INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5280 www.rsisinternational.org
Reframing School Stakeholder Engagement through the Lens of
Critical Theory: A Systematic Review of Governance and Leadership
Perspective
Genesis Z. Tayanes, MAED1; Kissy Kyle S. Lozarito, MALE2; Gladys S. Escarlos, PhD3
1Assistant Professor II, Tagoloan Community College, Philippines;
2 Master Teacher 1, Dagatkidavao Integrated School, Philippines
3Professor, Central Mindanao University, Philippines
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000433
Received: 20 October 2025; Accepted: 28 October 2025; Published: 14 November 2025
ABSTRACT
This systematic review examines how Critical Theory reframes school stakeholder engagement within
educational governance and leadership. It responds to the continuing dominance of hierarchical and bureaucratic
decision-making that limits authentic participation despite decades of decentralization reforms. By integrating
evidence from twenty-eight (28) studies published between 2017 and 2025, the review synthesizes international
and Philippine research through the analytical lens of Critical Theory, emphasizing power relations,
communicative action, and emancipation. Guided by PRISMA methodology and thematic synthesis, the review
identifies persistent tensions between policy rhetoric and democratic practice. Studies from contexts such as
Iran, South Korea, China, Brazil, and the Philippines reveal that participatory mechanisms often remain
procedural rather than transformative, constrained by cultural deference and structural control. Findings
demonstrate that genuine stakeholder engagement emerges when governance emphasizes reflective dialogue,
shared agency, and distributed leadership supported by institutional trust. The review contributes to theory by
positioning engagement as an emancipatory process grounded in communication and equity, extending the works
of Habermas and Freire into practical governance models. It further recommends that educational leaders
institutionalize spaces for critical reflection and participatory decision-making, while policymakers strengthen
decentralization with equitable capacity-building and transparency mechanisms. The study concludes that
stakeholder engagement in education must evolve from compliance toward communicative collaboration to
realize democratic governance and social justice.
Keywords: Critical Theory, Stakeholder Engagement, School Governance, Participatory Leadership,
Emancipatory Education
INTRODUCTION
Education governance increasingly requires the active participation of diverse stakeholders including teachers,
parents, learners, and communities. Yet, despite global calls for participatory reform, school governance
continues to operate under hierarchical and bureaucratic systems that restrict genuine inclusion and shared
decision-making. The concept of stakeholder engagement, once heralded as a democratizing force, has often
been reduced to procedural consultation and limited representation (Valizadeh, 2023; Laguda et al., 2023). This
study seeks to reexamine how engagement is conceptualized and practiced in education by synthesizing recent
literature through Critical Theory. By interrogating power relations, communicative practices, and participatory
structures, this review explores how governance and leadership can move from hierarchical compliance toward
emancipatory collaboration.
stakeholder engagement within the context of governance and leadership. While numerous studies discuss
participatory education reforms, the literature remains fragmented across regions and theoretical orientations.
For example, international scholarship has focused heavily on decentralization policies but seldom explored how
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5281 www.rsisinternational.org
such reforms translate into authentic empowerment at the school level (Jeong, Lee, & Cho, 2017; Wang, 2024;
Haile, 2024). In the Philippine context, research has documented similar inconsistencies between policy intent
and practice, with decentralization improving consultation but not redistributing decision-making power
(Guzman, 2022; King, 2024; Laguda et al., 2023). However, despite growing academic attention to stakeholder
engagement, there is still limited synthesis that connects governance theory, leadership practice, and critical
social analysis. A systematic review guided by PRISMA standards and framed by Critical Theory helps
consolidate these perspectives, offering both a conceptual clarification and an empirical mapping of the field.
Numerous knowledge gaps persist in the literature. Studies reveal that participatory mechanisms often exist in
form but not in substance. In South Korea and Brazil, hierarchical control continues to constrain teacher and
community participation even under decentralized governance (Jeong, Lee, & Cho, 2017; Soares Furtado
Oliveira et al., 2023). In China, bureaucratic structures and cultural hierarchies maintain limited space for
dialogue and reflection (Guo, Li, & Zhang, 2025; Wang, 2024). In the Philippines, similar tendencies appear,
where participation remains procedural rather than transformative (Bartolome, 2019; Laguda et al., 2023).
Leadership, although often described as collaborative or participatory, is rarely examined through the deeper
lens of critical reflection and emancipation. Existing studies have yet to fully explore how critical consciousness,
communicative action, and dialogic engagement can reshape governance practices toward social justice and
agency (Haile, 2024; Valizadeh, 2023).
Furthermore, the literature also reveals structural and ideological barriers that sustain inequities in educational
governance. Mahajan (2023) and Bond (2024) found that governance reforms driven by efficiency and
accountability often reproduce social hierarchies, limiting representation of marginalized groups. In the
Philippine context, Guzman (2022) and Saguin (2020) noted that bureaucratic inertia and uneven local capacity
prevent decentralization policies from achieving inclusive participation. These patterns align with Habermas’s
(1981) critique of instrumental rationality, where technocratic systems suppress communicative dialogue, and
Freire’s (1970) view that education becomes oppressive when it denies learners and communities the power to
act as co-creators of knowledge. The persistence of these structures highlights an unresolved tension between
reform rhetoric and lived educational realities.
The relationship between governance, leadership, and stakeholder engagement continues to be an important area
of inquiry. International studies indicate that distributed leadership and dialogic governance enhance stakeholder
trust and accountability when supported by institutional capacity (Sattar, 2022; Dlamini, 2022; Haile, 2024).
Local research complements these findings by showing that participatory leadership strengthens parental and
community empowerment, though often constrained by central policy control (Bartolome, 2017; Jabar, 2020;
King, 2024). However, both global and Philippine contexts demonstrate that leadership reform without cultural
transformation tends to reproduce hierarchy rather than dismantle it. This suggests that the critical interrogation
of governance, rather than administrative redesign alone, is necessary to achieve genuine participation.
Within these recurring challenges, the present review identifies a gap in systematically integrating Critical
Theory into the analysis of school stakeholder engagement. Although Freirean pedagogy (1970) and
Habermasian communicative action (1981) have informed select studies, few have applied these frameworks
comprehensively across governance and leadership research. This absence limits understanding of how
emancipatory practices can be institutionalized in schools. Moreover, most studies remain context-specific,
lacking comparative and theoretical synthesis that could clarify universal and context-bound dynamics of
participation. By consolidating evidence from 2017 to 2025, this review seeks to advance a critical synthesis that
connects power, communication, and participation in educational governance.
Specifically, this systematic review aims to:
1. Synthesize international and Philippine studies on stakeholder engagement in school governance and
leadership through the lens of Critical Theory;
2. Identify recurring themes, models, and barriers related to power relations, participation, and
emancipation in educational governance;
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5282 www.rsisinternational.org
3. Examine how critical theoretical principles such as dialogue, reflection, and agency can inform
democratic and participatory leadership practices; and
4. Highlight research gaps and methodological patterns that can guide future studies on emancipatory
governance and stakeholder empowerment.
Conceptual And Theoretical Foundation
Conceptual Foundation of Critical Theory
Critical Theory, led by scholars like Horkheimer, Adorno, and Habermas, teaches that schools are never neutral.
They either keep old unfair systems in place or help make change for the better (Horkheimer & Adorno, 1947;
Habermas, 1981; Mahajan, 2023). In practice, this means school rules and leadership must challenge existing
barriers that often keep marginalized voices silent. For real school improvement, participation must not be a
mere formality, but a process that ensures all groups, especially those less heard, have an equal voice in
decisions (Peng, 2024; Haile, 2024; Gillen, 2024).
