INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Administrative Leadership Practices in the Development,

Monitoring, And Sustainability of the Phil-IRI Program under the

MATATAG Curriculum

*Aldreich Lois Genita & Valentina Pallo

Graduate School, University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines (USTP), Cagayan De

Oro City, Philippines

*Correspondence Author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100482

Received: 26 November 2025; Accepted: 03 December 2025; Published: 20 December 2025

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the critical role of school administrators in the implementation of the Philippine Informal

Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) within the context of the newly introduced MATATAG Curriculum. Conducted in

the Tagoloan East and West Districts of the Division of Misamis Oriental, the research employed a mixed-

methods explanatory sequential design to evaluate administrative strategies across three domains: Development,

Monitoring, and Sustainability. Data were collected from 51 Grade 4–6 teachers through the Standard Survey

Questionnaire (SSQ) and open-ended qualitative inquiries.

The findings indicate a strong administrative presence in the Development Phase (Composite Mean: 3.38),

characterized by effective logistical planning and resource provision, though gaps remain in communicating

long-term strategic visions. The Monitoring Phase (Composite Mean: 3.37) revealed robust compliance with

data collection and classroom observation, yet highlighted a need for more specific, actionable instructional

feedback. The Sustainability Phase (Composite Mean: 3.29) demonstrated high engagement in stakeholder

partnerships and teacher recognition but exposed vulnerabilities regarding long-term institutionalization

independent of current leadership. Qualitative analysis surfaced five key themes: administrative responsiveness

to workload, the challenge of irregular learner attendance, the necessity of schedule adjustments, the impact of

material delays, and the emerging role of private-sector partnerships (e.g., San Miguel Corporation). The study

concludes that while operational leadership is strong, a shift toward Distributed and Transformational

Leadership is essential for deep-seated literacy reform. Recommendations include formalizing peer-mentoring

systems, institutionalizing community partnerships, and enhancing strategic communication to align daily tasks

with the broader literacy goals of the MATATAG Curriculum.

Keywords: Phil-IRI, Administrative Leadership, Distributed Leadership, MATATAG Curriculum, Literacy

Sustainability, School-Based Management.

INTRODUCTION

The Context of the Literacy Crisis Reading proficiency is the cornerstone of academic success and lifelong

learning. However, the Philippine educational landscape is currently grappling with a severe "learning poverty"

crisis. As highlighted by the World Bank (2022), approximately 91% of Filipino children at age 10 struggle to

read and understand simple age-appropriate text. This alarming statistic, further corroborated by the Philippines'

performance in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), underscores an urgent need for

systemic intervention.

The introduction of the MATATAG Curriculum in 2023 signals DepEd's measure against these systemized

concerns. Through decongesting the curriculum and narrowing its focus on core competencies, such as reading

and literacy, MATATAG seeks to give more instructional time and more direct route for focused learning to

teachers (DepEd, 2023). This realignment is seen to create a more fertile soil for successful Phil-IRI

Page 6137

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

implementation, with greater scope for in-depth learning as well as more effective interventions. In this shifting

educational environment, the position of school administrators positions itself inevitably at center stage.

Administrators are not just policy implementers; they are strategic leaders tasked with taking national mandates

and converting them into operational school-wide initiatives. Their roles include resource allocation, nurturing

a positive school culture, providing opportunities for professional growth, and closing the gap between policy

and practice (Culduz, M. (2024)). Their ability to lead will consequently be a critical factor in determining the

success and sustainability of reading programs under the new curriculum.

Even with this critical function, there is clear shortage of empirical evidence in particular outlining the actual

tactics administrators adopt to truly build, assiduously track, and successfully maintain district-wide reading

programs, particularly in the ever-changing environment of the MATATAG Curriculum and ongoing use of Phil-

IRI data (Almagro, R., Flores, L. C., & Amora, M. V. (2024). Recognizing how administrators apply underlying

leadership theories—like Transformational Leadership to foster commitment and vision, Instructional

Leadership to drive pedagogy and curriculum directly, and Distributed Leadership to facilitate collaborative

action—is essential for discovering outstanding practices and bridging implementation gaps. Unless there is a

full appreciation of these administrative approaches, attempts to enhance reading performance could remain

piecemeal, insufficient in building the strategic and focused leadership required for far-reaching and systemic

change in learner literacy within districts such as Tagoloan West and East Districts.

Administrative support and leadership are critical in the successful implementation of reading programs. Illescas

and Manzano (2023) examined the challenges and practices of school-based management in public elementary

schools, identifying effective leadership as a pivotal factor in program success. Ormilla and Dupra (2023) further

explored the readiness of higher education institutions for quality assurance, underscoring the role of institutional

preparedness in educational initiatives.

