Instructional Leadership in School-Based Management of DepEd Schools in Samar Island: Systematic Approach Review

Instructional Leadership in School-Based Management of DepEd Schools in Samar Island: Systematic Approach Review

Roy O. Anabo

Graduate School, Eastern Samar State University, Borongan City, Eastern Samar, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.805085

Received: 09 April 2024; Revised: 18 April 2024; Accepted: 23 April 2024; Published: 08 June 2024

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research paper is to provide a review of the systematic approach design on instructional leadership in school-based management of DepEd schools in Samar Island. The research methodology paper draws from the database of reviews previously conducted over the past seven years of instructional leadership in the context of different practices, and styles in school-based management. This study used a systematic approach review performed using four phases in Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) that emphasizes a specific topic and selects relevant literature using content analysis based on the abstract of selected articles in instructional leadership. The study revealed that instructional leadership should provide technical assistance to teachers, innovating teaching and learning that ensure quality instruction in learning, growth of learners, and professional development of teachers. Leadership fosters decision-making by strategically balancing, competing priorities, having visionary goals, empathy with constituents, and resistance to change in all educational endeavors. In addition, different abstract literature reviews develop the existence of several challenges and limitations of instructional leadership in school-based management. The gaps and challenges have been recognized in the reviews. It shows high-quality research reviews conducted in instructional leadership simplify to administrators, teachers, students, and the community that contribute quality of education in school-based management. The implications of this study are highlighting systematic methods reviews to provide decision-making, and guidance to enhance knowledge in more systematic ways of instructional leadership in school-based management. The originality and value of this research paper lies in its adaptation and application for the recent reviews on social sciences to the field of instructional leadership in school-based management such as instructional leadership: practices, school performance, internal and external stakeholders, and community-based resources.

Keywords: Instructional leadership, School-based management, DepEd schools, Systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Instructional leadership is one of the skills that must possessed by a school principal and one of the most important components in DepEd schools.  Principals are education providers, coordinators, coaches, utilization, administrators, facilities, and infrastructure in carrying out the process of teaching and learning activities to achieve the goal of successfully improving the quality of education and producing graduates who have the skills and abilities independently to carry out a decent and better life (Aisayah et, al., 2022). The principal or school head delegates teachers, makes decisions by deliberation, and determines policy the principal always holds open meetings, builds communication, and conducts evaluations and the school has a democratic leadership style that always invites subordinates to work together on the school’s vision, mission, and goals (Roque, 2023). However, based on the conclusion of the study by Walewangko et.al., (2023) understanding the instructional leadership by the school principal is insufficient and hinders its implementation in schools. The school head’s role as a supervisor, manager, administrator, innovator, motivator, and leader needs improvement. They should focus on involving teachers in seminars and training to improve their abilities, monitor teacher teaching strategies and techniques, embrace all stakeholders in decision-making, and improve administrative efficiency. The study reveals also the obstacles in coordination with stakeholders such as unclear roles, lack of effective communication, and busy stakeholders. That is why the school leadership should focus on improving communication, understanding roles, and establishing to improve school-based management effectiveness.

Instructional leadership has changed a lot from old approaches to new innovative instruction that mightbe good to use as a basis for improvement because of the influence of society and modern technology. Likewise, according to the study by Youngs (2020),distributed leadership has many forms in practice. It is not only a diverse concept, but a complex one, which requires empowerment in managerial positions, and also, the school head is expected to manage together with significant stakeholders, it should focus on empowering the school’s management team and instructional leadership.Instructional leadership, defined as the actions school leaders take to promote effective teaching and learning, has been widely recognized as a crucial element in determining the success of schools (Hallinger 2020; Fullan 2020). Effective instructional leadership has been associated with higher student achievement, improved teacher effectiveness, and overall school improvement (Sebastian, et al. 2019; Jimenez& Galicia, 2023). The standard of primary education in the Philippines has witnessed improvement since the commencement of the new millennium; however, public schools in the nation persistently confront numerous challenges (Anabo, 2024). Therefore, the pivotal role of education in achieving sustainable development remains crucial. As asserted by Valencia (2018), the challenge lies in educating and cultivating individuals who embody values conducive to sustainable practices, empowering learners to make choices and decisions that actively endorse sustainable development. The role of the instructional leader as a partners in creating changes and development through acquiring quality education is an urgent concern, especially in this time of Basic Education. However, not all leaders is aware of their roles as partners of the school in attaining its vision and mission. There are school leaders who are having a hard time collaborating with the school programs and projects, working together, and sharing responsibilities with the community. However, the Department of Education (DepEd) has been putting into practice several projects, programs, and activities that will achieve the legal frameworks of the department, both now and in the past. This shows how strong the role of instructional leadership is as the central point of innovation and education reform in schools (Ulfatin, N., et.al.,2022).This research study determines the systematic concept of instructional leadership of DepEd schools in Samar Island.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The type of research method used was a systematic approach review that was designed to synthesize and analyze existing published articles related to instructional leadership. To select relevant literature the study used content analysis based on the abstract of selected articles on different instructional leadership concepts. The systematic approach review was performed using four phases in Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009).