Critical Theory, together with related ideas like Participatory Democracy and Collaborative Governance,
criticizes models that focus too much on efficiency and not enough on fairness and inclusion (Neddersen, 2025).
It argues that real participation means more than just dividing tasks. Hence, it requires sharing genuine power
and making open, honest dialogue the basis of school decisions (Habermas, 1981, as cited in Mahajan, 2023).
Leadership is meaningful when it helps everyone speak, decide, and work together to transform schools into
more inclusive communities.
Critical Theory and Stakeholder Engagement
Critical Theory says that getting everyone involved in decision-making at school is both a social and political
issue. School leaders need to look at who is included or excluded when making decisions and make sure no
group is left out. Research shows that people from low-income backgrounds and certain communities often
face hidden barriers that keep them from having a real say, which results in unfairness and weak involvement
(Al-Thani, 2025; Ambroso et al., 2021; Bond, 2024).
To fix this, Critical Theory suggests that schools need open conversations, shared responsibilities, and
leadership that welcomes input from everyone (Haile, 2024; Peng, 2024). Real engagement happens when there
is trust, fairness, and clear, honest communication between families, teachers, and school boards (Sattar, 2022;
Clarke, 2020). But many families still feel left out because of communication problems, unclear rules, or
traditions that make them feel their voices do not matter (Ambroso et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2025; Woodforde et
al., 2024; Bartolome, 2017; Guzman, 2022). In this view, real participation is not just about following school
procedures. Instead, it means creating a school community where everyone is truly encouraged and empowered
to take part.
Applications in Educational Governance and Leadership
A growing body of literature has demonstrated that the application of Critical Theory to governance and
leadership in educational institutions leads to significant improvements in stakeholder engagement,
transparency, and institutional responsiveness. In the Philippine context, studies have highlighted that
initiatives anchored in critical theory promote decentralized governance and participatory decision-making,
resulting in improved educational outcomes and enhanced trust among stakeholders. For example, Laguda et
al. (2023) found that the decentralization of school management in the Philippines, by fostering local-level
decision-making and shared governance, led to greater teacher and parent involvement, which in turn improved
responsiveness to learners’ needs. King (2024) provided evidence that participatory governance mechanisms,
such as School-Based Management Councils, increase a sense of ownership and agency among teachers,
parents, and community members, enhancing overall school performance. Similarly, research by Bartolome
(2019) documented how critical pedagogy and collaborative leadership approaches in public schools
empowered marginalized families and enabled curricular adaptations tailored to local contexts. Jabar (2020)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5283 www.rsisinternational.org
described how community partnerships and inclusive school governance practices rooted in critical theory
addressed inequities and allowed for more equitable resource allocation. Furthermore, Saguin (2020) reported
that local educational boards increased transparency and accountability in school governance, reducing the
culture of compliance and boosting stakeholder motivation.
International studies further corroborate these findings. Valizadeh (2023) analyzed how the application of
critical theory in educational policy cycles, including reflective dialogue and shared leadership in Iran, fostered
democratic participation and reduced hierarchical barriers, significantly improving school climate. Soares
Furtado Oliveira et al. (2023) discussed literature across Brazil and highlighted how participatory governance
reforms decreased bureaucratic inertia and enhanced educational equity in decentralized school systems. Jeong,
Lee, and Cho (2017) examined educational decentralization in South Korea and found that participatory
decision-making processes inspired by critical theory allowed for locally relevant solutions and increased
satisfaction among all stakeholders. Elacqua et al. (2021) and Melo-Becerra et al. (2020) studied the Colombian
experience, where municipalities that practiced participatory governance and community engagement saw
significant improvements in student outcomes and reduced administrative barriers. Lastly, Wang (2024)
documented China’s gradual adoption of critical theory-informed educational reforms, showing that
decentralization processes anchored by shared agency and transparency led to improvements in program
implementation and stakeholder collaboration.
The relationship articulated across these studies reveals that applying critical theory to governance and
leadership in educational systems creates equitable structures and responsive leadership. In the Philippine
context, Laguda et al. (2023) illustrated that collaborative, community-centered governance delivered more
effective services and directly addressed bureaucratic limitations inherited from decades of centralization. King
(2024) asserted that moving toward participatory governance increased stakeholder agency and accountability,
translating into measurable learning gains for students and improved morale among teachers and staff.
Bartolome (2019) and Jabar (2020) offered concrete evidence that critical theory-inspired interventions, such
as open consultations, resource devolution, and leadership development for local stakeholders, resulted in more
inclusive and culturally responsive curricula. Internationally, Valizadeh (2023) and Jeong, Lee, and Cho (2017)
established that democratized, decentralized leadership structures replaced rigid authority with transparent,
dialogic processes, benefiting both institutional performance and individual empowerment. Studies from
Colombia and Brazil affirmed that schools practicing critical theory-based governance reduced educational
disparities and enhanced both accountability and innovation. Collectively, these works provide compelling
evidence for adopting critical theory perspectives in education governance and leadership.
METHODOLOGY
Design
This review adopted a systematic review design guided by PRISMA 2020 standards. Both empirical and
theoretical studies published between 2010 and 2025 were considered. The focus was to analyze how Critical
Theory is applied to educational governance, participatory leadership, and power relations in school systems in
global and Philippine contexts. Philippine regional education databases were added to include context-specific
studies (Moher et al., 2010).
Search Strategy
A structured search was conducted across major academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC,
and Google Scholar, supplemented by Philippine regional education repositories. The following keywords and
Boolean combinations were used:
“school stakeholder engagement” or “community participation in schools”
“critical theory in education” and “school leadership”
“participatory leadership” or “democratic school governance”
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5284 www.rsisinternational.org
“decentralized school management” and “power relations”
Search limits were set to peer-reviewed journals, policy studies, and full-text English publications. Duplicate
records were identified and removed prior to screening. Philippine regional education databases were added to
include context-specific studies (Moher et al., 2010).
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion criteria required studies to (1) investigate school stakeholder engagement within governance or
leadership contexts, (2) apply or critique critical theory, (3) address themes of power relations or emancipation,
(4) appear in peer-reviewed journals or policy reports and (5) Accessible in full text and written in English.
Moreover, Studies are excluded if they: (1) focused solely on classroom-level participation, (2) lacking
substantive governance analysis were excluded, or (3) were opinion essays without empirical or conceptual
rigor (Mahajan, 2023; Laguda et al., 2023).
Screening Process
The selection process followed four stages: identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion. Title
and abstract screening were conducted to determine relevance. Full-text review validated theoretical alignment
and methodological suitability. A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria and were retained for analysis
(Page et al., 2021).
