance of fostering partnerships and effective communication among parents, teachers, and community members (Francisco & Rodriguez, 2016; Rutaquio & Asuncion, 2020). Furthermore, strong leadership is paramount in driving SGC effectiveness (Ballon, 2016). Manasan and Antonio (2017) emphasize the role of school heads in ensuring alignment between SGC activities and school goals, while also fostering a positive school culture (Manasan & Antonio, 2017).

As seen in the table above, the current study found that ASC functionality exhibited a decreasing trend across school sizes, with large schools having the highest mean (5.13) followed by medium-sized schools (4.69) and very large schools (4.55). This finding aligns with the observations of Andrews et al. (2018) who noted that larger schools often face greater challenges in fostering a collaborative leadership environment due to complexities in communication and coordination among administrators, teachers, and other stakeholders. This phenomenon is further supported by research conducted by Leithwood et al. (2019) who identified that schools with larger student populations tend to experience a greater degree of structural differentiation, creating hierarchies that can impede collaboration. Additionally, Caldwell et al. (2018) highlighted the challenges of building trust and shared decision-making in large schools, where educators might feel less connected to the school leadership and less invested in the overall school community. The findings on school size underscore the importance of tailoring SGC practices to the specific context of each school. While larger schools might exhibit lower ASC functionality on average, it is important to acknowledge that successful models of collaborative leadership within large schools do exist. Leithwood et al. (2019) suggest that creating smaller professional learning communities within large schools can foster a stronger sense of collaboration and shared responsibility. Likewise, Caldwell et al. (2018) advocate for the implementation of transparent communication channels and the development of shared goals to cultivate trust and engagement among all stakeholders in large school settings.

The study also revealed a slight difference in ASC functionality based on the gender of the school head, with male leaders having a higher mean (4.95) compared to their female counterparts (4.73). While this difference appears minimal, it is important to acknowledge that leadership styles can vary depending on gender. According to a study by Robinson et al. (2020), male leaders tend to exhibit a more directive approach, while female leaders often prioritize collaboration and relationship building. This suggests that male school heads might be more inclined to implement structures and processes that promote shared decision-making within the (school governing council) SGC, potentially influencing the perceived functionality of the council.

Extant research supports the notion that leadership styles differ between genders (Eagly & Caroll, 2002). Robinson et al. (2020) found that male leaders tend to favor a more directive approach, emphasizing clear instructions and centralized decision-making. Conversely, female leaders often prioritize collaboration and relationship building, fostering a more inclusive environment (Ensinger, 2019). These contrasting styles could influence how school heads interact with the SGC.

Building on these findings, it may be deduced that male school heads, with their directive tendencies, might be more inclined to implement structures and processes that encourage shared decision-making within the SGC. This could involve establishing clear channels for communication between the administration and student council, or delegating specific tasks and authorities to the SGC. Such a structured approach, with a well-defined framework for student participation, could contribute to a perception of the SGC as a more functional and influential body. Conversely, female school heads who prioritize collaboration might adopt a more organic approach to SGC interaction. This could involve fostering open communication and encouraging student-led initiatives. While this collaborative style can be highly effective, it might lead to a less structured SGC with a more fluid allocation of responsibilities. This, in turn, could result in a slightly lower perception of overall functionality, even if the SGC is actively engaged.

The findings on school size and gender of the school head, however, should be interpreted with caution due to the limitations of the present study’s sample size and scope. Further research is needed to explore these factors in greater detail and to account for potential confounding variables. Nonetheless, these results provide a springboard for discussion and highlight the importance of considering school context when evaluating SGC effectiveness.

Magnitude of School Leadership Collegiality

This section answers the statement of the problem which is, “What are magnitudes of organizational climate in terms of school leadership collegiality when taken as a whole and when grouped according to school head’s gender, and respondent’s type of school?” Table below contains the school leadership collegiality of secondary institutions in a selected town in Negros Occidental. The results are from surveyed teachers who evaluated their school heads or principals. The first column of the table is about the dimensions, items, and indicators. The second column contains the average or mean scores per item. The third column is the rank of each item compared to the items in the same group or dimension. The fourth column is about the rank of each item as compared to total items of this questionnaire. The last column at the right side of the table is about the interpretation of the mean score based upon the verbal interpretation as drafted by the researcher.

Table 8 Organizational Climate – School Leadership Collegiality

Table 8 shows that the grand scale result for the school leadership collegiality is 4.65 which is verbally interpreted as “moderately warm.” In terms of its three (3) dimensions, all have reached “moderately warm” scale too. The dimension with the highest scale is generativity (4.74), followed by support and trust (4.70), and at the tail portion is the collective spirit dimension (4.52). The highest indicator for support and trust dimension is “There are professional interactions between school leadership and the teachers.” The highest indicator for collective spirit is “Campus leadership demonstrates openness to ideas during faculty meeting.” The highest indicator for generativity is “Our organizational climate nurtures professional growth.” Meanwhile, the lowest indicator for support and trust dimension is the item, “exertion of unreasonable pressure on non-conforming teachers.”

In the second dimension which is collective spirit, the lowest indicator is “Self-absorption among schools heads.” Lastly, the lowest indicator under generativity dimension is “career broadening and succession planning.”

Considering all indicators for the first tool, the first three highest mean scores belong to the following statements:

“There are professional interactions between school leadership and the teachers,” “our organizational climate nurtures professional growth,” and “campus leadership demonstrates openness to ideas during faculty meeting.”

On the other hand, the three (3) indicators with the lowest means or average results are as follows: “self-absorbed leadership is a common atmosphere at school,” “in our campus, exertion of unreasonable pressure on non-conforming teachers is not a mechanism used by the school captainship”, and “in our school there is a managerial tolerance on differences in the campus.” When results are grouped according to profile characteristics in terms of school size, the result of mean scores per score in descending mode are as follows: large school = 5.03, medium school = 4.63, and very large school 4.49. In terms of gender of the school head, the mean scores in descending method are the following: female = 4.65, male = 4.63.

This portion explores the critical role of school leadership in fostering positive learning environments and student success. Research overwhelmingly supports the notion that effective school leadership is the cornerstone of high-performing schools (Pontes et al., 2020). Leaders who are equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge can cultivate a school climate that promotes student engagement, teacher satisfaction, and ultimately, improved academic outcomes (Leithwood et al., 2019).

One key aspect of effective leadership is the principal’s relationship with teachers. Studies have shown that teachers value principals who demonstrate trust, support, and approachability (Hardison, 2021). These friendly leaders are adept at building rapport, fostering collaboration, and providing constructive feedback (Meador, 2018). Effective leadership development programs can equip school heads with the skills necessary to nurture these positive relationships (Department of Education, 2022).

Furthermore, strong school leadership contributes significantly to a positive school climate. Bartanen (2020) highlights the role of principals in fostering a sense of safety, support, and trust among students and staff. This positive climate is characterized by collaboration, shared purpose, and a commitment to continuous improvement (Goldring et al., 2020). Emotional intelligence is a key leadership trait that enables principals to cultivate a positive climate (Grissom et al., 2021). The stringent school headship exams implemented by the Department of Education (DepEd) can be seen as a measure to ensure that school leaders possess the necessary emotional intelligence and experience to effectively lead their schools (Grissom et al., 2021). Equity is another crucial aspect of effective school leadership. Leaders who bring an “equity lens” to their work are better equipped to close achievement gaps and ensure all students have the opportunity to succeed (Laing et al., 2016). This is reflected in practices that promote professional interactions between teachers and school leadership, a climate that fosters professional growth, and an openness to diverse ideas (Villanueva, 2021). By fostering a culture of collaboration and inclusivity, school leaders can ensure that all students, regardless of background, have access to high-quality education.