The search was limited to articles published in peer-reviewed journals, books, and conference proceedings but not limited to Google Scholar, JSTOR, ERIC, PubMed, Science Direct, Ebcohost, and Scopus with the help of Open Athens. Keywords in English such as Instructional Leadership, School-Based Management, Community-Based Resources, School Performance, DepEd Schools, and Internal and External Stakeholders. In addition to searching for indexed journal articles, conference proceedings, and unpublished thesis. Likewise to ensure the relevance and quality of the selected literature, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established. A total of 320 studies were found in a database searchand another 12 studies from other sources. 8 duplicate articles were removed, thus 300 studies underwent the next phase. In the screening phase, the scope of the search was narrowed down to several criteria; articles of related studies had been published from 2018 to the present, available in the Open Access category, and in the context of past studies. A total of 268 studies were excluded after the screening process and only 12 studies were assessed in the third phase, eligibility using PRISMA checklist. Finally, 20 studies included and independently summarized their scope, methods, samples, and geographic profile.

Figure 1. PRISMA Systematic Approach Review Flowchart

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Instructional Leadership: Practices

School heads, sometimes known as instructional leaders, are also called Principals or Teachers-in-charge of secondary schools in the Department of Education (DepEd), and as such, they are the school’s managers and administrators. They are responsible for providing instructional leadership, which includes managing instructional programs and ensuring effective use of instructional time to promote the achievement of educational goals and objectives. Under Section 6.1, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9155, there shall be a school head for each public elementary school and secondary school, or cluster thereof (Jimenez, & Galicia, 2023). The administrative and instructional oversight of a school or group of schools is the responsibility of the school head. The following leadership qualities are so demanded of a school leader: educational, people, and strategic leadership (DepEd Order No. 42 s. 2007).

School heads, together with the teachers, are also the frontrunners of DepEd in making sure that the mission and vision are attained for the learners to develop as individuals and grow to contribute meaningfully to building the nation.  Similarly, Ikediugwu and Agu (2022) asserted that school heads are responsible for defining the school’s vision, introducing innovation to teachers’ teaching methods, supporting staff performance, coordinating instructional activities, and fostering a positive school climate. Instructional leaders are considered to be goal-oriented. They motivate others to put their efforts toward achievement and always lead from the front while giving a clear direction for the schools (Baldanza, 2018). This direction is primarily focused on improving students’ academic outcomes in instructional effective schools serving underachieving students (Liu & Hallinger, 2018). In any profession people doing their job within the scope of ethical codes and standards earn the trust of others, prevent the waste of time and resources, and contribute to the order of the organization. Society expects employees to act justly, responsibly, and respectfully. When employees behave ethically in their jobs, organizational interest is protected more than self-interest. The welfare of society prospers and stability is enhanced (McBrayer, et al, 2018). According to a study by Mosage and Mataboge (2021), there is a shift from a top-down style of leadership to shared or distributed leadership which requires empowerment in managerial positions, and also, the school head is expected to manage together with significant stakeholders, it should focus to empowering the school by school management team and instructional leadership. An administrator who behaves ethically easily gains the support of all employees because employees who work in such an environment believe that the administrator would act ethically in any circumstance.

Today society expects much more from school administrators and this puts extra duties and responsibilities upon them. These duties are so excessive that one cannot easily stand. Administrators are responsible not only for enhancing academic success but also for creating an environment in which both students and employees can learn effectively (Hallinger, et al., 2018).In general terms, leadership is defined as the power to influence people. Leadership in terms of ethics, on the other hand, is the power to determine what is good and bad or right and wrong to reach common aims of organizations and to influence others accordingly (McBrayer, et al., 2020). In other words, ethical leaders lay down rules, follow these rules, and seek to enforce them. The school heads put a lot of effort into helping their teachers, kids, and parents build relationships and trust (Wieczorek & Manard, 2018).