Fig 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram of the Study Selection Process
Data Extraction and Synthesis Framework
Data extraction employed a structured coding guide capturing study context, theoretical framing, stakeholder
processes, and outcomes. The analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s thematic synthesis approach: involving
initial coding, theme development, and synthesis across studies. Reflexive memoing and regular calibration
checks ensured consistency and minimized interpretive bias (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5285 www.rsisinternational.org
Moreover, each reviewed study was summarized using a structured table that ensured transparency and
consistency in analysis. The tables (Tables 1–8) include five core elements: (1) Author (Year), identifying the
researcher and publication year; (2) Country / Education Level, indicating geographic and institutional context;
(3) Method or Design, describing whether the study was empirical, theoretical, or policy-based; Theoretical
Lens, outlining the guiding framework such as Critical Theory, Freirean Pedagogy, or Communicative Action;
and (4) Key Insight, summarizing the main contribution or finding relevant to stakeholder engagement and
governance. These elements collectively capture context, method, theory, and outcome, aligning with PRISMA
2020 standards for systematic data extraction and providing the foundation for the thematic synthesis presented
in the Results section.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Power Relations and Hierarchical Governance
Table 1. Foreign Studies on Power Relations and Hierarchical Governance in Education Through the Lens of
Critical Theory
Author &
Year
Country /
Education Level
Method / Theoretical
Lens
Governance Focus Key Insight
Clarke
(2020)
Multi-region
(Asia & West) –
School Boards
Multi-case Study /
Critical Discourse
Analysis
Communication
and trust in
governance
Communication gaps reflecting
structural hierarchies
undermined democratic
participation.
Dlamini
(2022)
South Africa –
Public Schools
Qualitative Case Study
/ Critical Leadership
Theory
Shared governance
and distributed
authority
Colonial-era administrative
hierarchies continue to influence
power structures in school
management.
Elacqua et
al. (2021)
Colombia – Local
School Systems
Mixed Methods /
Collaborative
Governance
Framework
Municipal-level
education reform
Identifies governance
decentralization improves
outcomes but retained central
oversight culture.
Guo, Li, &
Zhang
(2025)
China – Urban
Public Schools
Qualitative Study /
Poststructural Critical
Analysis
Power and
exclusion in
stakeholder
participation
Bureaucratic hierarchies
perpetuate exclusion and
inequality in urban educational
settings.
Gillen
(2024)
United Kingdom
– Secondary
Schools
Theoretical Analysis /
Transparency &
Communicative
Governance
Leadership
communication
Transparency policies alone do
not dismantle existing
hierarchies without critical
dialogue.
Haile
(2024)
Ethiopia – Public
School System
Qualitative Field
Study / Critical Theory
(Habermas)
Stakeholder
engagement and
dialogue
Found top-down participation
structures limits genuine
democratic dialogue among
school actors.
Jeong,
Lee, &
Cho
(2017)
South Korea –
Public Secondary
Education
Comparative Multi-
case Study /
Participatory
Democratic
Leadership
Educational
decentralization
Found partial power
redistribution; hierarchical norms
persisted despite structural
reforms.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5286 www.rsisinternational.org
Melo-
Becerra et
al. (2020)
Colombia –
Public Schools
Quantitative Policy
Analysis / Critical
Institutionalism
Educational policy
cycles
Hierarchical management
persists under decentralized
systems, affecting stakeholder
equity.
Soares
Furtado
Oliveira et
al. (2023)
Brazil – Public
Basic Education
Policy Review /
Critical Policy
Analysis
Decentralized
governance reforms
Bureaucratic inertia constrained
shared governance despite
participatory laws.
Valizadeh
(2023)
Iran – National
Education Policy
Qualitative Case
Analysis / Critical
Theory (Habermas)
Policy and school-
level
decentralization
Hierarchical policy control limits
participatory leadership; dialogic
reforms improve democratic
engagement.
Wang
(2024)
China – Basic
Education
Policy Analysis /
Transformtive
Leadership
Framework
Decentralization
policy reforms
State-centered reforms retain
hierarchical decision patterns
despite democratization aims.
The synthesis of ten foreign studies in Table 1 shows that hierarchical governance structures continue to
influence educational systems even in contexts where decentralization and participatory reforms have been
introduced. Across various countries such as Iran, South Korea, Brazil, Colombia, China, and South Africa, the
reviewed works reveal that democratization efforts in school governance often interact with long-standing
bureaucratic traditions and cultural hierarchies.
Valizadeh (2023) and Haile (2024) describe how centralized policy control and limited stakeholder dialogue
constrain the transformative intent of decentralization. In Iran and Ethiopia, participatory decision-making
processes are shaped by administrative practices that emphasize efficiency and compliance over deliberation and
collaboration. Jeong, Lee, and Cho (2017) note that decentralization in South Korea led to only partial
redistribution of authority, as hierarchical structures remained embedded within school management systems.
These observations reflect Habermas’s (1981) concept of bureaucratic rationality, which prioritizes control over
communicative engagement.
The Latin American studies of Soares Furtado Oliveira et al. (2023), Elacqua et al. (2021), and Melo-Becerra et
al. (2020) describe similar experiences. While reforms in Brazil and Colombia improved administrative
responsiveness and community participation, decision-making continued to operate within centralized
frameworks. The persistence of such patterns highlights the intersection of structural and ideological factors that
influence educational governance.
In the cases of China and the United Kingdom, Guo, Li, and Zhang (2025) and Gillen (2024) identify how
asymmetries of power manifest through managerial communication and limited transparency. Procedural
reforms intended to encourage inclusion often reproduce institutional boundaries that restrict open dialogue.
Wang (2024) observes that although policies in China advocate democratization, decision-making remains
closely guided by state authority.
From a postcolonial perspective, Dlamini (2022) reports that administrative systems in South Africa continue to
bear the imprint of colonial governance models, influencing leadership practices and sustaining uneven power
relations between administrators and local communities. These diverse national contexts illustrate the complex
interaction between structural design, historical legacies, and leadership culture in shaping how authority and
participation coexist in educational systems.
The persistence of hierarchical control across these contexts underscores the need for governance models rooted
in critical dialogue and shared authority, as discussed in the following section on participatory leadership.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5287 www.rsisinternational.org
Table 2. Philippine Studies On Power Relations and Hierarchical Governance in Education Through the Lens of
Critical Theory
Author &
Year
Country /
Education
Level
Method /
Theoretical Lens
Governance
Focus
Key Insight
Bartolome
(2017)
Philippines –
Public
Elementary
Schools
Literature Review
/ Critical
Pedagogy
Parental
involvement and
school hierarchy
Highlighted that cultural deference
to authority reduces active parental
participation in school decision-
making.
Philippines –
Parental
Engagement
Review / Critical
Theory
Power relations
in family-school
interface
Socio-cultural norms and
administrative rigidity perpetuate
passive engagement.
Bartolome
(2019)
Philippines –
Public Basic
Education
Case Study /
Freirean Critical
Pedagogy
Family
empowerment
and governance
The power imbalance persists
between educators and parents;
empowerment programs do
mitigate but do not erase hierarchy.
Guzman
(2022)
Philippines –
Basic Education
Case Study /
Critical
Leadership
Theory
Administrative
resistance to
reform
Persistent top-down governance
sustains control and weakens
participatory culture.
Qualitative Field
Study / Critical
Bureaucracy
Theory
Bureaucratic
inertia and local
governance
Bureaucratic layers reinforce
passive compliance and limit local
initiative.
Jabar (2020) Philippines –
Community
Schools
Qualitative Study /
Collaborative
Governance
Framework
Community
partnerships and
policy control
Partnerships increased
representation but remain
constrained by top-down
administrative oversight.
King (2024) Philippines –
National
Education Policy
Policy Analysis /
Participatory
Governance
Theory
School-Based
Management
Councils
Participation remains procedural,
with central authority dominating
final decisions.
Laguda et al.
(2023)
Philippines –
Basic Education
Policy Evaluation
/ Qualitative Case
/ Critical Theory
(Habermas)
Decentralization
and shared
governance
Decentralization improved
participation in form but not in
substance; decision power remains
concentrated at higher levels.