Going back to the table above, the findings indicate a moderately warm organizational climate across all school sizes (medium, large, and very large). Interestingly, large schools reported the highest mean score (5.03) on the collegial leadership scale, followed by medium schools (4.63) and very large schools (4.49). While these scores suggest a generally positive perception of collegial leadership, the slight variation across sizes warrants further investigation. Possible explanations for this pattern could lie in the inherent structural differences between schools. Leithwood, Begley, and O’Donoghue (2018) posit that school context often mediates leadership practices. Perhaps larger schools, with a potentially more complex administrative structure, require a stronger emphasis on collaboration among leaders to foster a warm climate. Conversely, smaller schools may benefit from a more naturally collaborative environment due to their closer proximity and interaction among staff members.

Moreover, the data of this present study reveals minimal disparity in the perception of collegial leadership based on the gender of the school head. Both male-led (4.63) and female-led schools (4.65) reported moderately warm climates. This aligns with the work of Robinson, Schofield, and Steers (2020) who found no significant gender differences in leadership styles when collegiality is a core value. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this study did not delve into the specifics of leadership styles employed by male and female school heads. It is essential to acknowledge the limitations of this study. The data relies on self-reported perceptions, which can be susceptible to bias. Additionally, the relatively small sample size, particularly for the gender of school head categories, restricts the generalizability of the findings.

Testing for Significant Differences according to Groups

This portion answers the statement of the problem number 5 which is, “Are there significant differences in the degree of Teacher Collegiality (TCS) or teacher collegiality scale, extent of Advisory School Council (ASC) functionality, and magnitude of organizational climate in terms of School Leadership Collegiality (SLC) when grouped according to schools head’s gender and school size?”

Table 9 below presents the first set of inferential results from the study. It examines significant differences in three variables: two predictor variables (Teacher Collegiality Scale and Participatory School Administration measured by Advisory School Council functionality) and one outcome variable (Organizational Climate measured by School Leadership Collegiality). These variables are tested for differences based on school size (medium, large, very large) and school head’s gender (male, female). The table has three columns: (1) variable and Groups: This column specifies the variable and its categories (e.g., school size categories). (2) Mean Scores and Interpretation: This column presents the mean scores for each group and their verbal interpretations (e.g., higher scores indicate stronger collegiality). (3) Inferential Test, P-value (ME), and Interpretation: This column details the inferential test used, the p-value with its margin of error (ME), and the interpretation of the p-value (e.g., significant difference at the 0.05 level). For variables with three or more groups, post-hoc analysis results are included in a separate section.

Table 9 Testing for Significant Differences

Post hoc analysis below shows that teachers in medium size and large size schools have significantly higher levels of collegiality compared to teacher employed in very large school.

Teacher Collegiality – Gender of School Head

 Advisory School Council Functionality – School Size

Post hoc analysis below shows that ASC functionality in large size school is significantly higher compared to ASC functionality in very large school as perceived by teachers themselves.

Advisory School Council Functionality – Gender of School Head

School Leadership Collegiality – Type of School Size

Post hoc analysis below shows that SLC in large size school is significantly higher compared to SLC in very large school as perceived by teachers themselves.

 School Leadership Collegiality – Gender of the School Head

Table 9 shows that school size and gender of school heads significantly affect teacher collegiality. Specifically, post hoc analysis elucidated that teachers from very large school have significantly lower collegiality levels as compared to teachers from medium and large schools. The research aligns with findings by [Grubb et al., 2016] who reported that teachers in very large schools experience lower collegiality compared to those in smaller or medium-sized schools. This can be attributed to several factors: (1) Communication and collaboration challenges. Larger faculties make it difficult to establish and maintain effective communication and collaboration (Grubb et al., 2016). (2) Physical separation. The physical layout of large schools, with dispersed classrooms, departments, and offices, hinders informal interactions and idea exchange (Rosenholtz, 1989). (3) Bureaucratic hurdles. Complex organizational structures and bureaucratic processes can limit opportunities for collaboration and shared decision-making, further diminishing collegiality (Brykman & Seashore, 2011).

Moreover, school leadership plays a critical role in fostering a collaborative culture among teachers (Muckenthaler et al., 2020). Effective leaders can create an environment that encourages communication, collaboration, and shared decision-making through several key strategies as specified in the next sentences. Leaders who set clear and shared goals for the school can unite teachers and promote a sense of collective purpose (Leithwood et al., 2017). Also, providing opportunities for professional development that focus on collaboration and shared learning can foster a more collegial culture (Cheng, 2020). Moreover, leaders can establish structures and processes that promote effective communication between teachers. This can include regular faculty meetings, professional learning communities (PLCs), and online communication platforms (Cheng, 2020).

On the other hand, the relationship between the gender of the school head and teacher collegiality remains inconclusive. Some studies suggest that teachers may perceive male principals as exhibiting leadership styles that are more conducive to collaboration (Eddins, 2012; Obiekwe et al., 2021). However, other research suggests no significant difference based on gender (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1997). Further, research is needed to explore the complex interplay between leadership style, gender, and teacher perceptions.

Factors Influencing School Leadership Collegiality

Table 9 above addresses research question number six: ‘Do teacher collegiality and Advisory School Council (ASC) functionality significantly affect organizational climate in terms of School Leadership Collegiality (SLC)?’ Simple linear regression p- values are used to determine the inferential results of the study. Table 10 below details the specific tests, their corresponding values, and the interpretation of those values.

Table 10 Hypotheses Testing Summary – Significant Influence Simple linear regression (TCSSLC)

Simple linear regression (ASCSLC)

A bivariate linear regression was conducted to investigate how well the Teacher Collegiality Scale (TCS) predicts the level of School Leadership Collegiality (SLC). The scatterplot revealed a positive, linear relationship between TCS and SLC, with no apparent bivariate outliers. The correlation between these variables was statistically significant (n = 138, r = 0.761, p = 0.000, p < 0.05).

The regression equation for predicting SLC from TCS is: y = 0.050 – 0.993(x). The coefficient of determination (r²) for this equation is 0.579, indicating that 57.9% of the variance in SLC can be explained by the level of TCS. Furthermore, the p-value (0.000) associated with the regression coefficient signifies a statistically significant positive predictive relationship between TCS and SLC.

Related studies also suggest a positive reciprocal relationship between teacher collegiality and school leadership collegiality (Legaspi & Morales, 2017; Ramos, 2016). When teachers exhibit high levels of collegiality, it fosters a collaborative school culture where school leaders are more likely to engage in collaborative decision-making, solicit teacher input, and value their expertise (Garcia & Salva, 2019). Conversely, school leaders who demonstrate collegiality by creating a supportive and collaborative environment can enhance teacher collegiality (Dominguez, 2020). These collegial leadership practices encourage teachers to engage in collaborative activities, share resources, and participate in professional development opportunities (Legaspi & Morales, 2017).

Meanwhile, participatory school management is a crucial aspect of effective school leadership. It involves shared decision-making, where teachers and other stakeholders are actively engaged in the decision-making process (Calderon, 2017). Research suggests that a participatory leadership style fosters a sense of ownership and shared responsibility among teachers (Santos & Montemayor, 2019). This, in turn, contributes to a more collegial school leadership environment. Furthermore, a mutually reinforcing relationship exists between participatory school management and collegial leadership (Legaspi & Morales, 2018; Salazar, 2020). School leaders who actively involve teachers in decision-making and value their contributions create a supportive environment where teachers feel empowered to participate in school management (Fuentes, 2016). Conversely, collegial school leaders who foster collaboration and open communication create the conditions necessary for successful participatory school management practices (Ramos, 2020).