Instructional Leadership: Performance of School

High-performing schools are significantly influenced by great leadership. Various leadership approaches can be practiced in schools according to the suitability and abilities of the leader (Fullan, M. 2020; Hallinger, 2020).  Instructional leadership is appropriately practiced by school leaders to bring school excellence through educational change and innovation. In this regard, teacher performance is one of the dimensions that need to be considered in building an excellent school (Rivera, 2023). Therefore, schools need to have leaders who practice instructional leadership. Many past studies havefound that there is a relationship between instructional leadership and teacher performance. A study by Tatlah, et.al., (2019) found that Headmasters who practice instructional leadership become agents of change and create a conducive school environment that has a positive impact on teacher performance and student achievement. The role of instructional leadership can also enhance the teachers’ functional competency (Ismail, et al., 2019). Likewise, a very high level of managerial competency and financial management among school heads in terms of school-based management (Operario, 2022). However, instructional leadership has a significant impact on student academic achievement and teacher performance (Hallinger, et.al., 2020;Zahed-Babelan, et al., 2019; Pietsch,Bellibaş, et.al., 2021).

In reality, principals or school heads are less effective at guiding teachers and sharing school goals (Schildkamp, et al., 2019). Less clear goals make it difficult for teachers to share and achieve. In this regard, Hallinger, (2020) asserts that clear goals can help school leaders ensure the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process by teachers. Likewise, schools must improve learning materials, and facilities, and always monitor learning outcomes provided with necessary interventions for academically challenging learners (Anabo, 2023). On the other hand, Makgato & Mudzanani, (2019) explained that school excellence depends on its leaders who share goals with teachers. A study by Mansor, et al., (2022) found that school performance problems are due to weaknesses in leadership practices and lack of focus on curriculum management. Further research by Danish, et al., (2019) revealed that there are still many school headmasters in rural or small schools who are less proactive, less creative, less innovative, and often lose focus as curriculum managers. Rapid changes in the field of education and the increasing workload have had implications for teachers’ work performance. Concerning this, teachers expect guidance, support, help, encouragement, and constructive advice from the headmaster. However, due to the busy factor with other tasks, the headmaster did not have time to discuss and communicate effectively with teachers related to teaching (Nurhayati, et al., 2019).

Instructional Leadership: Internal Stakeholders

In the implementation of school-based management, instructional leadership has an important role in the internal stakeholders of the school consultative meetings, administrative protocol, open communication, and decision-making are the most important parts of school-based management they serve as the heart of the organization in management because without them the school will be paralyzed in all aspects (Martin, 2019). There are two critical issues identified as internal stakeholders such as school heads, teacher competency, student organization, and parents’ teachers’ association these will promote empowerment and involvement in decision-making among all of them to increase motivation, and professional guidance in various aspects such as pedagogy in teaching strategies, professional development, accountability, and integrity in school based-management (Isa, et.al.,2020). In addition, the study by Bandur, (2018), on stakeholders’ responses to school-based management in Indonesia, concludes that school-based management drives the emergence of decision-making authority of school heads with the presence of participatory schools in decision-making and high involvement of school council for better teaching, the academic achievement of students was increased, and learning environments were harmonious to learning that are the effective implementation of school-based management, while less effective due to lack of proper understanding of the school stakeholders resulted to lower academic achievements of the school.

The implementation of school-based management requires various components that require readiness from various internal stakeholders and tools of educational support such as school buildings, learning facilities and infrastructure, school principals or heads, educators, and students in the school support system (Hardiansyah & Zainuddin, 2022). Likewise, the participation of internal stakeholders will optimize the potential of existing resources that create an open and democratic school climate that aims to meet the needs and interests of different educational programs of the students and teachers in school (Gaspar et.al., 2022). Quality improvement is obtained through parental participation, flexible management, teacher-increased professional development, rewards, and punishments, and fostering a conducive environment for learning (Hardiansyah & Mas’odi, 2022). Therefore, internal stakeholders play an important role in school-based management to improve the quality of education. Similarly, the same findings of Hardiansyah (2022) revealed that the activeness of the school committee evidences this by providing suggestions and considerations, supporters, controllers, and mediators. In school as well as the management of curriculum and teaching programs, projects, and activities, faculty and staff will be given the chance to manage the internal school.

Based on the study of Delgado (2019), the teachers, parents, and pupils as internal stake holders have greater control over the education process by giving them responsibility for decisions about budget, personnel, and the curriculum. As an internal stakeholder, felt the need to diagnose the problems and challenges being confronted in the implementation of SBM. It is necessary to determine what the internal stakeholders need to have to be able to perform more efficiently, and what intervention scheme can be developed to enhance the effective implementation of SBM. The descriptive-evaluative survey method was employed with a questionnaire as the primary data-gathering instrument. The following statistical tools were used: Frequency Count, Percentage Technique, Weighted Mean, Five-Point Rating Scale, and Kruskal Wallis H-Test. Data revealed the highest rating was garnered by the accountability of performance and on school policies and regulations with an average weighted mean of 4.31, followed by a learning process with 4.20, all described as “Very High.” On the other hand, rated as “high” with an average weighted mean of 4.05 was on serving on school council and organizations. The overall assessment was 4.22 described as “Very High,” 4.41 of which came from the group of teachers, 4.12 came from the group of teachers, and 4.13 from the group of pupils. The data proved the fact that by putting power in the hands of the end users of the service (education), SBM eventually leads to better school management that is more cognizant of and responsive to the needs of those end users, thus creating a better and more conducive learning environment for the students. A sound training program for internal stakeholders is critical to ensure higher performance efficiency because many of them are likely to lack the skills necessary to carry out their new responsibilities. School heads should create greater “overlap” among the school, home, and community through the implementation of activities across six types of involvement: parenting, and communication.