Saguin (2020) Philippines –
Local
Educational
Boards
Quantitative
Analysis / Critical
Policy Analysis
Accountability
and power-
sharing
While boards improved
transparency, authority remains
centralized with limited citizen
oversight.
Philippine research presented in Table 2 demonstrates similar challenges within the national education system.
Studies by Laguda et al. (2023) and King (2024) show that decentralization increased participation in form but
not in actual decision-making power, with final authority concentrated at higher levels. Guzman (2022) identifies
bureaucratic inertia as a factor that limits local autonomy and reinforces top-down control. Bartolome (2017,
2019) explains how socio-cultural norms, such as deference to authority, discourage open participation by
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5288 www.rsisinternational.org
parents and teachers. Jabar (2020) and Saguin (2020) find that mechanisms like community partnerships and
local educational boards improved representation and transparency but remained constrained by central
oversight. These studies emphasize the interaction between institutional bureaucracy and cultural expectations
in maintaining hierarchical decision-making patterns.
Overall, when taken together, the findings from both international and Philippine contexts suggest that
hierarchical governance in education persists through both structural and cultural mechanisms. Administrative
centralization, limited stakeholder dialogue, and socio-cultural deference continue to hinder the development of
genuinely participatory and democratic school leadership. Although decentralization policies have created
opportunities for consultation and local engagement, the balance of power remains uneven. Across settings,
reforms informed by Critical Theory highlight the need for deeper reflection on how authority, communication,
and shared governance can be redefined to achieve authentic participation and educational equity.
Democratic and Participatory Leadership
Table 3. Foreign Studies on Democratic and Participatory Leadership and Voice in Education Through The Lens
Of Critical Theory
Author &
Year
Country /
Education
Level
Method /
Theoretical Lens
Governance Focus Key Insight
Al-Thani
(2025)
Qatar –
Private
Education
System
Qualitative
Analysis / Feminist
Critical Theory
Structural exclusion
and democratic
engagement
Inclusive leadership mitigates
exclusion and builds participation
through gender-sensitive dialogue.
Dlamini
(2022)
South Africa –
Basic
Education
Case Study /
Critical Leadership
Theory
Shared governance
and distributed
leadership
Collaborative leadership can
balance administrative control with
teacher and community voice.
Gillen (2024) United
Kingdom –
Secondary
Education
Conceptual Paper /
Communicative
Governance Model
Transparency and
collaborative
dialogue
Transparency and communication
must coexist with equity-based
dialogue to achieve democratic
legitimacy.
Haile (2024) Ethiopia –
Public Basic
Education
Qualitative Case
Study / Critical
Theory (Habermas)
Participatory school
leadership and
communication
Dialogic communication enhances
stakeholder trust and democratic
participation when power is
balanced.
Jeong, Lee,
& Cho
(2017)
South Korea –
Public
Secondary
Multi-case Study /
Participatory
Democracy Theory
Shared governance
and decentralization
Participatory decision-making
enhances satisfaction and
empowerment but needs
institutional support.
Sattar (2022) Pakistan –
Public
Schools
Mixed Methods /
Collaborative
Leadership Theory
Shared goals and
governance trust
Shared goals and mutual dialogue
foster strong trust and
accountability among stakeholders.
Soares
Furtado
Oliveira et al.
(2023)
Brazil –
Public Basic
Education
Qualitative Policy
Review / Critical
Policy Analysis
Participatory
governance reforms
Participatory reforms strengthen
school accountability and
stakeholder representation.
Valizadeh
(2023)
Iran –
National
Case Study /
Critical Theory
(Habermas)
Reflective dialogue
in leadership
Reflective dialogue fosters trust
and collective agency, shifting
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5289 www.rsisinternational.org
Education
Reform
leadership toward shared
governance.
Wang (2024) China – Basic
Education
Policy Review /
Transformative
Leadership
Framework
Shared agency and
decentralization
Distributed authority and collective
responsibility improve
responsiveness and inclusion.
The synthesis analysis of international studies in Table 3 shows that democratic and participatory leadership
develops when communication, trust, and collective responsibility are integrated into governance. Across
contexts such as Ethiopia, Iran, South Korea, China, South Africa, Pakistan, Brazil, Qatar, and the United
Kingdom, leadership practices grounded in dialogue and shared agency improve collaboration and institutional
responsiveness. Haile (2024) and Valizadeh (2023) report that dialogic communication and reflective leadership
foster stakeholder trust and encourage collective decision-making. Their findings highlight that power balance
and continuous reflection are essential to sustain participation. Gillen (2024) adds that transparency alone does
not ensure democratic legitimacy unless it is accompanied by equity-based dialogue and mutual understanding
among school actors.
Studies from East and Southeast Asia provide evidence that participatory governance can enhance satisfaction
and empowerment when institutional support is present. Jeong, Lee, and Cho (2017) observed that participatory
decision-making in South Korea increased teacher and parent satisfaction, but required policy reinforcement to
prevent tokenism. Wang (2024) found that distributed leadership in China improved inclusion and
responsiveness by assigning decision-making responsibilities across multiple stakeholders. Dlamini (2022)
described how collaborative governance in South Africa balanced administrative control with community voice,
creating more transparent leadership relationships.
Other studies emphasize how shared goals and inclusive dialogue strengthen accountability and trust. Sattar
(2022) observed that when teachers and administrators pursue common objectives through open discussion, trust
and mutual accountability increase. Soares Furtado Oliveira et al. (2023) found that participatory reforms in
Brazil improved school accountability and representation, while Al-Thani (2025) identified that gender-sensitive
leadership practices in Qatar enhanced democratic engagement and reduced exclusion.
These international studies show that participatory leadership grounded in dialogue and trust promotes more
equitable governance and sustainable collaboration. Leadership that values shared agency and reflection helps
institutions move from compliance toward collective ownership of decision-making.
Table 4. Philippine Studies on Democratic and Participatory Leadership and Voice In Education Through The
Lens of Critical Theory
Author &
Year
Country /
Education Level
Method / Theoretical
Lens
Governance
Focus
Key Insight
Bartolome
(2017)
Philippines –
Parental
Involvement
Literature Review /
Critical Pedagogy
Family-school
collaboration
Participatory dialogue
encourages more inclusive and
empathetic leadership practices.
Bartolome
(2019)
Philippines –
Public Basic
Education
Qualitative Study /
Freirean Critical
Pedagogy
Collaborative
family-school
leadership
Democratic dialogue between
teachers and families increases
empowerment and shared
purpose.
Jabar
(2020)
Philippines –
Community
Schools
Field Case Study /
Critical Theory
(Freire)
Community
partnerships and
participatory
leadership
Community involvement
enhances shared accountability
and local empowerment.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5290 www.rsisinternational.org
King
(2024)
Philippines –
National
Education
Policy Review /
Participatory
Governance
Framework
School-based
management
and stakeholder
councils
Participatory mechanisms
promote inclusivity when
decision authority is equitably
distributed.
Laguda et
al. (2023)
Philippines –
Basic Education
Policy Analysis /
Critical Theory
(Habermas)
Shared
governance in
decentralized
systems
Genuine participation arises
from open communication and
reflective dialogue, not policy
compliance.
Saguin
(2020)
Philippines –
Local
Educational
Boards
Quantitative Policy
Analysis /
Collaborative
Leadership Model
Accountability
and
participatory
governance
Shared leadership improves
trust and transparency but
requires sustained institutional
support.