In response, the Department of Education (DepEd) introduced the MATATAG Curriculum in 2023. This

curriculum aims to decongest the previous K-12 framework and refocus efforts on foundational skills,

particularly literacy and numeracy. Central to this literacy drive is the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory

(Phil-IRI), a mandated diagnostic tool used to assess reading levels (Frustration, Instructional, Independent) and

guide remedial instruction.

The Problem Statement While the policy framework—via DepEd Order No. 14, s. 2018 and the MATATAG

guidelines—is clear, the translation of these policies into effective school-based practices remains inconsistent.

The success of district-wide reading programs depends heavily on the "middle layer" of the education system:

the school administrators. Principals and school heads act as the bridge between national mandates and classroom

reality.

However, existing literature suggests that administration of the Phil-IRI is often hampered by logistical

challenges, teacher burnout, and a compliance-driven mindset rather than a pedagogical one. Nevertheless, the

implementation of reading programs such as Phil-IRI at the field level still encounters substantial challenges.

Research from 2021 to date indicates recurring problems like inadequate training of teachers, lack of resources,

time limitations, and non-coercive use of interventions, which all contribute to undermining the program's

desired effect (Abril et al., 2022; IJARIIS, 2024; IJFMR, 2025). While the MATATAG Curriculum seeks to

produce a more supportive learning environment for reading instruction, the key function of school

administrators in implementing these reforms into successful, long-term districtwide reading programs remains

understudied in empirical research within the Philippine context. This Study attempted to answer the following

specific questions:

There is limited empirical research on how administrators specifically navigate these challenges under the new

MATATAG Curriculum. Do they merely enforce data submission, or do they actively cultivate a reading culture?

Objectives of the Study This study aims to fill that gap by evaluating the roles and strategies of school

administrators in the Tagoloan East and West Districts. It seeks to:

Page 6138

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

1. Assess administrative involvement in the Development of the Phil-IRI program (planning, resource

allocation).

2. Evaluate strategies used for Monitoring implementation (supervision, feedback, data analysis).

3. Determine approaches for ensuring Sustainability (long-term planning, stakeholder engagement).

4. Correlate specific leadership behaviors (Transformational, Instructional, Distributed) with perceived

program effectiveness.

Significance of the Study

This study is significant for several reasons:



For School Administrators: It provides insights into effective leadership practices that can enhance the

implementation and sustainability of reading programs, helping administrators refine their strategies.

For Teachers: Understanding administrators’ roles and strategies can foster better collaboration and

support in reading instruction.

For Policy Makers and Education Leaders: The findings can inform policy decisions and resource

allocation to strengthen district-wide literacy initiatives.

For Researchers: This study contributes to the limited literature on educational leadership in reading

program implementation, particularly within the Philippine context.

Scope and Delimitations

This study focuses on school administrators and teachers involved in the PhilIRI reading program within a

selected school district. It examines administrators’ roles and strategies related to the development, monitoring,

and sustainability of the program. The study does not directly assess student reading outcomes but relies on

administrators’ and teachers’ perspectives and experiences.

Scope of the Study

This research concentrates on evaluating school administrator strategies in developing, monitoring, and

maintaining district-wide reading programs, viz. the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI), in the

context of the MATATAG Curriculum. It particularly looks at the impact of some administrative leadership

behaviors on these strategies. Specifically, this study will:

1. Characterize the perceived administrative strategies used by school administrators in developing district-

wide reading programs (Phil-IRI) under the MATATAG Curriculum.

2. Describe the perceived administrative approaches utilized by school administrators for tracking district-

wide reading programs (Phil-IRI) under the MATATAG Curriculum.

3. Determine the perceived administrative approaches utilized by school administrators for maintaining

district-wide reading programs (Phil-IRI) under the MATATAG Curriculum.

4. Evaluate how far administrators display leadership behaviors of Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual

Stimulation, Shared Vision and Goal Setting, Collaborative Professional Learning, and Managing the

Instructional Program (for Reading) in their Phil-IRI administration.

5. Examine the impact of the said specific administrative leadership behaviors on the perceived strategies

for developing, monitoring, and maintaining district-wide reading programs (Phil-IRI).

Page 6139

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

6. Develop evidence-based recommendations to improve administrative plans for developing, monitoring,

and maintaining effective district-wide reading programs under the MATATAG Curriculum.

The research will be carried out in sample public elementary of the Misamis Oriental Division, including

administrators (Principals, School Heads, Assistant Principals, and Master teachers) and possibly lead reading

program coordinators or lead teachers as major respondents. It will use quantitative research methods, that is,

survey questionnaires to collect perceptions, and possibly qualitative interviews for richer information.