Instructional Leadership: External Stakeholders

In instructional leadership in school-based management, one of the factors is external stakeholders these are parents, community, local government units (LGU), and non-government organizations (NGOs). According to the study by Perez (2019). Parents and other external stakeholders play a significant role in the improvement of the schools. School and community are two important aspects that help build the future of our children. Focuses on the perception of the respondents based on their observation of how stakeholders’ involvement affects the school’s performance. They utilized qualitative research with phenomenology as an approach. The researcher made use of purposeful random sampling. In gathering pertinent information, they used a semi-structured interview with the respondents. After gathering all the data from the interviews conducted, the researcher transcribed the interviews verbatim with her respondents. Based on the interview, the school’s external holder’s lack of involvement in the different activities and programs of the school affects the overall performance of the activities such as Brigada Eskwela, Family Day, Recognition Day, etc. The respondents also mentioned that parents are the partners of the teachers in activities and programs especially when it comes to the physical and financial aspects. Lack of time and lack of involvement and communication with external stakeholders are some of the reasons cited why they are not involved in the school. This issue is very relevant nowadays because, through the good implementation of School-Based Management (SBM), the school’s performance will improve as well as the learners’ skills and abilities. It will be possible through the work collaboration of the internal and external stakeholders of the school. As a result, there will be a conducive and safe learning place for our learners, and the goal of providing a quality education will be achieved.

However, external stakeholders have a significant degree of involvement in the school improvement plan preparation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Furthermore, based on the study of Guzman (2022) results indicate that school performance is very good, and it does not differ regardless of the type of school. Surprisingly, they still faced challenges despite the large extent of stakeholders’ involvement in the three stages of the school improvement plan. There is no significant difference in terms of the degree to which the different stakeholder groups engage in the three stages of the school improvement plan and type of school. Also, the same result was found that there was no significant difference between the performance of the school and the type of school. Another finding using the Pearson r revealed that there is no significant relationship between the extent of stakeholders’ participation in the three stages of the school improvement plan and school performance.

Stakeholders’ participation plays a crucial role in realizing school programs and projects. Parental involvement and parent-school partnership strategies are critical factors in children’s academic success and it was perceived that parental, school, and community involvement were important for children’s academic success of parent-school partnerships (Massucco, 2020, O’Toole, et.al, 2019, Xhemajli & Mullaliu, 2022, Falayi, 2023, Poudel & Subedi, 2024, Yiki, 2024, Jamer, 2024, Anabo, 2024).

Instructional Leadership: Community-Based Resources

Community-based resources play an important role in instructional leadership. According to the study of Kurniawan et.al., (2023) the spirit of decentralization of education needs to be welcomed by educational institutions where educational institutions are given the freedom to manage their institutions according to the needs of the surrounding community and involve community participation in carrying out the educational process. To realize this, various fields in the organizational structure of school institutions are maximally functioning, not only those that are academic in nature but also those that are supportive, in this case, the field of public relations, which is a mediator of communication between educational institutions and the community. This is what educational institutions and society have not realized where they still consider the two parts to be separate so that there is no concern for each other’s existence, even though they are two groups that cannot be separated in the implementation of the educational process to produce moral generations of a moral society. To understand theories related to the material and conduct studies and discussions with colleagues to find solutions to the problems that the author encounters. In the discussion of this article, the author describes the problems regarding the new trend of future education based on the concept of the future curriculum, preparation for future education, and the essence of future education. The community-based resources it is important to have an in-depth understanding of how the school-based management operates at the local level, with what limitations, and with what implications for programs more generally. The second purpose related to shifting perspectives on community-based management draws on concepts related to systems theory, social capital, and community empowerment (Edwards, 2019).

However, the planning process for the implementation of school-based management includes the establishment of the school’s vision and mission as well as community involvement in planning school improvement (Tabroni et. al., 2022). Likewise, the goal of school-based management is to enable schools and community stakeholders to take a more active role in the administration and decision-making process. Making decisions is a shared duty between teachers and the community to promote a positive environment and advance the process of teaching and learning (Ayeni & Bamire, 2022). The school-based management aims to decentralize power and resources to the administrators, teachers, and people in the community to engage in school governance and improvement (Lara &Pañares, 2023).