The analysis of Philippine studies in Table 4 shows that democratic and participatory leadership in education
develops through open communication, shared responsibility, and equitable authority. Across the reviewed
works, participation becomes meaningful when leaders move beyond policy compliance toward reflective and
dialogic engagement. Laguda et al. (2023) observed that shared governance is strengthened when school leaders
create spaces for communication that encourage mutual reflection and understanding among stakeholders. King
(2024) found that participatory structures such as school-based management councils promote inclusivity only
when decision-making power is fairly distributed and not merely symbolic.
Moreover, Bartolome (2019) and Jabar (2020) provide evidence that collaboration between teachers, families,
and communities builds empowerment and shared accountability. Bartolome (2019) described how democratic
dialogue between educators and parents allows families to become active contributors to school improvement.
Jabar (2020) reported that community partnerships fostered ownership of local school initiatives and improved
coordination between school and community actors. These studies highlight that participatory leadership
depends on continuous dialogue and collective commitment rather than isolated consultations.
Saguin (2020) and Bartolome (2017) emphasize the institutional and cultural dimensions that shape participatory
governance. Saguin (2020) found that shared leadership strengthens trust and transparency, but sustaining these
gains requires institutional mechanisms that support collaboration. Bartolome (2017) pointed out that
participatory dialogue in family-school relations nurtures empathy and inclusiveness in leadership practices.
Taken together, the Philippine studies show that participatory leadership thrives when school governance
emphasizes dialogue, trust, and power-sharing. Effective collaboration emerges not from policy mandates but
from sustained communication and mutual respect among school leaders, teachers, parents, and community
members.
Stakeholder Agency, Empowerment, and Emancipation in Educational Governance
Table 5. Foreign studies on stakeholder agency, empowerment, and emancipation in educational governance
through the lens of critical theory
Author &
Year
Country /
Education Level
Method / Theoretical
Lens
Governance
Focus
Key Insight
Al-Thani
(2025)
Qatar – Private
Education
Qualitative Case
Study / Feminist
Critical Theory
Inclusion and
gendered
empowerment
Critical feminist leadership
frameworks enable agency
among marginalized women
educators and parents.
Dlamini
(2022)
South Africa –
Public Basic
Education
Qualitative Case
Study / Critical
Leadership Theory
Teacher and
community
empowerment
Distributed leadership
enhances agency among
teachers and parents.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5291 www.rsisinternational.org
Freire
(1970)
Brazil – General
Education
Theoretical
Framework / Freirean
Critical Pedagogy
Emancipatory
learning and
participation
Education becomes liberation
when learners are empowered
as co-creators of knowledge
and agents of change.
Giroux
(2011)
United States –
Higher and
Secondary
Education
Theoretical Critique /
Critical Pedagogy
Power, resistance,
and student
agency
Neoliberal control in
education limits critical
agency and the capacity for
democratic participation.
Guo, Li, &
Zhang
(2025)
China – Urban
Schools
Qualitative Study /
Poststructural Critical
Theory
Marginalization
and
empowerment
Reform programs can rebuild
stakeholder confidence and
agency despite systemic
barriers.
Haile
(2024)
Ethiopia – Public
Basic Education
Qualitative Case
Study / Critical
Theory (Habermas)
Agency in
participatory
reform
Empowerment arises when
reflective dialogue replaces
authority-driven decision-
making.
Sattar
(2022)
Pakistan – Public
Schools
Mixed Methods /
Transformative
Leadership
Framework
Stakeholder
collaboration and
empowerment
Collaboration fosters shared
agency, but institutional
hierarchies often limit full
emancipation.
Soares
Furtado
Oliveira et
al. (2023)
Brazil – Public
Basic Education
Policy Analysis /
Critical Policy
Analysis
Equity and
participatory
agency
Participatory governance
reforms expand stakeholder
power and autonomy in
decision-making.
Valizadeh
(2023)
Iran – National
Education Policy
Qualitative Case
Study / Critical
Theory (Habermas)
Reflective
participation and
empowerment
Reflective communicative
practices build participant
confidence and collective
agency.
The analysis of international studies in Table 5 shows that stakeholder agency and empowerment in education
develop through reflection, collaboration, and shared responsibility. Freire (1970) and Giroux (2011) provide
the theoretical foundation for emancipatory governance, viewing education as a transformative act that enables
learners and communities to resist domination and become co-creators of change. Freire (1970) emphasizes that
learning becomes liberation when dialogue replaces hierarchy, while Giroux (2011) explains that neoliberal
systems restrict agency and must be countered through critical pedagogy that reclaims education as a democratic
space.
Empirical studies show how these principles translate into practice. In Ethiopia, Haile (2024) documents a
participatory school reform that empowered teachers and parents through structured dialogues. School leaders
organized monthly reflection meetings where decision-making was based on shared deliberation rather than
directives, leading to improved collaboration and community trust. Similarly, Valizadeh (2023) in Iran reports
how reflective leadership circles in secondary schools allowed educators to analyze policy issues collectively,
giving them agency in proposing reforms. Dlamini (2022) presents a case from South Africa where distributed
leadership encouraged teachers and parents to take active roles in school improvement projects, illustrating how
collective ownership can replace hierarchical control. In China, Guo, Li, and Zhang (2025) describe how pilot
schools in urban districts adopted participatory planning models that restored stakeholder confidence despite the
persistence of bureaucratic oversight.
Other studies provide additional mini-cases demonstrating how empowerment evolves within specific contexts.
In Pakistan, Sattar (2022) shows that when school committees were redesigned to include teachers, parents, and
students, shared goals led to greater trust and accountability. In Brazil, Soares Furtado Oliveira et al. (2023)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5292 www.rsisinternational.org
describe participatory governance councils that gave teachers and parents authority over budget and curriculum
decisions, fostering a sense of autonomy and responsibility. In Qatar, Al-Thani (2025) highlights a feminist
critical leadership model in private schools that trained women educators to lead community engagement
initiatives, expanding their participation and representation in decision-making.
These cases illustrate that emancipatory governance emerges not only from theoretical critique but also from
tangible practices that encourage reflection, dialogue, and co-decision-making. Across contexts, empowerment
occurs when educational leaders dismantle rigid hierarchies and create platforms where all stakeholders can
speak, decide, and act collectively.
Table 6. Philippine Studies on Stakeholder Agency, Empowerment, and Emancipation in Educational
Governance Through The Lens of Critical Theory
Author &
Year
Country /
Education Level
Method /
Theoretical Lens
Governance
Focus
Key Insight
Bartolome
(2017)
Philippines –
Parental
Involvement
Literature Review /
Critical Pedagogy
Parent and student
empowerment
Highlighted that reflective
collaboration transforms
passive involvement into
shared decision-making.
Bartolome
(2019)
Philippines –
Public Basic
Education
Case Study /
Freirean Critical
Pedagogy
Family
empowerment and
community voice
Participatory approaches
inspired by Freire strengthen
parent and student
empowerment.
Case Study /
Freirean Critical
Pedagogy
Transformative
learning and
agency
Critical awareness and shared
dialogue cultivate authentic
community agency.
Guzman
(2022)
Philippines –
Basic Education
Field Study / Critical
Bureaucracy Theory
Empowerment
under
administrative
reform
Empowerment initiatives often
stall due to bureaucratic
resistance and uneven
leadership support.
Jabar
(2020)
Philippines –
Community
Schools
Qualitative Case
Study / Critical
Theory (Freire)
Community
participation and
shared governance
Empowerment develops
through continuous reflection
and collaboration among local
stakeholders.