Limitations of the Study

Though this study intends to present meaningful insights, its layouts the following limitations:

1. Geographical Scope: The study focuses to the elementary schools in the Tagoloan East and West

Districts, and it may not be able to generalize results to schools in other areas of the country. The study

is limited to public schools in the Cagayan de Oro City Division. Thus, the results and their

generalizability need to be understood in this particular context, as different divisions or places may have

distinct demographic, socio-economic, or administrative configurations that may affect leadership

practices and program effects.

2. Program Specificity: The research focuses mainly on the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-

IRI)

as

the

representative

district-wide

reading

program. Although other

supplementary

reading programs are implemented in schools, these will only be taken into account with reference

to their direct connection and integration with Phil-IRI implementation strategies.

3. Leadership Dimensions: The investigation will be limited to five particular administrative leadership

behaviors only, namely: Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, Shared Vision and Goal

Setting, Collaborative Professional Learning, and Managing the Instructional Program (for Reading).

Other leadership theories, administrative functions, or personal leader characteristics, as much as they

relate to general school administration, are beyond the immediate purview of this research.

4. Time Constraints: The study will take place within a specific academic year, which may not reflect

capture long-term trends and developments in reading proficiency.

5. Data Collection Method: The research will mainly draw on perceptual data gathered from self-

report questionnaires and, if necessary, interviews. It will not contain direct observational data of

leadership in operation over the long term, nor will it assess student reading proficiency gains directly as

a dependent variable. The emphasis is still on the approaches taken by administrators and the

perceived effect of their leadership behaviors.

6. Self-Reported Data: Teachers and administrators’ perceptions will be collected through surveys and

interviews, which could be prone to personal biases.

7. Curriculum Implementation Stage: The research will evaluate administrative approaches at the early-

to-mid implementation stage of the MATATAG Curriculum. The longer-term effects and the complete

transformation of administrative approaches under this new curriculum might only be clearly

recognizable after a longer duration of implementation.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Theoretical Frameworks The study is anchored on three complementary leadership theories that explain how

administrators influence school outcomes:



Transformational Leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994): This theory posits that leaders inspire change by

creating a shared vision. In the context of Phil-IRI, a transformational leader moves teachers beyond

"compliance" (administering the test because they have to) to "commitment" (administering the test to

help students read). Key elements include Inspirational Motivation and Intellectual Stimulation. the

Page 6140

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

profound impact of transformational leadership on school effectiveness and student outcomes. For

instance, Kim et al. (2021) found that principals exhibiting transformational leadership behaviors

significantly influenced teacher commitment and professional learning, which are indirect drivers of

improved instructional quality. Specifically concerning literacy, Jallon et al. (2023) highlighted how

school leaders who inspire a shared vision for literacy, emphasizing its importance and fostering a sense

of collective purpose, can cultivate a school culture where reading is genuinely prioritized. This

inspirational motivation by administrators is critical for garnering initial buy-in and sustaining

engagement from teachers and staff in new or challenging reading programs like Phil-IRI (Jallon et al.,

2023). Furthermore, Kouzes and Posner (2023) reiterated the enduring power of inspirational leadership

in motivating collective action, suggesting that administrators who effectively articulate a clear vision

for literacy growth can mobilize resources and efforts towards its achievement. The Intellectual

Stimulation aspect, which encourages teachers to question established pedagogical routines and explore

innovative approaches to reading instruction and Phil-IRI data utilization, is also consistently linked to

school improvement (Culduz, 2024).



Instructional Leadership (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985): This focuses on the principal's role in

managing the curriculum and improving teaching. An instructional leader is hands-on, ensuring that Phil-

IRI data is actually used to differentiate instruction rather than just being filed away. Contemporary

research underscores the direct correlation between strong instructional leadership and enhanced student

achievement, particularly in literacy. Al-Shara (2022), in a study on principal leadership, identified that

principals who actively monitor curriculum implementation, provide targeted instructional feedback, and

manage instructional resources significantly contribute to improved learning outcomes. For reading

programs like Phil-IRI, an instructional leader’s role extends to ensuring that assessment data is

meaningfully interpreted and translated into differentiated instruction (IJFMR, 2025). Yildirim et al.

(2021) emphasized that a principal's active participation in setting clear academic goals for literacy,

providing instructional resources, and organizing relevant professional development are key to the

successful implementation of reading programs. Furthermore, O’Donnell and O’Connell (2021)

highlighted the critical need for instructional leaders to protect instructional time dedicated to reading

and to champion evidence-based reading strategies, especially when navigating curriculum reforms.