Communities have strong partnerships and cooperation in school is good this can be seen through the availability of meetings gathered, school facilities donated, and infrastructure sufficient to the community support funds to implement programs and projects of the school (Jihan Abdulah, 2023). School components and focuses on programs to improve the quality of graduate students and educators (Sumaryanti & Purwanto, 2023). whereas others assert that SBM degrades educational quality, particularly in the least effective schools (Pepugal, 2022).

Based on the study of Nicdao & Ancho (2020), the Philippine Department of Education promotes shared governance through School-Based Management (SBM) as stated in the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001. The school heads are required to develop the School Improvement Plan (SIP) that requires the involvement of stakeholders. It aimed to identify the extent of stakeholders’ knowledge about the School Improvement Plan; analyze the extent of the stakeholders’ involvement in the formulation and implementation of the School Improvement Plan in terms of the Assess Phase, Plan Phase, and Act Phase; and describe the practices on stakeholders’ involvement in the formulation and implementation of the School Improvement Plan. Instruments used to gather data were prepared by the researcher and had been validated by the experts in the field of SBM and SIP. Results were organized and analyzed to answer the research questions of the study. Data revealed that stakeholders generally agreed that they understood the School Improvement Plan as a process. The key stakeholders gave several definitions that were aligned and similar to the definition given by the Department of Education (DepED); though schools had some modifications. Moreover, different practices emerged in the study in the different phases of SIP. These practices were proven to have a high and very high level of stakeholders’ involvement. Key stakeholders were also asked about the unique practices that they thought made their school invite and involve more stakeholders, particularly in the SIP process. It was observed that there are good practices that are beneficial in a particular school; common practices, practices that are just part of the guidelines, and distinct practices on specific schools. A high and very high extent of participation was observed in the practices presented.

School-based management (SBM) has logical findings on its efficacy and influence at the grassroots level. Despite some hindering factors, its impact on leadership and governance, curriculum and learning, accountability and continuous improvement, and resource management are commendable. Dones et. al., (2023) conclude that the improvements in schools triggered by SBM are responsiveness to the needs and challenges of schools; contextualization of the curriculum; improvement of physical facilities and linkages; and stakeholders’ awareness and involvement in school programs, projects, and activities (PPAs). Principals likewise implemented SBM in their respective schools by holding SBM planning with its stakeholders. The quality assurance by the community for all programs and projects implemented in schools includes SBM crafting and planning; implementation, monitoring, and documentation of student learning activities; and clean-up drive and transparency board installation. However, internal and external factors in influencing schools make outcomes unpredictable, thus bureaucracy is an effective managerial and analytical tool that can be used to examine and direct organizational structure (Yusuf et.al., 2019).

CONCLUSIONS

The research study concludes that the different principles of instructional leadership in school-based management. Administrative tasks are essential for school leadership, and community involvement because they provide them with a quality education that supports and collaborates with the school system. However, the findings of the systematic approach review the instructional leadership in school-based management utilized methods in schools’ administrators that involve setting a direction, developing people, and designing the organization, which provides significant contributions to student learning through an interactive process dependent upon core values and beliefs. These are the common strategies of leadership within schools classified as effective and successful if the assessment results are higher, work driven by clear morals, ethical values, respect and trust among staff and parents, and varied learning opportunities developed in collaboration.