King
(2024)
Philippines –
National
Education Policy
Policy Review /
Participatory
Democracy
Framework
Leadership and
decision-making
agency
Participatory councils
enhanced voice but lacked full
power transfer to communities.
Laguda et
al. (2023)
Philippines –
Basic Education
Policy Evaluation /
Critical Theory
(Habermas)
Participatory
governance and
empowerment
Empowerment depends on
sustained dialogue, not just
structural decentralization.
Saguin
(2020)
Philippines –
Local
Educational
Boards
Quantitative Study /
Collaborative
Leadership Model
Empowerment in
local governance
Collaborative boards promote
empowerment when leaders
model inclusive dialogue.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5293 www.rsisinternational.org
The analysis of Philippine studies in Table 6 shows that empowerment and agency in education grow when
schools institutionalize dialogue, reflection, and shared leadership. Bartolome (2019) illustrates through a case
of a public elementary school that Freirean participatory learning encouraged parents and students to take part
in curriculum planning and school governance meetings. The program involved family workshops and
community assemblies that built confidence among parents who had previously been silent in decision-making.
Jabar (2020) presents a similar case from community schools in Mindanao, where collective reflection sessions
between teachers and parents created a space for shared planning of local school projects. These examples
demonstrate that empowerment in Philippine schools often begins when communities are given sustained
opportunities to speak, reflect, and decide together.
Laguda et al. (2023) and King (2024) analyze how empowerment operates within policy structures. Laguda et
al. (2023) report that decentralized governance improved participation only when school leaders encouraged
regular consultation and reflection, not when reforms focused solely on compliance. In a national context, King
(2024) notes that participatory councils at the Department of Education improved stakeholder voice but did not
fully devolve authority to local actors. These studies suggest that empowerment requires consistent
communicative practice and cannot rely on policy design alone.
Other research explores how leadership style and institutional culture influence agency. Saguin (2020) finds that
local educational boards increase empowerment when leaders engage members in open dialogue and shared
responsibility. Bartolome (2017) observes that parental involvement becomes transformative when school
leaders invite families into collective planning rather than limiting them to support roles. Guzman (2022)
describes cases where empowerment initiatives slowed because of bureaucratic resistance and inconsistent
administrative support, showing that leadership commitment determines the sustainability of reform. A second
study by Bartolome (2019) documents a school-based initiative where critical dialogue sessions between
teachers and parents strengthened community agency and built shared ownership of school improvement plans.
Together, these studies show how emancipatory governance in Philippine schools takes concrete form through
family empowerment programs, participatory councils, and local board dialogues. Real examples such as the
family workshops in Bartolome’s (2019) case study and the Mindanao reflection circles in Jabar’s (2020) work
demonstrate how empowerment becomes actionable when school leaders replace control with communication
and collaboration across all levels of governance.
Policy, Structural Barriers, and Inequities in Educational Governance
Table 7. Foreign studies on policy, structural barriers, and inequities in educational governance through the lens
of critical theory
Author &
Year
Country /
Education Level
Method /
Theoretical Lens
Governance
Focus
Key Insight
Horkheimer
& Adorno
(1947)
Germany –
Philosophy of
Education
Theoretical
Framework /
Critical Theory
Structural
domination and
cultural
reproduction
Institutional hierarchies
perpetuate inequity and sustain
power asymmetries in
educational systems.
Habermas
(1981)
Germany –
Educational
Communication
Theoretical
Framework /
Critical Theory
(Communicative
Action)
Bureaucratic
rationality and
systemic inequity
Instrumental rationality must be
criticized for being a root of
technocratic governance that
marginalizes authentic
stakeholder dialogue.
Mahajan
(2023)
India – Higher
Education
Governance
Conceptual
Analysis / Critical
Theory
Policy-driven
inequities and
leadership
Governance models driven by
efficiency reproduce inequities
by silencing marginalized
voices.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5294 www.rsisinternational.org
Bond (2024) United Kingdom –
K–12 Education
Quantitative Policy
Study /
Socioeconomic
Participation
Model
Parent
involvement and
class disparity
Socioeconomic status
determines participation levels;
policies reinforce, not mitigate,
inequality.
Soares
Furtado
Oliveira et al.
(2023)
Brazil – Public
Basic Education
Policy Analysis /
Critical Policy
Analysis
Decentralization
and structural
reform
Unequal resource allocation
limits the effects of
participatory governance on
equity.
Guo, Li, &
Zhang (2025)
China – Urban
Public Schools
Qualitative Study /
Poststructural
Critical Analysis
Structural
exclusion and
inequality
Bureaucratic control and socio-
political hierarchies maintain
systemic exclusion in
governance.
Wang (2024) China – Basic
Education
Policy Review /
Transformative
Leadership
Decentralization
barriers
Centralized supervision
undercuts reform efforts aiming
at equity and inclusivity.
Valizadeh
(2023)
Iran – Educational
Policy
Qualitative Case
Study / Critical
Theory
(Habermas)
Policy reform and
social justice
Equitable governance requires
communicative reforms that
dismantle elite policy control.
Clarke (2020) Multi-region (Asia
& West) – School
Boards
Multi-case Study /
Critical Discourse
Analysis
Communication
fragmentation
and structural
inequality
Fragmented communication
systems are barriers to
transparency and stakeholder
inclusion.
Elacqua et al.
(2021)
Colombia – Local
Education Systems
Mixed Methods /
Collaborative
Governance
Structural
constraints on
local governance
Despite reforms, central
oversight and unequal
capacities continue to sustain
structural inequities.
The synthesis of foreign studies in Table 7 shows that structural inequities in educational governance persist
because of institutional hierarchies, bureaucratic control, and unequal access to decision-making. Foundational
theorists such as Horkheimer and Adorno (1947) and Habermas (1981) explain these patterns as outcomes of
domination and instrumental rationality. Their work provides the theoretical basis for later empirical research
showing that governance systems designed around efficiency and control often reproduce social and educational
inequalities. For example, Mahajan (2023) found in Indian higher education that policies meant to modernize
leadership structures instead silenced dissenting voices and reinforced elite dominance.
Empirical studies reveal how these structural constraints appear in practice. Bond (2024) identified that in the
United Kingdom, parental involvement programs designed to improve school engagement benefited families
from higher socioeconomic backgrounds while marginalizing working-class parents who lacked access to school
decision spaces. In Brazil, Soares Furtado Oliveira et al. (2023) reported that decentralization efforts improved
participation in some regions but failed to address resource gaps between schools, resulting in uneven
empowerment. Similarly, Elacqua et al. (2021) documented in Colombia that participatory councils could not
overcome unequal capacities among local governments, leaving poorer districts dependent on central authorities.
These examples demonstrate that formal participation mechanisms cannot succeed without addressing the
material and institutional inequalities embedded within governance systems.
Asian case studies also illustrate how bureaucratic and political hierarchies limit reform. Guo, Li, and Zhang
(2025) showed that in Chinese urban schools, administrative control and political oversight restricted grassroots
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5295 www.rsisinternational.org
decision-making. Wang (2024) described similar conditions where decentralized reforms remained symbolic
because state supervision retained control of key policy levers. Valizadeh (2023) provided a case from Iran
where dialogic reforms within the Ministry of Education allowed local administrators to share in policy
discussions, leading to small but visible improvements in transparency and equity. Clarke (2020) found across
Asian and Western school boards that fragmented communication among stakeholders blocked mutual
accountability and reinforced mistrust.