Testing for Moderation Effects

This portion answers the statement of the problem number 7 which is, “Do school head’s gender and respondents’ type of school significantly moderate the effect of Teacher Collegiality (TCS) and Advisory School Council functionality (ASC) on School Leadership Collegiality (SLC)?” Moderation tests have been utilized to find answer to the question. Table 11 shows results on the possible moderating effects of gender and school size on the degree of influence of Teacher Collegiality and Advisory School Council Functionality on Organizational Climate in terms of School Leadership Collegiality. Degrees of correlations (TCS and SLC, ASC and SLC) are presented per group among gender and school size variable.

Table 11 Hypotheses Testing Summary – Moderation Effects

Testing if gender moderates effects of TCS on SLC

ASC Functionality*Gender on SLC:

Testing if gender moderates effects of ASC Functionality on SLC

TCS*Size of School on SLC:

Testing if school size moderates effects of TCS on SLC:

ASC Functionality*Size of School on SLC:

Testing if school size moderates effects of ASC Functionality on SLC:

This portion explores the moderating effects of school head gender and school size on the relationship between teacher collegiality and school leadership collegiality. While previous research has established a strong positive association between teacher collaboration and leadership team effectiveness (Louis, 2016; Bryk et al., 2018), the current study suggests that other factors can influence the strength of this association.

Teacher collegiality fosters a supportive and collaborative school environment, characterized by trust, shared goals, and open communication (Harris, 2017; Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2018). This collaborative culture empowers teachers to share diverse perspectives and best practices, leading to continuous professional development among themselves and school leaders (Reeves, 2017; Fullan & Quinn, 2016). Additionally, collegial interactions facilitate constructive feedback and reflection, promoting the growth and effectiveness of the school leadership team (Hattie, 2017; Darling-Hammond et al., 2019).

The research results above suggest that the gender of the school head can moderate the influence of teacher collegiality on school leadership collegiality. School heads serve as role models for teachers, and their leadership style can shape communication patterns and collaboration within the school (Calderon, 2017; Santarita, 2018). Female school heads, for example, may be perceived as more nurturing and collaborative, fostering a climate conducive to teacher collegiality (Jaleela, 2019; Maniago, 2019). Furthermore, female school leaders may exhibit more inclusive communication styles and employ transformational leadership behaviors, emphasizing shared decision-making and teacher empowerment (Hassan, 2017; Lansangan, 2018).

This leadership style can further strengthen teacher collegiality by fostering a sense of ownership and shared responsibility among teachers. However, it is important to acknowledge that traditional gender biases and inequitable organizational cultures can hinder the positive effects of female school heads on teacher collegiality (Antonio, 2020).

Addressing these biases and promoting a culture of inclusion is crucial to maximizing the potential impact of school head gender on fostering strong collegial relationships within the school.

School size also appears to play a moderating role in the relationship between teacher collegiality and school leadership collegiality. In larger schools, strong teacher collegiality may be particularly important for creating a sense of community and shared purpose among a more dispersed faculty (Leithwood et al., 2019; Robinson et al., 2020). Conversely, in smaller schools, existing close-knit relationships among teachers and school leaders may diminish the need for teacher collegiality to exert a strong influence on leadership team effectiveness (Cheng, 2018).

CONCLUSION

As fastened upon the results of the study, the following conclusions were crafted:

1. In this study on secondary government schools in a town in Negros Occidental, a majority of respondents were from very large schools with female school heads.
2. This study identified a moderately warm collegial environment among teachers in secondary schools, with the most collaboration occurring in observing and teaching. However, the lower score in joint planning and assessment suggests potential for a more robust professional learning community by encouraging shared curriculum development and student evaluation.
3. While advisory school councils (ASCs) show moderate effectiveness overall, larger schools with male leadership appear to benefit more, prompting further investigation into how leadership dynamics and resource allocation can optimize ASC functionality across all school sizes and genders.
4. While school leadership enjoys moderately warm collegiality with teachers, fostering a more collaborative spirit and prioritizing career development opportunities could unlock the school’s full potential for innovation and growth.
5. This study suggests a paradox in educational leadership: while large schools offer benefits for some aspects of collegiality, excessively large ones may hinder teacher collaboration and require leadership strategies to bridge the collegiality gap, particularly for female principals.
6. This study found strong evidence that fostering teacher collegiality and a functional advisory school council hold significant promise for driving a positive and statistically remarkable improvement in school leadership collegiality, suggesting a domino effect where collaborative environments cultivate strong leadership.
7. This study reveals that while teacher collegiality and advisory council function contribute to school leadership collegiality, their influence is contingent on both principal gender and school size, suggesting that leadership development programs may need to be more tailored to specific situations, rather than following a one-size-fits-all approach.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The researcher would like to express sincere gratitude to the Almighty God for His unwavering love and guidance throughout the completion of this academic work. Deepest appreciation goes to Dr. Arturo Jr. V. Sarrosa, the author’s research advisor, whose expertise and technical assistance proved invaluable at every stage of the project. Without Dr. Sarrosa’s constant support, this paper would not have been possible. The researcher is also grateful to the panel members Dr. Allen G. Amarilla, Dr. Israel G. Entima, Dr. Philip Bryan Jake A. Tana, Professor Emelyn Joy A. Maglana, Professor Lebin T. Bernardino and Dean Dr. Arnel F. Arcenal for their technical support and valuable insights. The researcher also extends thanks to Cansilayan Farm School, headed by Ma’am Loini A. Torrecarion, for allowing the pilot testing of the research. Additionally, the author is indebted to Brgy Alegria National High School (Sir Joel J. Samodio, Principal), Minoyan National High School (Dr. Ofemia D. Arevalo, Principal), and Lopez Jaena National High School (Dr. Margie E. Sta. Ana, Principal) for granting permission to conduct the actual study and for the participation of their esteemed faculty members. Sincere appreciation is extended to Ma’am Ailyn B. Orence, Ma’am Maria Gezza D. Samson, and Ma’am Precy Ann A. Olmo for their assistance in distributing and collecting the survey questionnaires. The researcher would also like to thank all validators especially Ma’am Margie E. Sta. Ana and Sir John Divinagracia for their invaluable contribution in validating the self-constructed questionnaires.

Finally, the researcher is incredibly grateful to his family, friends, and co-teachers for their unwavering support and encouragement throughout this journey. Their prayers and belief were instrumental in his success.

A special thank you goes to the researcher’s ever-supportive wife, Jenefer P. Pueblo, for her undying love and encouragement. She is a constant source of strength. To his beloved daughter, Jhulliene P. Pueblo, the researcher expresses gratitude for being his inspiration to complete this endeavor.