Thus, the administrator's direct engagement in managing the reading curriculum, monitoring teaching

practices, and ensuring resource availability is a cornerstone of effective Phil-IRI implementation.



Distributed Leadership (Spillane, 2006): This views leadership as a shared practice. It suggests that

sustaining a reading program requires empowering teachers, reading coordinators, and even parents to

take ownership. It moves away from the "hero-principal" model to a systems-based approach. Recent

studies highlight the efficacy of distributed leadership in fostering collective teacher efficacy and

sustained school improvement, particularly in complex initiatives like literacy programs. Harris (2021)

argued that distributing leadership for literacy development empowers teachers, encourages collaborative

problem-solving, and builds a sustainable capacity for change within the school. When administrators

foster a culture where the vision and goals for the reading program are mutually developed and owned

by teachers, it leads to greater commitment and more effective implementation (Almagro et al., 2024).

Rivera-Cintrón (2022) found that schools where professional learning communities (PLCs) engaged in

collaborative data analysis and shared pedagogical development, facilitated by distributed leadership,

showed more consistent improvements in reading outcomes. This model directly supports the ongoing

monitoring of Phil-IRI data and the sustainability of interventions, as collective expertise is leveraged to

identify needs and devise solutions (IJARIIS, 2024). Administrators embodying distributed leadership

traits, therefore, strategically empower teachers to take ownership of literacy goals, ensuring a more

resilient and adaptable reading program.

The Role of Administrators in Literacy Literature indicates that successful reading programs share common

administrative traits. Llego (2021) and DepEd mandates emphasize that administrators must be "orchestrators"

who ensure materials are ready and training is provided. However, challenges persist. Studies by Abril et al.

(2022) and others highlight that operational hurdles—such as lack of reproduction funds for reading passages,

insufficient teacher training on reading pedagogy, and time constraints—often derail implementation.

Page 6141

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Administrators are pivotal in the monitoring and evaluation of reading programs. Dinoro et al. (2023) point out

that while classroom teachers conduct the Phil-IRI assessments, administrators ensure fidelity of implementation

by organizing training sessions, checking compliance through classroom observations, and using data analytics

to track learner progress across the district. Phil-IRI results are often used in Learning Action Cell (LAC) sessions

led by school heads to recalibrate strategies based on emerging trends in student reading performance. This

managerial oversight ensures that data collection translates into instructional decisions.

Long-term success of reading interventions requires not just initial efforts but sustainability plans steered by

capable administrators. A study on management support practices in Panabo City (2023) emphasized that school

heads and supervisors were instrumental in maintaining the momentum of reading programs by ensuring

continued funding, resource procurement (e.g., books, tablets), and forging partnerships with NGOs and LGUs.

Administrators also institutionalized reading by incorporating it into performance appraisals, school-based

management tools, and recognizing teachers or students through awards—thus motivating stakeholders to

continuously support the program.

The Sustainability Challenge Sustainability is the most difficult phase of any educational reform. Fullan (2007)

argues that reforms often fade when the initial champion (the principal) leaves. To achieve sustainability, the

program must be institutionalized into the school culture. This involves "systems thinking," where reading

programs are integrated into the School Improvement Plan (SIP) and supported by external stakeholders. Recent

studies (Almagro et al., 2024) in the Philippine context highlight that engaging Local Government Units (LGUs)

and parents is critical for securing the resources necessary to sustain remedial reading camps and material

production over the long term. School administrators are crucial in directly addressing persistent challenges such

as teacher workload, limited resources, and potential burnout, which can hinder program continuity. Strategies

to streamline administrative processes, provide sufficient materials, and offer continuous support are essential to

mitigate these barriers (IJFMR, 2025). The need for "additional means or activities" (TIJER, 2025) reinforces

that administrators must continuously seek solutions to persistent issues.

Despite significant investments and efforts, widespread reading comprehension deficiencies persist among

Filipino learners. As highlighted in the World Bank (2022) report, the country faces a substantial "learning

poverty," with a vast majority of 10-year-olds struggling with basic reading. This grim reality is consistently

reflected in international assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),

where Filipino students have consistently ranked low in reading literacy (OECD, 2018; OECD, 2022). These

data underscore systemic issues that go beyond individual classroom practices, pointing to the need for robust,

school-wide, and district-level strategies (Academe, n.d.).