Instructional leadership should provide technical assistance to teachers and innovate teaching and learning that ensure quality instruction and learning, growth of learners, and professional development of teachers.  In addition to the teaching and learning side of school leadership, instructional leadership should include organizational management for instructional improvement instead ofthe usual teaching and learning. The engagement of school heads in classroom instruction has only a little impact on the efficacy and efficiency of teaching-learning experiences in school. This implies that instructional leaders may have a significant impact on the quality of teaching and student learning by hiring teachers, assigning them to classrooms, retaining them, and providing them with opportunities to develop. These findings of different abstract literature reviews develop the existence of several challenges and limitations of effectiveness in the implementation of school-based management. The gaps and challenges have been recognized. It shows also in the reviews, that different factors on the principles such as schools, teachers, administrators, students, and the community contribute greatly to the effectiveness and quality of education of school-based management. The researcher recommends the possible areas of perspective, broader or larger scales of literature reviews, and different geographic context areas. Furthermore, further research study on the analysis of different principles in instructional leadership of school-based management is highly recommended.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to acknowledge the several authors of this literature review whose works have significantly contributed to this research. I extend my sincerest thanks and gratitude to those scholars for their dedication to advancing knowledge in the field of research. I am greatly honored and blessed to come up with this opportunity to build this research for scholarly contribution to this work.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Aisyah, S, Ilmi, M. U., Rosyid, M. A, Wulandari, E, & Akhmad, F. (2022). Kiai Leadership Concept in The Scope of Pesantren Organizational Culture. Tafkir: Interdisciplinary Journal of Islamic Education, 3(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.31538/tijie.v3i1.106
2. Anabo, R. O. (2023). Correlates of mathematics performance of grade 9 learners in secondary schools division of Eastern Samar amidst pandemic. EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR), 9(6), 343-354.https:/doi.org/1036713/epra13649
3. Anabo, R. O. (2024). MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE OF SECONDARY TEACHERS IN EASTERN SAMAR: BASIS FOR FORMULATION OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. EPRA International Journal of Research and Development (IJRD), 9(2), 227-232. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra15903
4. Ayeni, A. J. & Bamire, B. F. (2022). The Role of School-Based Management and Students’ Academic Performance in Secondary Schools in Owo Local Government Area of Ondo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Education Teaching and Social Sciences 2(3):49-63. https://doi.org/10.47747/ijets.v2i3.794
5. Baldanza, M. (2018). Baldanza’s model of 21st-century instructional leadership. Professional Practices, 1-5.
6. Bandur, A. (2018), “Stakeholders’ responses to school-based management in Indonesia”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 1082-1098. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2017-0191
7. Bellibaş, M. Ş., Gümüş, S., & Liu, Y. (2021). Does school leadership matter for teachers’ classroom practice? The influence of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on instructional quality. School effectiveness and school improvement, 32(3), 387-412. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1858119
8. Danish, R. Q., Qaseem, S. Mehmood, T. Ali, Q. M., Ali, H. F. & Shahid, R. (2019). “Work-related stressors and teachers’ performance: evidence from college teachers working in Punjab”, European Scientific Journal (ESJ), vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 158-173, 2019.https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2019.v15n4p158
9. Delgado, C. (2019). Performance Efficiency of the Internal Stakeholders in the Implementation of the School-Based Management (SBM) in the Division of Iriga City. Ascendens Asia Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, 3(2G).http://aaresearchindex.com/ojs
10. DepEd Order No.  42 s.  2007.  Retrieved January 16, 2023 from https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/DO_s2007_042.pdf
11. Dones Jr, M. D., Estremera, M. L., & Deuda, M. J. D. (2023). School-Based Management Perspectives: Exploring Top-Down Policy Execution at the Grassroots Level. European Journal of Educational Management, 6(2), 101-118.https://doi.org/10.12973/eujem.6.2.101
12. Edwards Jr, D. B. (2019). Shifting the perspective on community-based management of education: From systems theory to social capital and community empowerment. International journal of educational development, 64, 17-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.11.004
13. Falayi, O. O. (2023). Impact of Parental Involvement on the Academic Performance of African American Elementary School Students: A Multiple Regression Analysis. Doctoral Dissertations and Projects. 5044.https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/5044
14. Fullan, M. (2020). The nature of leadership is changing. European Journal of Education, 55(2), 139-142.
15. Gaspar, M. F., Patras, J., Hutchings, J., Homem, T.,   Azevedo, A.   F.,   Pimentel, M., Baptista, E., Major, S., Vale, V., & Seabra-Santos, M. (2022).  Effects of a Teacher Classroom Management program on preschool teachers’ practices and psychological factors: A randomized trial with teachers of children from economically disadvantaged families. Early Education and Development, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2022.2063612
16. Guzman, J. (2022). STAKEHOLDERS’ PARTICIPATION IN SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS. International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education, 3(July Special Issue), 51–66. Retrieved from https://ijase.org/index.php/ijase/article/view/159