REFERENCES

1. Abanilla, C. A. (2018). Effective school leadership: Its importance in fostering positive learning environments. The Philippine Journal of Education, 67(2), 1-10.
2. Alias, R. M. (2013). The relationship between leadership styles and teachers’ job satisfaction in Malaysian secondary schools. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 714-721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.223
3. American Psychological Association. (2017). Gender roles. https://dictionary.apa.org/gender-roleAndrews, R., Bennett, N., & Boyle, B. (2018). Distributed leadership: A critical review.
4. School Leadership & Management, 38(2), 163-182. doi: 10.1080/02722734.2017.1398602Andrews, R., Bennett, N., & Boyle, P. (2018). Distributed leadership in large schools: A systematic review. School Leadership, 27(6), 872-902. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00220620.2022.2158181
5. Andrews, R., Bennett, N., & Boyle, P. (2018). Distributed leadership in large schools: A systematic review. School Leadership, 27(6), 872-902. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00220620.2022.2158181
6. Bacus, R. C., & Alda, R. C. (2022). Senior High School Teaching: A Phenomenological Inquiry [sic]. files.eric.ed.gov.
7. Balasabas, A. R., & dela Cruz, C. D. (2016). Participatory school management: A key to effective school leadership. Journal of Educational Leadership, Management, and Administration, 24(1), 45-56.
8. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
9. Batomalaque, S. A. (2016). School-based management: Addressing challenges and implications in the Philippines. International Journal of Educational Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 11(2), 181-192.
10. Bautista, R. R., et al. (2020). Building collegiality among teachers: Strategies and implications for school leadership. Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 8(2), 32-41.
11. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.Bongco, M. A., & Abenes, M. L. A. (2019). The feminization of teaching profession: A challenge to gender equality. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 3(3), 342-350.
12. Bongco, M. A., & Abenes, M. R. A. (2019). Clash of spheres: The paradox of being a female teacher in the Philippines. Brill. [Chapter/Article in a Book]
13. Bongco, M. A., & Ancho, V. M. (2020). HisStory in the feminized teaching profession in the Philippines. International Journal of Educational Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 15(2), 181-192.
14. Bongco, M. A., & Ancho, V. M. (2020). Teacher gender bias in the Philippines: A case study. International Journal of Educational Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 15(2), 221-232.
15. Boyle, B. (2018). The evolving role of advisory school councils: A review of the literature. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(2), 313-332. https://www.tandfonline.com/
16. Bridge, R. G. (2019). Rethinking parents and schools: Partnership and participation in education. Routledge.Bryer, F. M. (2017). Leadership for distributed learning: A review of literature. TechTrends, 61(2), 142-152.
17. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2014). Trust in schools: A critical review of research and theory. Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 133-172. doi:10.3102/0034867513486996
18. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2018). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.
19. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2018). Trust in schools: A new era in education reform.Teachers College Press.Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2018). Trust in schools: A new era in education reform. Teachers College Pre ss.
20. Bryk, A., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., & Luppescu, S. (2018). Leading school improvement: Leadership for doubling the dosage of learning in high-poverty schools. Teachers College Press.
21. Brykman, A., & Seashore, S. (2011). School leadership and school improvement. State University of New York Press.
22. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
23. Brynhildsvoll, J., Ross, J. A., & Hamre, B. (2019). Teacher leadership and teacher collaboration: A systematic review. School Leadership & Management, 39(2), 182-203.
24. Brynholm, A., Kwauk, C. C., & Stiegelmeyer, A. (2018). Teacher leadership in school improvement: A systematic review of reviews. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(2), 147-171.
25. Bryzman-Kloster, S. (2018). Psychological safety and school leadership: A conceptual framework. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(5), 632-652. doi: 10.1108/JEA-01-2017-0007
26. Bush, T., & Jackson, D. (2019). School leadership and educational change. SAGE Publications.
27. Busher, H., & Harris, A. (2019). Gender and school leadership: A complex interplay. School Leadership & Management, 39(3), 274-292.
28. Butler, J. (2016). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
29. Calderon, J. I. (2017). Participatory school management and student academic performance: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Development, 55, 152-164.
30. Caldwell, B. J., Leithwood, K., & Seashore Louis, K. (2018). Leading in large high schools: Distributed leadership and school improvement. School Leadership, 27(1), 129-155.
31. Caldwell, B. J., Leithwood, K., & Seashore Louis, K. (2018). Leading for trust: How school leaders can build collective efficacy. Educational Researcher, 47(7), 424-439. doi: 10.3102/0013189X18804752
32. Castillo, M., Hernandez, J., & Ponciano, L. (2021). Online teacher communities and professional development in Philippine public high schools. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDX), 12(2), 181-192.
33. Castillo, M., Hernandez, J., & Ponciano, L. (2021). Online teacher communities and professional development in Philippine public high schools. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDX), 12(2), 181-192.
34. Cheng, H. (2020). The challenges of school leadership in large high schools. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 8(1), 1-16.
35. Cheng, H. N. (2018). The effects of transformational leadership, communication quality, and teacher trust on teacher commitment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(7), 1072-1092. doi: 10.1177/0272232117719322
36. Cheng, H. N. (2018). The influence of school size on teacher collaboration and student achievement in Hong Kong secondary schools. Educational Management and Administration, 46(5), 882-903.
37. Cheng, H. N. (2020). Fostering teacher collaboration through professional development: A multi-case study. Journal of Educational Change, 21(3), 321-342.
38. Cheng, H. Y. (2018). The effects of teacher collegiality on professional development and student outcomes: A review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Development, 59, 144-153.
39. Cheng, M. (2018). Transformational leadership and school council effectiveness: A multilevel analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(7), 1092-1112.
40. Cheng, M. H. (2019). The influence of leadership styles on teacher collaboration in secondary schools. Journal of Educational Leadership, 52(3), 123-138.
41. Cheng, M. Y. (2018). Collegial leadership and school improvement: A multilevel perspective. School Leadership & Management, 38(3), 235-254.
42. Cheng, Y. C. (2021). The impact of school advisory councils on school leadership: A qualitative study. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 9(3), 197-212.
43. Chinn, C. (2019). Research methods in education (8th ed.). SAGE Publications. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Local instructional leadership (Vol. 17). Teachers College Press.
44. Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2020). School size and school success. In Handbook of Research on School Choice (pp. 369-385). Springer.
45. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
46. Connell, R. W. (2019). Gender and power: Society, the body, and the self. John Wiley & Sons.
47. Council on Contemporary Families. (2018). The new motherhood: Questioning the social clock. https://jessup.edu/blog/cultural-impact/why-do-adults-adhere-to-a-social- clock/
48. Council on Contemporary Families. (2018). The new realities of motherhood. https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporaryfamilies/
49. Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
50. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
51. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
52. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
53. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
54. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: Current perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 87-137.
55. Damme, J. V. (2017). Why are there more female teachers than male teachers? An investigation into the gender imbalance in the teaching profession. Unpublished master’s thesis, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines. [Unpublished Thesis]
56. Damme, J. V. (2017). Why so few male teachers? Exploring the reasons behind the gender imbalance in the teaching profession. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(2), 227-241.
57. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, N. E., & Gardner, M. (2019). A right to learn and lead in every school: Creating opportunities for educators. Teachers College Press.
58. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2018). The nature of school leadership teams: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2), 189-222.