Teacher Workload and Burnout A significant theme in recent literature (Moore, 2023; Guimary et al., 2022)

is the impact of workload on intervention fidelity. When teachers are overwhelmed by administrative tasks,

specialized interventions like Phil-IRI remediation are often the first to suffer. Effective administrators are those

who recognize this and employ strategies to "buffer" teachers from external distractions, allowing them to focus

on instruction. The recent introduction of the MATATAG Curriculum (DepEd Order No. 010, s. 2023) marks a

significant reform aimed at enhancing foundational education, particularly literacy. The curriculum's thrust

includes decongesting learning competencies and intensifying the focus on essential skills, with a clear emphasis

on reading, language, and mathematics (DepEd, 2023a; IJMABER, 2025). This recalibration is intended to

provide teachers with more instructional time and a clearer pedagogical path to address learning gaps. The

success of MATATAG's literacy component, however, is heavily dependent on how effectively school

administrators facilitate its implementation and integrate existing tools like Phil-IRI within this new framework.

Initial observations suggest that while the curriculum provides a strong framework, its real impact will depend

on the capacity of schools to adapt, innovate, and sustain these changes, underscoring the critical role of

administrative strategies (ResearchGate, 2024a).

School and Stakeholder Coordination Lucero (2021) investigated the challenges faced during reading program

execution and found that most problems—such as lack of reading materials, poor parent involvement, and low

teacher motivation—could be mitigated by proactive administrators. For instance, school leaders who conducted

regular stakeholder orientations, literacy forums, and parent-teacher conferences reported higher reading

Page 6142

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

engagement. Similarly, administrators who secured partnerships with local libraries or private donors could

supply classrooms with much-needed books and materials, mitigating resource-related challenges.

The effective development of a school-wide reading program goes beyond simply initiating it; it involves

strategic planning, resource mobilization, and securing stakeholder buy-in. Fullan (2023) emphasized the

importance of a clear vision and collective purpose during the initiation phase of any educational reform. For

reading programs, this translates to administrators leading comprehensive needs assessments (e.g., analyzing

baseline Phil-IRI data), engaging teachers and parents in the planning process, and strategically allocating initial

resources (financial, human, material) to support the program's launch (IIARI, 2025). A strong emphasis on

Inspirational Motivation from the administrator during this phase can cultivate enthusiasm and a shared

commitment, which is crucial for successful program adoption (Jallon et al., 2023). Simultaneously, Shared

Vision and Goal Setting, driven by distributed leadership principles, ensures that the program’s objectives for

literacy are collectively understood and owned from the outset, laying a solid foundation (Almagro et al., 2024).

METHODOLOGY

The research methodology employed in this study was rigorously structured to ensure both the breadth of

quantitative assessment and the depth of qualitative understanding, thereby providing a comprehensive analysis

of administrative practices. This section details the research design, the selection of the setting and participants,

the instrumentation used, the data gathering procedure, and the statistical and thematic analyses applied.

3.1 Research Design The study utilized a Mixed Methods Research Design, specifically the Explanatory

Sequential Design (Creswell, 2014). This approach is characterized by the sequential collection and analysis of

two distinct forms of data, where the quantitative phase (QUAN) occurs first, followed by the qualitative phase

(QUAL).



Phase 1 (Quantitative,): A survey questionnaire was administered to assess the extent of teacher

perceptions regarding administrative support across the three crucial domains: Development,

Monitoring, and Sustainability. This phase provided statistical generalizations and established the

magnitude of administrative involvement using standardized metrics.



Phase 2 (Qualitative): Open-ended questions were then analyzed to explain, elaborate, and

contextualize the quantitative findings. This phase provided the rich, descriptive narratives and specific

examples—such as the role of schedule adjustments and the impact of partnerships with entities like San

Miguel Corporation—that are essential for a nuanced understanding of the implementation challenges

and supportive leadership behaviors. The triangulation of quantitative results (what is happening) with

qualitative insights (how and why it is happening) significantly enhanced the validity and trustworthiness

of the overall conclusions.

Research Setting and Participants

Research Setting

The study was delimited to the Tagoloan East and West Districts within the Division of Misamis Oriental,

Northern Mindanao, Philippines. The selection of this setting was deliberate and grounded in diagnostic

evidence. Official Phil-IRI data for the academic year 2024-2025 indicated a high number of learners at the

"Frustration Level" (classified as "alphabet readers") within these districts. This demographic profile signaled

an urgent need for robust administrative intervention and provided a context where the fidelity and effectiveness

of Phil-IRI implementation were most critical. The performance metrics of these districts, therefore, offered a

high-stakes environment for studying administrative leadership. Respondents: 51 Teachers (Grades 4, 5, and 6)

who are directly responsible for administering the Phil-IRI and conducting remedial reading classes. The

majority of respondents (88.2%) were from Tagoloan East.