These studies demonstrate that structural inequality in education governance persists when decision-making
remains centralized and communication remains fragmented. Real applications of emancipatory governance
appear in limited but significant cases such as Valizadeh’s (2023) dialogic reforms in Iran and the participatory
councils in Colombia reported by Elacqua et al. (2021). These examples show that critical reflection,
communicative dialogue, and equitable power-sharing are essential elements for transforming governance from
hierarchical systems toward inclusive and socially just educational structures.
Table 8. Philippine studies on policy, structural barriers, and inequities in educational governance through the
lens of critical theory
Author &
Year
Country /
Education Level
Method /
Theoretical Lens
Governance
Focus
Key Insight
Bartolome
(2017)
Philippines –
Public
Elementary
Education
Literature Review /
Critical Pedagogy
Structural
inequality and
parental
involvement
Class and cultural hierarchies
impede equitable parent
participation.
Bartolome
(2019)
Philippines –
Public Basic
Education
Case Study /
Freirean Critical
Pedagogy
Power imbalance
in governance
Empowerment vs.
policy control
Social inequities manifest in
family-school dynamics and
governance participation.
Tension between participatory
ideals and the realities of
centralized policy governance.
Guzman (2022) Philippines –
Basic Education
Qualitative Field
Study / Critical
Bureaucracy
Theory
Bureaucratic
inertia and
structural
exclusion
Bureaucratic rigidity reinforces
passive compliance and
obstructs participatory reform.
Jabar (2020) Philippines –
Community
Schools
Qualitative Study /
Critical Theory
(Freire)
Policy integration
and community
participation
Exclusionary policymaking
often undermines localized
initiatives for equity.
King (2024) Philippines –
National
Education
Policy Analysis /
Participatory
Governance
Power asymmetry
in
decentralization
Decentralization policies
enhance representation but
retain central government
control.
Laguda et al.
(2023)
Philippines –
Basic Education
Policy Evaluation /
Critical Theory
(Habermas)
Decentralization
and policy
implementation
Structural decentralization
without capacity-building
perpetuates uneven
participation.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5296 www.rsisinternational.org
Saguin (2020) Philippines –
Local
Educational
Boards
Quantitative
Analysis / Critical
Policy Analysis
Accountability
and resource
distribution
Persistent inequities due to
unequal local capacity and
institutional favoritism.
Policy Review /
Collaborative
Leadership Model
Governance
accountability
Accountability frameworks
often favor managerial
compliance over social equity.
The synthesis of Philippine studies in Table 8 shows that structural inequities in school governance persist
because of bureaucratic rigidity, weak decentralization, and cultural hierarchies that limit authentic participation.
Guzman (2022) reported that bureaucratic inertia within the Department of Education discourages initiative
among school administrators, resulting in a culture of compliance instead of collaboration. Laguda et al. (2023)
observed that decentralization reforms in basic education expanded administrative structures but failed to build
local capacity, producing uneven participation across regions. King (2024) found that while decentralization
policies created participatory spaces through councils and local boards, decision-making authority remained
concentrated in central offices. These studies reveal that Philippine educational governance often appears
participatory in design but remains hierarchical in practice.
Quantitative and policy-focused analyses also emphasize how inequities persist at the local level. Saguin (2020)
identified that local educational boards, though intended to improve accountability, operate within unequal
political and fiscal environments that favor schools with better local resources. The study found that
accountability frameworks reward compliance with national targets rather than genuine responsiveness to
community needs. Bartolome (2017) and Bartolome (2019) linked these inequities to deeper social hierarchies,
showing that class and cultural deference prevent parents and families from fully engaging in governance
discussions. Jabar (2020) added that localized community efforts for equity are often undermined by policies
designed without input from stakeholders, leading to tension between grassroots initiatives and national
directives.
Empirical cases further illustrate these structural barriers. In one documented initiative, Bartolome (2019)
described how a public elementary school’s family engagement program empowered parents to participate in
curriculum planning but faced delays due to bureaucratic approval processes. Laguda et al. (2023) reported that
in several decentralized schools, participatory management committees lacked decision-making authority to
implement reforms without central endorsement. Similarly, Saguin (2020) cited municipalities where local
school boards improved transparency in budgeting but struggled to address unequal resource allocation between
rural and urban schools.
These studies together highlight how bureaucratic rigidity, centralized policy control, and cultural hierarchies
continue to restrict equitable participation in Philippine school governance. Empirical illustrations, such as
community programs hindered by slow administrative procedures and limited autonomy in local councils,
demonstrate that policy reforms alone cannot remove structural barriers without parallel investments in capacity-
building, cultural change, and inclusive dialogue. These findings collectively address the review’s objectives by
revealing how power, participation, and agency operate within educational governance structures, both in
Philippine and international contexts.
Implications
The findings of this systematic review extend the existing literature by confirming that hierarchical governance
and limited stakeholder participation persist across diverse educational contexts, even under decentralization
policies designed to promote inclusivity. Consistent with Mahajan (2023) and Soares Furtado Oliveira et al.
(2023), the review reveals that structural reforms often replicate bureaucratic hierarchies rather than dismantle
them. This challenges earlier assumptions that decentralization alone ensures equity or shared power in school
systems. Instead, the synthesis suggests that transformation requires communicative action and cultural change,
echoing Habermas’s (1981) argument that true democracy depends on reflective dialogue and mutual
understanding. The review contributes new insight by connecting these theoretical principles with contemporary
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5297 www.rsisinternational.org
cases from both developed and developing nations, highlighting how administrative control, socio-cultural
deference, and policy inertia limit genuine empowerment.
From a professional standpoint, these findings carry significant implications for educators and school leaders.
The literature demonstrates that effective participatory leadership depends on the ability to institutionalize
reflective and dialogic practices. Studies by Laguda et al. (2023), Haile (2024), and Valizadeh (2023) show that
school communities that adopt regular consultation and shared decision-making processes foster deeper trust
and stronger ownership of outcomes. Educators and administrators must therefore transition from managerial to
facilitative roles, prioritizing communication, empathy, and critical reflection. Leadership training and
professional development should incorporate modules on participatory dialogue, critical pedagogy, and
collaborative governance, following Bartolome’s (2019) and Dlamini’s (2022) evidence that inclusive leadership
transforms compliance into co-creation. This change in leadership preparation could reframe educational
management as a process of empowerment rather than control.
The results also offer direction for policy reform. Policymakers should recognize that decentralization without
investment in local capacity and communicative structures cannot sustain democratic governance. Philippine
studies by Guzman (2022) and King (2024) demonstrate that participatory mechanisms remain symbolic unless
communities have the knowledge, resources, and authority to act. Policies should therefore support continuous
stakeholder dialogue through institutionalized councils and local education boards with genuine decision-making
authority. Moreover, as shown in the international studies of Elacqua et al. (2021) and Wang (2024), resource
disparities and bureaucratic oversight weaken participatory efforts; hence, equitable funding formulas and
transparent accountability systems are needed to reinforce inclusion. Governments must also integrate critical
and ethical reasoning frameworks into education leadership standards to promote fairness and communicative
rationality at every administrative level.
Despite these insights, several gaps and limitations remain. The review found that most empirical studies
emphasize policy and structural analysis but seldom explore the lived experiences of marginalized stakeholders.
Few longitudinal or mixed-method investigations have assessed how dialogic and emancipatory governance
evolve over time. This gap underscores the need for future research that examines how power is negotiated in
day-to-day school interactions and how participatory governance affects learning, morale, and community
cohesion. Methodologically, the review’s reliance on English-language and peer-reviewed sources may have
excluded localized or unpublished cases that capture more diverse voices. Future studies could expand linguistic
and regional scope to build a more inclusive evidence base. Nevertheless, the use of PRISMA-guided procedures,
triangulated coding, and thematic synthesis in this review reinforces the reliability and transparency of its
findings.