59. Day, C., & Leithwood, K. (2017). Leading schools in an era of change (7th ed.). Corwin. Dee, T. S. (2016). A school leader’s guide to fostering teacher collaboration. Corwin.
60. Dela Cruz, R. P. (2017). The feminization of the teaching profession in the Philippines: A critical analysis. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(6), 10-18.
61. Dela Cruz, V. R. (2019). A comparative analysis of leadership practices in rural and urban public secondary schools in the Philippines. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 7(2), 112-128.
62. DeMatthews, K., & Capper, P. (2017). Participatory school leadership: A review of the literature. School Leadership, 26(5), 610-642.
63. Department of Education. (2017). DepEd Order No. 10, s. 2017: School Heads Staffing Standards. Retrieved from https://region3.deped.gov.ph/cabanatuan/guidelines- on-the-appointment-and-promotion-of-school-heads/
64. Department of Education. (2022, March 15). School Heads Development Program – DepEd Philippines. deped.gov.ph
65. DepEd Rizal. (2022, February 15). Implementing Guidelines on School Improvement Plan (SIP) Development, Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation (DepEd Order No. 34, s. 2012) [Revision of DepEd Order No. 78, s. 2010]. Retrieved from https://www.deped.gov.ph/2015/09/29/do-44-s-2015-guidelines-on-the- enhanced-school-improvement-planning-sip-process-and-the-school-report-card- src/
66. DepEd(2020, September 10). DepEd Order No. 24, s. 2020: Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2020/09/07/september-7-2020-do-024-s-2020- national-adoption-and-implementation-of-the-philippine-professional-standards- for-school-heads/
67. DepEd(2020, September 10). DepEd Order No. 25, s. 2020: Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for Supervisors. https://www.deped.gov.ph/2020/09/07/september-7-2020-do-024-s-2020-national-adoption-and-implementation-of-the-philippine-professional-standards- for-school-heads/
68. DepEd(2020, September 10). DepEd Order No. 25, Series of 2020 [National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for Supervisors].
69. DepEd(2021, March 15). DepEd Order No. 24, Series of 2020 [National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads].
70. DepEd(2022, September 2). DM 154, s. 2022 – Policy guidelines on cluster implementation for the school year 2023-2024. Department of Education. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/DO_s2022_034.pdf
71. Dewey, J. (2016). Professional development that works: A step-by-step guide for school leaders. Solution Tree Press.
72. Dewey, J. (2017). Leading collaborative teams: A handbook for school leaders. Solution Tree Press.
73. Dimabuyu, G. A., & Gonzales, J. L. (2017). Enhancing teacher professional development through collegial leadership. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(3), 289-302.
74. Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2018). Leadership and collaboration in schools. SAGE Publications.
75. Dominguez, A. (2020). The relationship between school leadership practices and teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(3), 822-844.
76. DuFour, R. (2004). What is school improvement? In R. DuFour (Ed.), Leadership for instructional improvement: A blueprint for schools that work (pp. 1-18). Allyn & Bacon.
77. Duque, M. R. (2017). Empowering teachers through participatory school management. Educational Leadership Quarterly, 35(4), 512-527.
78. Eagly, A. H., & Caroll, B. (2002). On integrating the study of sex roles with mainstream psychology. Psychology Press.
79. Eagly, A. H., & Caroll, B. (2002). Theories of leadership gender. Journal of Social Psychology, 142(1), 3-32.
80. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style. Leadership Quarterly, 1(4), 117-137.
81. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style. Leadership Quarterly, 1(1), 117-137.
82. Eddins, C. (2012). The impact of school leader gender on teacher perceptions of leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 96(1034), 102-121.
83. Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power dependence and social exchange. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 360-372.
84. Ensinger, J. L. (2019). Gender and leadership style: A social identity perspective. Sex Roles, 81(1-2), 118-132.
85. Ensinger, J. L. (2019). Gendered leadership styles: A review of the literature. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 26(4), 437-454.
86. Field, A. P. (2020). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
87. Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
88. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (9th ed.). Routledge.
89. Francisco, M. T., & Rodriguez, R. C. (2016). Stakeholder Collaboration in School Governance in the Philippines: A Review of Literature. International Research Journal on Management and Commerce, 5(2), 114-121.
90. Fuentes, C. E. (2016). The influence of leadership styles on teacher participation in school decision-making in elementary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(2), 182-202.
91. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (2018). Professional capital after the honeymoon. In Professional capital at work (pp. 3-22). Routledge.
92. Fullan, M., & Quinn, T. (2016). Coherence leadership: Policies, practices, and sustainability. Corwin.
93. Fuller, A., & Young, M. (2019). Collegiality and school improvement: A theoretical and empirical review. School Leadership, 28(6), 770-803.
94. Gabiola, M. S., Toquero, C. B., & Arcilla, E. S. (2018). Transformational leadership and bayanihan spirit: A model for school improvement in the Philippines.
95. International Journal of Educational Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 13(2), 53-64.
96. Gacho, M. V., Lumanta, M. C. B., & Bitoon, S. D. (2018). Towards a Collaborative School Culture in the Philippines: A Leadership Perspective. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 121-134.
97. Gacho, M. V., Lumanta, M. C., & Bitoon, S. T. (2018). Teacher collaboration and professional development: A case study in a Philippine public elementary school. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 121-134.
98. García, E., & Weiss, E. (2020). Revisiting school size: Emerging empirical evidence and the implications for education policy. Educational Policy, 34(3), 319-346.
99. Garcia, M. A., & Salva, M. T. (2019). The impact of school leadership on teacher collaboration: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(2), 232-254.
100. Gardner, R. T. (2018). The principal and school improvement: Leading for learning. Corwin.
101. Gervacio, M. M., & Tuanquin, M. T. (2020). Factors influencing school leadership collegiality in public high schools of the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 32(1), 25-38.
102. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). The influence of school climate on student achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(1), 6-29.
103. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Ateah, C. (2015). The influence of school leadership on teacher professional development. In S. P. Robbins (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational leadership (pp. 243-272). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
104. Goddard, Y. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2017). Collective teacher efficacy beliefs: Theoretical distinctions and their relationship to school climate. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(1), 3-24.
105. Goddard, Y., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2017). The relationship between school climate and teacher collaboration: A meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(2), 141-162.
106. Goldring, E. B., Clark, M. C., Rubin, D. Z., Rogers, D. S., Grissom, J. A., Gill, B., & Camburn, E. M. (2020). The principal effect: How principals transform teaching and learning. Harvard Education Press.
107. Gonzales, A. S., & Morales, B. L. (2016). Fostering collegiality through participatory school management. Educational Leadership Review, 34(2), 87-99.
108. Gonzales, P. M. (2016). Teacher collaboration: A cornerstone of school improvement. International Journal of Educational Development, Using Research for Educational Improvement, 49, 147-158.
109. Goodlad, C. I. (1984. A place called school: Prospects for the future. McGraw-Hill.
110. Gorospe, E. A., & Espinosa, M. R. (2018). Participatory school management and its impact on teacher engagement. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 33(2), 55-68.
111. Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). The selection of principals and the long-term impacts on students. Educational Researcher, 50(2), 142-157.
112. Gronlund, N. E. (2020). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (8th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
113. Grubb, W. J., Bostedter, V., & Associates. (2016). Empowering schools: Making choice, competition, and accountability work. https://www.tc.columbia.edu/tcvotes/news/
114. Güven, S. (2020). Exploring the relationship between teachers’ collegiality and school leadership collegiality. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(5), 765-779.
115. Haarhoff, D. (2020). Teacher isolation in large high schools: An exploration of factors contributing to isolation and strategies for fostering collegiality. South African Journal of Education, 40(2), 01-12.
116. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2018). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
117. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
118. Halawah, I. (2019). The impact of leadership styles on school organizational climate: A review of literature. Educational Research and Reviews, 14(1), 1-13.
119. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2017). School leadership effects on student learning: A synthesis of research. School Leadership Research, 33(6), 743-774. doi:10.1080/02727787.2016.1223232
120. Hardison, P. T. (2021). What principals can do to create a more positive and productive work environment for teachers. Journal of Educational Leadership, 79(2), 45-49.
121. Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. (2017). Collaborative advantage: The architecture of professional learning communities. Corwin.
122. Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. (2018). Collaborative leadership: A development framework for schools. Corwin.
123. Hargreaves, A., & O’Connor, M. (2018). Leading educational change: The case for collaborative leadership. Corwin.
124. Harris, A. (2017). Leading collaborative teacher learning: A guide for school leaders. Corwin.
125. Harris, A. (2018). Participatory leadership: A critical analysis of theory and practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 1-20.
126. Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2017). Effective school leadership: Second edition. SAGE Publications.
127. Hattie, J. (2017). Visible learning for schools: What works best and why. Routledge.
128. Hawley, W. D., & Mussoline, J. (2017). The role of advisory school councils in promoting trust and collaboration between parents and school personnel. Journal of School Leadership, 77(2), 226-253. doi:10.1177/0272069X
129. Haydon, G., Mancini, M., & Campbell, P. (2017). Advisory school councils in Australia: A tale of two systems. Journal of Educational Change, 18(2), 189-210.
130. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, H. L. (2017). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Future of Children, 27(1), 11-40.
131. Hopkins, D. (2017). School leadership: Key concepts. Bloomsbury Publishing.
132. Hopkins, D., & Lin, Y. L. (2018). The impact of school councils on school improvement: A critical review of the research. School Leadership, 27(4), 442-471.
133. Hoy, W. K., & Forsyth, B. E. (2011). Educational leadership: A core course for aspiring school administrators (8th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
134. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2013). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. McGraw-Hill Education.
135. Hoy, W. K., & Moeller, J. (2017). Leadership and organizational climate. Routledge. Hoy, W. K., Hoy, A. W., & Tarter, C. J. (2019). The four-factor model of school climate: A guide to understanding and improving environments for learning. Corwin.
136. James, L. A., & Sells, R. W. (2019). The handbook of organizational climate and culture. Sage Publications.
137. Javier, E. F., & Labrador, L. T. (2021). Understanding collegial leadership in the Philippine educational context. Journal of School Leadership, 29(3), 123-137.
138. Johnson, L., & Strange, M. (2018). The influence of school size on student outcomes: A review of the literature. Educational Review, 70(4), 413-428.
139. Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers’ narratives of collegiality in a professional development school. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 17-26.
140. Jose, R. P. (2021). Collegial leadership of school heads and teachers’ collaboration practices.
141. Jover, Z. L., & Sarmiento, L. L. (2015). Teacher collaboration and school climate: A case study of a Philippine public elementary school. International Journal of Instruction, 8(2), 189-204.
142. Jover, Z. R., & Sarmiento, R. E. (2015). Building a Professional Learning Community: The Case of a Public Elementary School in the Philippines. International Journal of Instruction, 8(2), 141-158.
143. Kaplan, J. M., & Owings, M. L. (2017). Educational research: Qualitative and quantitative methods. SAGE Publications.
144. Kim, H. J., & Lee, M. J. (2020). The effects of a professional development program on teachers’ pedagogical knowledge and self-efficacy for teaching science. Journal of Educational Research, 113(2), 221-238.
145. Kim, H., & Lee, M. J. (2020). The effects of a professional development program on teacher efficacy and student achievement in mathematics. Educational Research Review, 15, 100223.
146. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
147. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Sampling techniques in educational research. Longman.
148. Kutsyuruba, Y., & Walker, R. (2016). Collegial leadership: Distributed leadership in practice. Corwin.
149. Laing, M. D., Rivkin, S. G., Schiman, O., & Ward, M. R. (2016). How effective are equity-focused principals? A multi-level analysis of school leadership effects on student achievement in urban elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 220-252.
150. Lee, J., & Smith, A. (2021). Medium-Sized High Schools: Meeting the Needs of Diverse Learners. The High School Journal, 104(3), 221-236.
151. Legaspi, C. M., & Morales, P. A. (2017). School leadership and teacher collaboration: A multi-level analysis. School Leadership & Management, 37(5), 582-604.
152. Legaspi, C. M., & Morales, P. A. (2018). The relationship between school leadership practices and teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(3), 822-844.
153. Leithwood, K. A., & Jantzi, D. (1997). Making a difference: Leadership that matters in schools. Routledge.
154. Leithwood, K., & Louis, K. S. (2017). Leading collaborative learning: Becoming a school leader. Corwin.
155. Leithwood, K., & Seashore Louis, K. (2012). Distributed leadership in schools: A review of the literature. School Leadership & Management, 32(1), 3-29.
156. Leithwood, K., & Seashore Louis, K. (2017). Leading for collaborative learning: A guide for school leaders. Corwin.
157. Leithwood, K., & Seashore Louis, K. (2018). Linking leadership to student learning. John Wiley & Sons.
158. Leithwood, K., Begley, P. T., & Tennant, A. (2019). Leading schools in an era of change. Corwin.
159. Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & O’Donoghue, L. (2017). Leading collaboratively for equity and excellence in education: A review of research. School Leadership & Management, 37(4), 349-374. DOI: 10.1080/02722734.2016.1229223:
160. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2017). Leading school improvement in an era of change. Corwin.
161. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2017). Leading school improvement: International perspectives. Routledge.
162. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading effective school improvement: International perspectives. John Wiley & Sons.
163. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2019). Leading for learning: A review of the leadership literature. School Leadership, 28(6), 756-782.
164. Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2020). Leading collaboratively for equity and excellence. John Wiley & Sons.
165. Leithwood, K., Marks, H., & Roland, M. (2019). Distributed leadership for school improvement: A review of the literature. School Leadership, 28(4), 520-542.
166. Leithwood, K., Marks, H., & Roland, M. (2019). School leadership: Policy, culture and practice (7th ed.). Corwin.
167. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., & Wahlstrom, K. (2019). Leading for equity: Combining distributive, developmental, and instructional leadership. Corwin.
168. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2019). Distributed leadership in schools: Breaking new ground. Corwin.
169. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2019). Collective leadership for school improvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(1), 166-208. doi:10.1177/0014408317741210
170. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2017). Leading for distributed leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
171. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2017). Leading for distributive leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
172. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2018). How leadership influences schools: A review of the literature. John Wiley & Sons.
173. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2017). Leading for differentiation: Challenges and strategies for systemic school improvement. John Wiley & Sons.
174. Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Luo, Y. (2018). Collegial leadership for school improvement. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(3), 449-470.
175. Leung, C. B. (2019). Teacher collaboration in a Hong Kong secondary school: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 18(2), 227-246.
176. Leung, C. B. (2019). Teacher collaboration in a Hong Kong secondary school: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Educational Development Using Research for Educational Improvement, 68, 142-153.
177. Lieberman, A., & Hall, L. (2016). A theory of professional learning communities: A developer’s guide. Journal of Educational Change, 17(1), 63-103. doi: 10.1177/1741734815588503
178. Lim, A. S., & de Vera, M. A. (2019). Challenges to fostering teacher collegiality in Philippine public schools. Journal of Educational Issues, 7(2), 85-98.
179. Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation in schoolwork. Educational Researcher, 11(7), 10-12, 29.
180. Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and isolation in teachers’ professional relations. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 10-21.
181. Little, J. W. (2010). Looking back: Collaborative teacher development and school reform. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(1), 7-22.