17. Hallinger, P. (2020). Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership and management from the emerging regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America, 1965–2018. Educational Management Administration &Leadership, 48(2),209-230.https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218822772
18. Hallinger, P., & Hosseingholizadeh, R. (2020). Exploring instructional leadership in Iran: A mixed methods study of high-and low-performing principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(4), 595-616.https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219836684
19. Hallinger, P., Hosseingholizadeh, R., Hashemi, N., & Kouhsari, M. (2018). Do beliefs make adifference? Exploring how principal self-efficacy and instructional leadership impact teacher efficacy and commitment in Iran. Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership, 46(5), 800-819.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741143217700283
20. Hallinger, P., Hosseingholizadeh, R., Hashemi, N., & Kouhsari, M. (2018). Do beliefs             make a difference? Exploring how principal self-efficacy and instructional leadership impact teacher efficacy and commitment in Iran. Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership, 46(5), 800-819. http://doi.org./10.1177/1741143217700283
21. Hardiansyah, F. (2022). The Implementation of School-Based Management in Improving Quality of Education in Primary School. Kelola: Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan, 9(2), 148-162.
22. Hardiansyah, F., & Zainuddin, Z.  (2022).  The Influence of Principal’s Motivation, Communication, and Parental Participation on   Elementary   School Teachers’ Performance. Al    Ibtida: Jurnal Pendidikan Guru MI, 9(2), 319–334.
23. Ikediugwu, N. P., & Agu, U. V. (2022). PRINCIPALS’INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AS CORRELATES OF TEACHERS JOB COMMITMENT IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN ENUGU STATE. UNIZIK Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 11, 22-30.
24. Isa, A. M., Mydin, A. A., & Abdullah, A. G. K. (2020). School-Based Management (SBM) practices in Malaysia: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(9), 822-838. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i9/7870
25. Jamer, F. T. (2024). PERCEPTION OF PARENT-STAKEHOLDERS IN THE SCHOOLS’READINESS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DISTANCE LEARNING MODALITIES AT EASTERN SAMAR NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL. EPRA International Journal of Research and Development (IJRD), 9(2), 215-226. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra15890
26. Jihan Abdullah, J. (2023). Implementation of School-Based Management in Increasing the Quality of Education. Jurnal on Education, 5(3), 9141-9146. https://jonedu.org/index.php/joe/article/view/1714.
27. Jimenez, R. G.& Galicia, L. (2023). School Heads’ Instructional Leadership Skills, Emotional Competencies, and Teachers’ Work Performance in Selected Public Junior High Schools. 5. 45-68. https://doi.org/10.47577/teh.v5i.8950
28. Kurniawan, J., Rahman, R., & Hilman, C. (2023). The Role of the Community in Community-Based Education. At-Tasyrih: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Hukum Islam, 9(2), 96-106. https://doi.org/10.55849/attasyrih.v9i2.168
29. Lara, N. & Pañares, N. (2023). Implementation of School-Based Management as Perceived by the School Governing Council. International Journal of Research Publications. 129. https://doi.org/10.47119/IJRP1001291720235295
30. Liu, S., & Hallinger, P. (2018). Principal instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy,    and teacher professional learning in china: Testing a mediated-effects model. Educational Administration Quarterly,54(4),501-528. http://dx.doi.org./10.1177/0013161X18769048
31. Makgato, M., & Mudzanani, N. N. (2019). Exploring school principals’ leadership styles and learners’ educational performance: A perspective from high-and low-performing schools. Africa Education Review, 16(2), 90-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2017.1411201
32. Mansor, A. N., & Suliman, A. (2018). The Practice of School-based Management: Special Reference to Malaysian Clusters Schools and UK Autonomous Schools. Journal of Adv Research Dynamical & Control System, Vol. 10(02-Special Issue), pp-1618-1626.
33. Mansor, A. N., Hamid, A. H. A., Medina, N. I., Vikaraman, S. S., Abdul Wahab, J. L., Mohd Nor, M. Y., & Alias, B. S. (2022). Challenges and strategies in managing small schools: A case study in Perak, Malaysia. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(4), 694-710.https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220942517
34. Martin, M. (2019). The implementation of school-based management in public elementary schools. Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajatel.vol9.no1.5.2019
35. Massucco, J. (2020). A qualitative case study examining parental involvement and parent-school partnership strategies in a middle school: Perspectives of parents, teachers, and administrators. Digital Commons @ ACU, Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 332. https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/etd/332
36. McBrayer, J. S., Jackson, T., Pannell, S. S., Sorgen, C. H., De Blume, A. P. G., & Melton, T. D. (2018). Balance of instructional and managerial tasks as it relates to school leaders’ self-efficacy. Journal of School Leadership, 28(5), 596-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461802800502
37. McBrayer, Juliann Sergi 4785659; Akins, Carter; Gutierrez de Blume, Antonio; Cleveland, Richard; and Pannell, Summer (2020) “Instructional Leadership Practices and School Leaders’ Self-Efficacy,” School Leadership Review: Vol. 15: Issue. 1, Article 13. Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/slr/vol15/iss1/13
38. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analysis. Plos Med, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
39. Mosoge, M. J., & Mataboge, S. K. C. (2021). Empowerment of the School Management Team by Secondary Schools’ Principals in Tshwane West District, South Africa. Educational Research and Reviews, 16(4), 93-103. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2020.4076