Page 6143

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Participants and Sampling

The target respondents were 51 teachers from Grades 4, 5, and 6 who were directly responsible for

administering the Phil-IRI tool and conducting remedial reading classes. The focus on the intermediate grades

(G4-G6) was strategic, as this period marks the critical transition from "learning to read" to "reading to learn,"

making the effectiveness of the Phil-IRI-based interventions paramount.

The sampling technique used was Purposive Sampling. This non-probability method allowed the researchers

to specifically select individuals who possessed the necessary expertise and direct experience with the

phenomenon under investigation (Phil-IRI implementation and administrative support).

Distribution of Respondents:



Total Respondents: 51 Teachers

District Composition: The majority of respondents (88.2%) were sourced from the Tagoloan East

District, with the remaining 11.8% from the Tagoloan West District, reflecting the practical distribution

and accessibility within the research timeframe.

Ethical Considerations

Prior to data collection, comprehensive ethical protocols were strictly observed. Formal approval was secured

from the respective District Superintendents and School Administrators. Participation was entirely voluntary,

and participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Anonymity and

confidentiality were guaranteed by ensuring that no identifying personal information (names, specific schools)

was collected alongside the responses. Informed consent was obtained from all 51 participants before they

completed the survey and open-ended questions.

Instrumentation The primary data collection instrument was a two-part questionnaire: the Standard Survey

Questionnaire (SSQ) for quantitative data, and Open-Ended Questions for qualitative data.

The SSQ was adapted from established leadership scales, including the Multifactored Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ), to ensure content validity related to Transformational, Instructional, and Distributed

Leadership. The instrument was structured into three distinct variables, corresponding to the research

objectives:

1. Development: Focused on planning, preparation, and resource allocation (e.g., material readiness,

communication of plans).

2. Monitoring: Focused on supervision, data analysis, and instructional support (e.g., classroom

observation, specificity of feedback).

3. Sustainability: Focused on long-term institutionalization, capacity building, and stakeholder

engagement (e.g., continuity planning, community partnerships).

The SSQ employed a 4-point Likert Scale, ranging from:



4 – Strongly Agree (SA)

3 – Agree (A)

2 – Disagree (D)

1 – Strongly Disagree (SD)

Page 6144

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

This ordinal scale was chosen to measure the perceived extent of administrative practices, forcing a clear stance

without allowing a neutral option, thus providing clearer data points for analysis. The instrument was pilot-tested

and subjected to expert validation to ensure clarity, relevance to the Phil-IRI program, and reliability.

Qualitative Instrument (Open-Ended Questions)

The qualitative component consisted of a set of open-ended questions designed to elicit rich narratives related

to the administrators' support mechanisms, encountered challenges, and specific recommendations for

improvement. These questions were strategically placed immediately following the quantitative survey to

provide context and elaboration on the statistical trends observed. The specific questions were:

1. What kind of professional support from your school administrators has helped you the most in

implementing the Phil-IRI reading program?

2. What challenges do you encounter when implementing the Phil-IRI program, and how do administrators

help you address these challenges?

3. What additional strategies or resources would you recommend to improve the monitoring and

sustainability of the Phil-IRI program in your school?

Data Gathering Procedure

The data collection process adhered to a rigorous, systematic procedure to ensure data integrity and maximize

the response rate.

Administrative Approval: The researcher secured endorsement letters from the University Graduate School and

sought formal permission from the Division Superintendent and the respective District Supervisors of Tagoloan

East and West.

Coordination with Administrators: The researcher met with school administrators to explain the study's purpose,

scope, and the confidentiality protocols. The administrators' role was limited to facilitating access to the teacher-

respondents.

Respondent Orientation and Consent: Teachers were gathered in a common area (e.g., faculty room) and were

provided with a detailed orientation regarding the research objectives and ethical assurances. They were given

ample time to read and sign the informed consent forms.

Instrument Administration: The survey questionnaires (SSQ and open-ended questions) were distributed

simultaneously. The standardized instructions were read aloud, and the researcher clarified any questions

regarding the scales or the content of the items.

Collection and Data Preparation: The completed instruments were immediately collected by the researcher. Data

entry and cleaning followed, ensuring that all 51 responses were accurately transcribed into the statistical

software for analysis.

Data Analysis

Data analysis involved a sequential process integrating both descriptive statistics for the quantitative data and

thematic analysis for the qualitative data.

Descriptive statistics were the primary tools used to summarize the data.

1. Frequency and Percentage Distribution: Used to describe the demographic profile of the respondents

(e.g., district, grade level taught).