In conclusion, the review affirms that governance reform in education must be grounded in critical dialogue,
shared authority, and continuous reflection. It challenges traditional managerial approaches and reframes
leadership as an ethical and communicative practice. By aligning policy, professional training, and community
engagement with these principles, education systems can move closer to realizing participatory and
emancipatory governance that empowers all stakeholders to act as partners in shaping equitable learning
environments.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review set out to examine how Critical Theory informs and transforms educational governance
by interrogating power relations, participation, and emancipation in both international and Philippine contexts.
The central question guiding the review asked how critical perspectives reshape understandings of leadership,
stakeholder engagement, and policy structures within education systems traditionally governed by hierarchy and
control. Through the analysis of twenty-eight (28) studies, the review revealed that while decentralization and
participatory reforms have been widely adopted, their implementation often remains at the symbolic level.
Hierarchical and bureaucratic logics persist beneath the surface of reform, suggesting that governance in
education continues to privilege control and efficiency over reflection, communication, and empowerment.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5298 www.rsisinternational.org
The synthesis demonstrated that meaningful transformation emerges where governance incorporates reflective
dialogue and shared agency, as seen in the works of Valizadeh (2023), Haile (2024), and Laguda et al. (2023).
These studies, together with foundational theorists such as Habermas (1981) and Freire (1970), affirm that
dialogue is not merely a procedural element but the ethical core of democratic leadership. By positioning
participation as a communicative and moral act, Critical Theory reframes governance as an evolving practice of
negotiation and mutual recognition rather than mere compliance with administrative protocols. This insight
challenges conventional assumptions that policy reform or structural decentralization alone can democratize
education.
The findings contribute to the broader field by offering an integrated framework where governance, leadership,
and empowerment are understood through the interplay of culture, communication, and critical reflection. In
doing so, the study reinforces and extends existing literature that calls for education systems to move beyond
technocratic administration toward emancipatory and justice-oriented governance. As Freire (1970) once wrote,
“Education is freedom only when it empowers people to transform the world,” a sentiment reflected in the
transformative cases found in Ethiopia, Brazil, and the Philippines.
Practically, the conclusions underscore the need for leaders and policymakers to embed critical dialogue,
participatory councils, and reflective training into governance structures. Theoretically, this work strengthens
the application of Critical Theory as a tool for reimagining school leadership and stakeholder relations. Policy-
wise, it calls for decentralization models that go beyond formality by equipping communities with genuine
authority, transparency, and resources.
While the review adhered to systematic procedures under PRISMA guidelines, it was limited by its focus on
English-language, peer-reviewed sources, which may exclude valuable local or non-traditional scholarship.
Future studies should expand to multilingual, longitudinal, and ethnographic research that explores the lived
experiences of teachers, parents, and students engaged in emancipatory governance.
Ultimately, this review affirms that educational governance is not a fixed hierarchy but a living process shaped
by voice, power, and reflection. The author contends that the pursuit of equity and justice in education begins
where dialogue replaces domination and where leadership becomes a shared journey toward collective
transformation.
REFERENCES
1. Al-Thani, F. (2025). Inclusive leadership and gendered empowerment in private education systems: A
feminist critical theory analysis. Qatar Journal of Educational Research, 12(2), 55–72.
2. Ambroso, C., Lien, J., & Patel, R. (2021). Communication inequities and participation in educational
governance. International Review of Education Policy, 47(3), 240–259.
3. Bartolome, L. (2017). Cultural hierarchies and parental involvement in Philippine elementary schools.
Philippine Journal of Education, 94(2), 55–67.
4. Bartolome, L. (2019). Freirean empowerment and participatory governance in basic education. Asia
Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 7(4), 45–60.
5. Bond, S. (2024). Socioeconomic status and parent participation: Revisiting class-based disparities in UK
schools. British Educational Research Journal, 50(4), 812–829.
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
7. Clarke, R. (2020). Communication, discourse, and power: Rethinking school board transparency.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(6), 987–1002.
8. Dlamini, P. (2022). Distributed leadership and community empowerment in South African schools.
Journal of Educational Change, 23(1), 56–72.
9. Elacqua, G., Martínez, M., & Santos, R. (2021). Local governance reform and structural inequities in
Colombia. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(117), 1–18.
10. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
11. Gillen, P. (2024). Transparency, communicative governance, and the ethics of participation. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 56(9), 1154–1168.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5299 www.rsisinternational.org
12. Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. Bloomsbury Academic.
13. Guo, L., Li, X., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Hierarchy and empowerment: Rethinking participatory governance
in Chinese schools. Asia Pacific Education Review, 26(2), 101–118.
14. Guzman, M. (2022). Bureaucracy, reform, and resistance in Philippine education. Philippine Social
Science Review, 74(3), 210–229.
15. Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society.
Beacon Press.
16. Haile, M. (2024). Reflective communication and participatory reform in Ethiopian basic education.
African Educational Research Journal, 12(3), 223–240.
17. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1947). Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical fragments. Stanford
University Press.
18. Jabar, F. (2020). Community participation and governance in Mindanao schools: A Freirean perspective.
Mindanao Journal of Social Development, 15(1), 55–72.
19. Jeong, H., Lee, J., & Cho, S. (2017). Decentralization and participatory leadership in South Korean
secondary schools. Korean Journal of Educational Policy, 14(2), 41–59.
20. King, A. (2024). Participatory councils and decentralization in Philippine education governance. Journal
of Education and Public Policy, 12(1), 33–50.
21. Laguda, E., Cruz, P., & Santos, M. (2023). Decentralization, governance, and participatory reform in
Philippine basic education. Philippine Journal of Educational Research, 20(2), 98–115.
22. Mahajan, R. (2023). Efficiency, hierarchy, and exclusion: A critical theory analysis of Indian higher
education governance. Journal of Social Theory in Education, 46(2), 129–148.
23. Melo-Becerra, L., García, E., & Vargas, J. (2020). Decentralization and hierarchical persistence in
Colombian education. Policy Futures in Education, 18(7), 910–928.
24. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
25. Neddersen, L. (2025). The illusion of participation: Critical reflections on democratic governance models
in schools. International Journal of Critical Education, 17(1), 34–50.
26. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher,
D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ,
372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
27. Peng, C. (2024). Dialogic leadership and communicative participation in educational governance. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 52(3), 354–370.
28. Saguin, K. (2020). Collaborative leadership and equity in local educational boards. Philippine Political
Science Journal, 41(1), 87–104.
29. Sattar, M. (2022). Transformative leadership and stakeholder empowerment in Pakistani schools.
International Education Studies, 15(4), 45–61.
30. Soares Furtado Oliveira, L., Mendes, R., & Pereira, F. (2023). Participatory governance and equity in
Brazilian public schools: A critical policy review. Revista Brasileira de Política Educacional, 39(2), 112–
134.
31. Valizadeh, N. (2023). Reflective dialogue and empowerment in Iranian education reform. International
Journal of Educational Development, 99, 102759.
32. Wang, Z. (2024). Transformative leadership and decentralization in Chinese education policy. Frontiers
in Education, 9, 150–168.
33. Woodforde, S., Klein, T., & James, E. (2024). Communication barriers in inclusive governance: Lessons
from Western educational systems. Comparative Education Review, 68(1), 27–44.