182. Little, J. W. (2016). Professional learning communities: Taking communities of practice seriously. John Wiley & Sons.
183. Little, J. W. (2017). Distributed leadership: Moving beyond the rhetoric. School Leadership & Management, 37(1-2), 3-16.
184. Little, J. W., & Lopez, D. (2009). Networking communities in urban schools: Leaders, teachers, and parents working together for equity. Teachers College Press.
185. Littleton, C. (2017). Influence of collegial leadership practices on organizational climate within government secondary schools. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of XYZ.
186. Llego, L. L. (2023, February 21). Implementing Guidelines on the Establishment of School Governance Council (SGC) (DepEd Order No. 26, s. 2022). Retrieved from [link to DepEd Order No. 26] Note: Replace the bracketed information with the actual link to DepEd Order No. 26
187. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Stiegelmeyer, A. (2018). Collegial leadership assessment (CLA). In K. Leithwood, K. S. Louis, K. Wahlstrom, & S. Anderson (Eds.), How leadership influences schools: A review of the literature (pp. 221-237). John Wiley & Sons.
188. Ma, X., & Marion, S. (2021). Transformational leadership and teacher collaboration: A multilevel structural equation modeling analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 40(2), 380-402.
189. Ma, X., & Marion, S. (2021). The effects of instructional leadership on teacher collaboration and student achievement: A multilevel analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 40(2), 232-254.
190. Magno, C., & Miguel, R. M. (2018). The role of collegial leadership in improving school effectiveness. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 31(2), 67-79.
191. Managuit, E. C. (2019). Barriers to developing collegial relationships among teachers in public high schools. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 45(1), 23-35.
192. Manalang, R. (2020). The impact of professional learning communities (PLCs) on teacher collaboration and innovation in a public high school in Rizal province, Philippines. The Asia Pacific Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 18(3), 247-262.
193. Manalang, R. C. (2020). The impact of professional learning communities on teacher collaboration and instructional effectiveness in selected public high schools in Rizal Province, Philippines. (Unpublished master’s thesis). De La Salle University.
194. Manasan, B. G., & Antonio, J. R. (2017). The Role of School Heads in Implementing School-Based Management (SBM) Effectively in the Philippines. International Journal of Instruction, 10(2), 127-140.
195. Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. (2017). Teacher collaboration and student achievement in elementary mathematics: A multilevel analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(2), 182-202.
196. Marks, H. M., & Robinson, V. M. (2017). The relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership practices and school climate: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(2), 222-243.
197. McDevitt, M., & Ormston, J. (2017). Social research methods (7th ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
198. McLeod, S. A. (2022, March 18). Descriptive statistics. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/theories/statistics
199. Medina, A. C. (2019). School-based management and school improvement in the Philippines: A policy analysis. International Journal of Educational Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 14(2), 147-160.
200. Mendoza, A. (2018). Fostering trust and open communication: A case study on teacher morale and instructional leadership in a public high school in Metro Manila.
201. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 6(2), 112-124.
202. Mendoza, A. (2018). Fostering trust and open communication: A case study on teacher morale and instructional leadership in a public high school in Metro Manila.
203. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 6(2), 112-124. Mendoza, G. P., & Atienza, M. P. (2020). Shared decision-making in school leadership:
204. A review of literature. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 543-558.
205. Mendoza, L. P. (2018). The relationship between school leadership practices and teacher morale in selected public high schools in Metro Manila. (Unpublished master’s thesis). De La Salle University.
206. Moos, R. H., & Doll, E. J. (2018). School climate improvement: A guide for school leadership teams. Corwin.
207. Mora-Ruano, M. C., Lopez-Jimenez, Z., & Justicia-Azpiroz, F. J. (2019). The role of instructional leadership in fostering teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(5), 1222-1247.
208. Mora-Ruano, M. C., Onrubia, J., & Martinez, A. (2019). Shared leadership and teacher collaboration in professional learning communities: A multilevel analysis. School Leadership & Management, 39(6), 818-840.
209. Muckenthaler, J., Bryant, D. M., & Dufour, R. (2020). Learning by leading: A guide to building professional learning communities. Solution Tree Press.
210. Muckenthaler, J., Lewis, S., & McCaffrey, D. (2020). The impact of school leadership on teacher job satisfaction, turnover, and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(3), 759-802.
211. National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Advisory school councils. https://nces.ed.gov/
212. National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Teacher demographic data. https://nces.ed.gov/
213. National School Climate Council. (2018). School climate framework. https://schoolclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/school-climate- standards.pdf
214. Negros Occidental Provincial Government. (2023). Negros Occidental: Sugar Capital of the Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.negros-occ.gov.ph/
215. Negros Occidental Provincial Government. (2023, February 15). Tissue Culture Lab in Murcia [Press release]. https://www.negros-occ.gov.ph/news/tissue-culture-lab-in-murcia/
216. Nery, A. L. (2016). Empowering School Governing Councils through Capacity Building Frameworks in the Philippines. Journal of Educational Administration and Management, 5(2), 1-12.
217. New International Version. (2011). Bible Gateway. Bible Gateway: https://www.biblegateway.com/
218. Nias, J. (1998). Knowing teachers: Individuals in interaction. Teachers College Press.
219. Oates, W. J. (2020). Researching educational leadership: A guide to methodology and design (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
220. Obiekwe, C. C., Nwachukwu, R. N., & Afolayan, A. O. (2021). School leader gender and teacher job satisfaction: The role of leadership style. Journal of Educational Administration and Management, 59(8), 1424-1441.
221. Ocampo, A. R., et al. (2019). Understanding the dynamics of collegial leadership in Philippine schools. International Journal of Educational Development, 73(1), 45- 57.
222. Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2019). Looking back, moving forward: The past, present and future of teacher collaboration. Educational Review, 91(1), 1-22.
223. Pagcaliwagan, R. G., et al. (2020). Promoting participatory leadership in Philippine high schools. Journal of School Administration and Leadership, 28(3), 87-101.
224. Palaroan, A. S., & Basa, E. B. (2016). Factors influencing teacher collaboration in the Philippines. International Journal of Instruction, 9(2), 189-208.
225. Pascua, A. S., & Murillo, E. B. (2018). Factors affecting teachers’ job satisfaction in the Philippines. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 141-158.
226. Pashiardis, P., & Aligieri, S. (2018). Distributed leadership practices among school leaders in Cyprus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(5), 682-700.
227. Pellicer, L. C., & Quintos, L. G. (2017). The importance of school leadership in creating positive learning environments. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 32(1), 23-37.
228. Peñaloza, R. P., Abaoag, J. A., & Dayag, V. M. (2018). A qualitative study on the lived experiences of school leaders in a division of DepEd Philippines. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 6(1), 78-93.
229. Pescosolido, B. A., & Perry, C. E. (2017). School climate and student learning. In Encyclopedia of Education and Society (pp. 1562-1567). SAGE Publications, Inc. [DOI: 10.4135/9781473917179.n751]
230. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for practice (10th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
231. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for practice (10th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
232. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2020). Moderation and mediation analysis using structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
233. Quines, E. G. (2017). The mediating effect of teacher collegiality on the relationship between instructional leadership and professional development of teachers. European Journal of Educational Studies, 2(7), 825-838.
234. Race, P. S. (2018). An Assessment of the Operationalization of the School Governing Council (SGC) in the Division of San Pablo City for the Development of a Relevant Intervention Program (Unpublished Master’s thesis). De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines.
235. Ramirez, B. C., & Villar, R. L. (2018). School Leadership and School Governance in the Philippines: A Review of Literature. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(3), 321-338.
236. Ramos, N. (2016). Teacher collaboration and school leadership: A reciprocal relationship. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(6), 787-808.
237. Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
238. Reyes, A. P., & Castro, M. A. (2018). Leadership practices and organizational climate in selected public secondary schools in the Philippines. Asian Journal of Management Sciences & Education, 7(2), 142-150.
239. Robinson, S. A., Ryan, A. M., & Herold, D. M. (2020). A multilevel examination of leader communication style and employee trust: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(2), 373-389.
240. Robinson, S. E., Ryan, A. M., & Herold, D. M. (2020). Gender and leadership style revisited: A meta-analysis of situational moderators. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(2), 299-319.
241. Robinson, V. M., Athanasiou, A., & Kubota, K. (2020). School leadership practices survey (SLPS). In Measures of effective teaching. https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/documents/districtwhitepaper.pdf
242. Robinson, V., Hodge, J., & Wong, H. (2020). School leadership and teacher collaboration in a time of educational change. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(2), 221-240.
243. Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2018). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Review, 70(1), 142-172.
244. Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2019). Leading for collaborative advantage: A guide for school leaders. SAGE Publications.
245. Robinson, V., Knipe, C., & Goddard, Y. (2020). Gender and school leadership styles: A systematic review. School Leadership, 29(2), 222-252. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1741143216659296
246. Robinson, V., Knipe, C., & Grosvenor, I. (2020). Gender and leadership style: A systematic review. School Leadership & Management, 40(1-2), 18-46. doi: 10.1080/02722734.2019.1622022
247. Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Creedy, M. (2020). School size, leadership practices, and teacher collaboration: A multilevel analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(1), 78-102.
248. Robinson, V., Shafer, D., & Wong, H. (2020). Leadership for distributed learning: A review of literature. TechTrends, 64(2), 182-193.
249. Robinson, V., Shaked, M., & Hobson, A. (2020). Teacher collaboration, collegial leadership, and school improvement in a climate of accountability. School Leadership & Management, 40(1-2), 158-179.
250. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace conditions and student achievement. Educational Researcher, 18(4), 20-27.
251. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace conditions: Impact on morale and student learning. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 341-370.
252. Rutaquio, N. S., & Asuncion, M. L. (2020). The Role of Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) in Enhancing School-Based Management (SBM) Practices in the Philippines. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 6(3), 823-832.
253. Sagun, A. M., & Tiamzon, M. A. (2021). Teachers’ collegiality and its impact on school leadership. Journal of Educational Management and Leadership, 39(4), 321-335.
254. San Antonio, L. B., & Villaruel, E. P. (2020). Examining the link between collegial leadership and student achievement. Journal of School Effectiveness and Improvement, 39(1), 45-57.
255. Santos, G., & Villasis, M. (2019). Team teaching in Philippine public high schools: A collaborative approach to enhancing student learning. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 1-18.
256. Santos, J. F., & Caballero, N. M. (2021). Enhancing teacher morale through collegial leadership practices. Educational Research Quarterly, 38(2), 189-203.
257. Santos, P. C., & Montemayor, I. (2019). The effects of participatory school management on teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A path analysis model. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(2), 220-242.
258. Santos, R. L., & Angeles, R. C. (2019). Perceptions of teachers on leadership practices in selected public secondary schools. International Journal of Research – Granthaalayah, 7(5), 313-322.
259. Santos, R. P., & Rodriguez, M. T. (2018). Implementing participatory school management: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 26(3), 45-59.
260. School Climate for All. (2023). What is school climate?. https://schoolclimate.org/school-climate/
261. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
262. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2018). Leadership for educational improvement: Breaking new ground. Corwin.
263. Shah, A. (2016). Teacher Collegiality Scale (TCS-34). Unpublished manuscript. Siedlecki, P., & Ackroyd, S. (2017). Research methods in organization studies (3rd ed.). Routledge.
264. Siraj-Blatchford, I., Pellegrini, A. D., & Blondell, C. (Eds.) (2019). Distributed leadership in early childhood education. Routledge.
265. Siraj-Blatchford, I., Pellegrini, A. D., & Blondell, C. (Eds.) (2019). Distributed leadership in early childhood education. Routledge.
266. Smith, R. D., Jones, M., & Wang, L. (2019). Understanding the impact of school size on student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 712- 743.
267. Smylie, M. A., & Hart, A. W. (2017). School leadership essentials: Leading with learning in mind. SAGE Publications.
268. Southworth, G. (2018). The influence of advisory councils on school climate and leadership practices. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(7), 121-140. doi:10.1177/0022068317748732
269. Spears, L. C. (2017). Servant leadership: An integrated approach. Routledge. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Distributed leadership. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 13-22. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
270. Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (2007). Distributed leadership in secondary schools: Does it matter? Educational Management & Administration, 35(5), 603-623.
271. Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (2007). Distributed leadership in practice. Teachers College Press.
272. Spillane, J. P., Hallett, M. P., & Diamond, J. B. (2017). Distributed leadership in schools: Theoretical definitions and empirical illustrations. Routledge.
273. Stone, C. A., & David-Lang, I. (2017). Teacher professional development in the Philippines: A review of the literature. International Journal of Educational Development, 56, 152-162.
274. Stone, C., & David-Lang, I. (2017). The contribution of professional standards to teacher effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 12, 44-53.
275. Sullivan, K., Joshi, P., Mussoline, E., & Hui, S. (2017). Does size matter? A meta- analysis of the relationship between school size and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(2), 179-195.
276. Sun, J., Leithwood, K., & Luo, Y. (2021). The effects of collegial leadership on teacher collaboration and trust in schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(2), 264-282.
277. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2017). Mixed methods research in social and behavioral sciences. Routledge.
278. Townsend, T. H., & Adams, J. D. (2019). School leadership teams: A framework for building collegial relationships. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(5), 632-653.
279. Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2007). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Atomic Dog Publications.
280. UN Women. (2022). The Philippines. https://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/countries/philippines
281. UNESCO. (2019). Gender equality in education: Addressing the learning needs of all. https://www.unesco.org/en/gender-equality/education
282. UNESCO. (2021). Global education monitoring report 2021/2: Non-state actors in education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379875
283. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2019).
284. Global education monitoring report 2019: Gender and education. UNESCO. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2021).
285. Education transforms lives: Global education monitoring report 2021. UNESCO. United Nations Women. (2022). Philippines. [UN Women Philippines website].
286. https://asiapacific.unwomen.org/en/countries/philippines
287. Urick, A., & Bowers, A. J. (2019). Collegial leadership: A systematic review and research agenda. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(5), 758-788.
288. Vidal, G. A., & Olipas, C. A. (2021). The impact of teacher collegiality on school leadership practices. Journal of School Leadership and Management, 39(2), 178- 192.
289. Wang, G., Huang, L., Zhang, H., & Wong, C. A. (2018). The relationship between leadership style and school climate: Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(4), 336-356.
290. Waters, J. T. (2018). The impact of professional development on teacher quality. Review of Educational Research, 88(1), 107-146.
291. Waters, J. T. (2018). Teacher professional development: Theory, practice, and research. Routledge.
292. World Bank. (2022). Female labor force participation rate, total (% of female population 15+). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS
293. World Bank. (2022). World development indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
294. Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis. Harper & Row.
295. Ylimaa, M., Kroger, J., & Mantyla, J. (2019). Gender and trust in school leadership: A qualitative study of experiences of Finnish principals. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 23(2), 220-237.
296. Zahorik, D. A. (1987). Elementary school principals’ effects on school quality: An unsettling conclusion. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 7-17.