Page 6145

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

2. Weighted Mean: Employed to determine the extent of administrative strategies across the three domains.

The weighted mean ($\bar{x}$) for each indicator and the composite mean for each domain were

calculated using the formula:

Where:



x = Weighted Mean



w = Weight of the response (4, 3, 2, or 1)

F= Frequency of each response

N = Total number of respondents (51)

Interpretation: The resulting mean scores were interpreted using a four-level scale to provide meaningful

academic context:



3.25 – 4.00: Very High (VH): Indicating a robust and consistent implementation, strongly agreed upon

by the teachers.



2.50 – 3.24: High (H): Indicating a positive and generally effective implementation.

1.75 – 2.49: Low (L): Indicating inconsistency and areas needing significant improvement.

1.00 – 1.74: Very Low (VL): Indicating minimal or ineffective administrative practice.

Qualitative Data Analysis

The open-ended responses were analyzed using Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This process

involved a structured, six-phase approach to ensure the reliability and validity of the emergent themes:

1. Familiarization: The researcher repeatedly read all open-ended responses to gain a holistic

understanding of the data's content and nuances.

2. Generating Initial Codes: Relevant excerpts, phrases, and keywords were systematically tagged with

descriptive codes (e.g., "material provision," "schedule flexibility," "delayed forms").

3. Searching for Themes: Codes were grouped based on semantic relevance to form potential overarching

themes related to support, challenges, or recommendations.

4. Reviewing Themes: The potential themes were reviewed against the entire dataset to ensure they

accurately captured the meaning of the underlying codes and to identify any contradictory cases. Themes

were refined (e.g., grouping "schedule flexibility" and "intervening with parents" under the theme of

"Administrative Responsiveness").

5. Defining and Naming Themes: Final, distinct themes were defined, ensuring they clearly articulated

the narrative provided by the teachers (e.g., "The Supply Chain Issue," "Public-Private Partnerships").

6. Producing the Report: The final themes and supporting direct quotations were integrated with the

quantitative results to provide the triangulated findings in Chapter 4. The consistency between the high

Page 6146

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

quantitative scores on logistics and the qualitative theme of "Material Support" served as a crucial

validation of the overall data interpretation.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The data reveals a generally positive perception of administrative leadership, characterized by high composite

means across all three domains of the Phil-IRI program implementation (Development, Monitoring, and

Sustainability). However, a granular look at the specific indicators and integrated qualitative responses exposes

the nuanced difference between mere "operational readiness" and true "strategic depth" in leadership

practice. The discussion integrates the quantitative measures with the qualitative insights, utilizing the theoretical

lenses of Transformational, Instructional, and Distributed Leadership.

The Development Domain: Logistics vs. Strategy

Composite Mean: 3.38 (Very High)

Strongly

Disagree (1)

Disagree

(2)

Agree

(3)

Strongly

Agree (4)

Composite

mean

Survey Item

Missing

0

My

school

administrator

1

2

24

involves teachers in planning

and implementation of the

Phil-IRI assessment tool.

3.39

The

instructions

and

24

0

objectives of the Phil-IRI

assessment during pre and

post-tests

administrators are clear and

easy to understand.

from

school

Our school leaders provide

contingency resources and

materials in case a material is

faulty in producing passages

to effectively implement the

Phil-IRI assessment tool.

1

3

24

23

3.35

Our school administrators

keep us informed about any

updates or changes related to

the Phil-IRI program.

0

1

0

2

3

21

25

28

30

23

19

0

3.59

3.37

The

encourages

school

administrator

collaboration

among teachers to support the

Phil-IRI assessment.

Our school administrators

clearly explain how the Phil-

IRI program supports the

literacy goals in LAC Session

through school-based as part

3.27

Page 6147

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

of

the

MATATAG

Curriculum.

Our school administrators

encourage participation from

parents and the community in

the initial planning of reading

1

4

26

20

0

3.27

3.39

support

activities

(GPTA

Meetings).

Administrators ensure that

Phil-IRI assessment tools and

forms are readily available

before the assessment period

begins.

1

2

3

24

27

24

20

0

I believe that administrators

proactively address potential

administrative barriers (e.g.,

3.39

lack

priorities)

planning phase of Phil-IRI.

of time,

competing

during

the

Our

efforts to secure additional

resources (books, bond

papers, printers) for the Phil-

IRI implementation from

administrators

make

0

3

25

23

0

external sources (e.g., NGOs,

private companies).

Our School Administrators

1

3

25

29

22

18

0

effectively

manage

the

3.33

3.25

distribution and inventory of

Phil-IRI related materials and

resources within the school.