40. Nicdao, M. F., & Ancho, I. V. (2020). Practices of the stakeholders’ involvement in the formulation of school improvement plan. Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Studies (FORMER NAME SILPAKORN UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, HUMANITIES, AND ARTS), 219-246. https://doi.org/10.14456/hasss.2020.9
41. Nurhayati, T., Masnun, M., Udin, T. & Arifuddin, A. (2019). “Implementation of Principal Supervision as an Effort to Fulfill Teacher Administration at Islamic Elementary School”, Universal Journal of Educational Research, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 1826 – 1831.https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070822
42. Operario, J. (2022). Managerial Competencies, Financial Management, and Level of Liquidation Practices of Secondary School Administrators. GNOSI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Theoryand Praxis, 5(1), 10-31.http://www.gnosijournal.com/index.php/gnosi/article/view/136
43. O’Toole, L., Kiely, J., & McGillicuddy, D. (2019). Parental involvement, engagement and partnership in their children’s education during the primary school years. National Parents Council. http://hdl.handle.net/10197/9823
44. Pepugal, E. T. (2022). Levels of perception on school-based management implementation in San Luis National High School, Philippines. American Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Innovation, 1(4), 26-34. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajmri.v1i4.516
45. Perez, I. J. (2019). Involvement of External Stakeholders in the Implementation of School-Based Management. Ascendens Asia Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, 3(2M).http://aaresearchindex.com/ojs
46. Poudel, P., & Subedi, D. (2024). How Does Parental Involvement Affect Students’ Academic Performance in Public Schools? A Case Study. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3656872/v1
47. Rivera Jr, B. H. (2023). SCHOOL STAKEHOLDERS’LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE ON MODULAR DISTANCE LEARNING. EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR), 9(8), 293-305. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra14130
48. Roque, J. L. (2023). The Effect of the Implementation of School-Based Management in Decision Makers and Stakeholders of Selected Public Schools in the Philippines. Vol. 14(2). 294-304. https://doi.org/10.47750/jett.2023.14.02.028
49. Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C. L., Ebbeler, J., & Pieters, J. M. (2019). How school leaders can build effective data teams: Five building blocks for a new wave of data-informed decision making. Journal of educational change, 20(3), 283-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09345-3
50. Sebastian, J., Allensworth E., Wiedermann W., Hochbein C. & Cunningham, M. (2019) Principal Leadership and School Performance: An Examination of Instructional Leadership and Organizational Management, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18:4, 591-613,https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2018.1513151
51. Sumaryanti, S., & Purwanto, N. A. (2023). Achieving the Quality of Education through the Application of Eight National Education Standards using School-Based Management. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 15(1), 135-146. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v15i1.1652
52. Tabroni, I., Sari, R. P., Salamah, U., & Mulyani, S. (2022). Education Quality Improvement Through School Based Management. Jurnal Multidisiplin Madani, 2(3), 1209-1218.Retrieved from https://journal.formosapublisher.org/index.php/mudima/article/view/229
53. Tatlah, I. A., Akhtar, S. N., & Hashmi, M. A. (2019). Effect of instructional leadership on teachers’ performance and job commitment: A comparison of public and private universities of Lahore. Journal of Educational Research, 22(1), 133.
54. Ulfatin, N., Mustiningsih, Sumarsono, R. B., & Yunus, J. N. (2022). School-based management in marginal areas: Satisfying the political context and student needs. Management in Education, 36(3), 124-134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020620959739
55. Valencia, M. I. C. (2018). Introducing education for sustainable development (ESD) in the educational institutions in the Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Development Education and Research, 2(1), 51-57. https://doi.org/10.17509/jsder.v2i1.12358
56. Villar, PMS. (2021). Better leaders, better schools? Public school heads’ Leadership styles and school climate in Quezon city. Retrieved from https://ncpag.upd.edu.ph/wp content/uploads/Villar_Better-Leaders-Better-Schools_06212021.pdf
57. Walewangko, G. E. V., Lengkong, J. S. J., & Usoh, E. J. (2023). Implementation of School-Based Management at SD GMIM KOHA. Journal of Social Research, 3(1), 255-268. https://doi.org/10.55324/josr.v3i1.1864
58. Wieczorek, D., & Manard, C. (2018). Instructional leadership challenges and practices of novice principals in rural schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 34(2).
59. XHEMAJLI, A., & MULLALIU, M. (2022). THE IMPORTANCE OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE ORGANIZATION OF SCHOOL ACTIVITIES. Turkish International Journal of Special Education and Guidance & Counselling ISSN: 1300-7432, 11(2), 178-183. Retrieved from https://tijseg.org/index.php/tijseg/article/view/171
60. Yiki, A. G. (2024). Parental involvement and academic performance of students in seed secondary schools in Maracha District–Uganda (Doctoral dissertation, Muni University).http://dir.muni.ac.ug/xmlui/handle/20.500.12260/613
61. Youngs, H. (2020). Distributed leadership. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.612
62. Yusuf, H. A., Amzat, I. H., & Bint Saidin, K. (2019). The mediating effect of school-based management on school climate, bureaucracy and effectiveness in secondary school. MOJEM: Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management, 7(3), 19-42.http://mojem.um.edu.my
63. Zahed-Babelan, A., Koulaei, G., Moeinikia, M., & Sharif, A. R. (2019). Instructional leadership effects on teachers’ work engagement: Roles of school culture, empowerment, and job characteristics. CEPS Journal, 9(3), 137-156. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.181