As a teacher I am aware of the

overall plan or strategy for

developing

and

implementing the Phil-IRI

Implementation

school.

in

our

Quantitative Findings on Logistical Readiness: The results strongly indicate that administrators excel in the

logistical aspects of program development. The highest-rated indicators involved the provision of assessment

tools (94.1% agreement) and consistently keeping teachers informed of updates (94.1% agreement). Teachers

felt that the "basics" were covered—paperwork, forms, and schedules were managed effectively, fulfilling the

basic requirements of the DepEd mandate.

Discussion: Strong Instructional Management: This high rating reflects the effective execution of

Instructional Leadership, specifically the dimension of "managing the instructional program." Administrators

are ensuring the "conditions for learning" are met by proactively removing material and informational barriers.

The qualitative data strongly supported this, with teachers citing "Provision of reading materials for independent

Page 6148

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

readers" and assessment tools as the single most helpful support received. This proactive stance buffers teachers

from the typical resource-related frustrations noted in the literature (Abril et al., 2022).

The Strategic Gap: Lack of Transformational Vision: However, a critical finding emerges from the lowest-

rated item in this domain: teacher awareness of the overall plan or strategy (56.9% awareness, though still

generating a 'Very High' mean of 3.25). This indicates a significant gap in Transformational Leadership. While

teachers know what to do (administer the test), they may not fully grasp the strategic vision or understand how

the Phil-IRI data fits into the long-term school improvement goals of the MATATAG Curriculum. As Fullan

(2007) notes, without a shared vision, implementation can become superficial compliance. Administrators are

proficiently managing the tasks but need to improve in communicating the overarching mission

The Monitoring Domain: Surveillance vs. Support

Composite Mean: 3.37 (Very High)

Strongly

Disagree (1)

Agree

(3)

Strongly

Agree (4)

Composite

mean

Survey Item

Disagree (2)

Missing

0

Administrators

check and monitor how the

Phil-IRI program is being

implemented

classrooms.

regularly

1

2

25

26

25

24

23

22

23

24

3.37

3.35

3.37

3.39

in

our

Feedback

administrators helps me

improve my reading

instruction based on Phil-

IRI assessment results.

from

2

0

Professional development

sessions or training related

to Phil-IRI are organized or

supported

administrators.

by

school

When

I

encountered

problems/confusions

implementing the Phil-IRI

in

assessment,

my

administrator

provides

assistance or guidance.

There is consistent follow-

up from administrators to

1

0

2

25

23

26

0

3.37

3.47

ensure

that

reading

interventions for struggling

students

properly.

are

applied

Administrators ensure that

Phil-IRI assessment data is

collected from all students

as required.

Page 6149

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

I receive clear instructions

from administrators on how

to submit Phil-IRI data and

reports.

1

2

24

0

3.39

Administrators

analyze Phil-IRI

actively

results

3

27

20

0

3.29

(e.g., comparing pre-tests to

post-tests) to understand

student progress at a school

level.

Administrators use insights

from Phil-IRI monitoring to

1

3

4

28

27

19

0

3.27

identify

where teachers need more

support or training in

reading instruction.

specific

areas

Classroom observations by

administrators specifically

focus on how effectively

3.25

Phil-IRI

strategies

and

interventions

are

being

implemented.

The feedback I receive

from administrators about

Phil-IRI implementation is

specific, actionable, and

helps me improve.

2

1

3

26

28

20

19

0

3.27

There are regular meetings

or

discussions

with

administrators about our

school's overall Phil-IRI

monitoring results and next

steps.

I

feel

supported

to

by

make

1

3

27

25

27

20

23

20

0

administrators

3.29

3.37

adjustments to my reading

instruction based on student

progress observed through

Phil-IRI.

Administrators

2

communicate the overall

Phil-IRI reading progress

of the school to the teaching

staff

stakeholders.

and

other

Administrators ensure that

Phil-IRI monitoring data is

`1 23

Page 6150

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

used to identify students

who require specialized

3.46

reading interventions (e.g.,

SPED, remedial classes).

I understand how the Phil-

IRI monitoring data we

1

3

28

19

0

3.27

collect

is

used

by

administrators to improve

the overall school reading

program.

Quantitative Findings on Monitoring Consistency: Monitoring is perceived as active and consistent. Teachers

reported high agreement that administrators regularly check implementation (90.2% agreement) and ensure data

is collected from all students (92.2% agreement). This confirms administrative adherence to compliance

protocols and data accountability, a core function of Instructional Leadership.

Integrated Discussion: Adaptive Leadership and Workload Management: The quantitative consistency is

powerfully contextualized by a crucial qualitative finding: Schedule Adjustments. Teachers noted that principals

actively adjusted class schedules to accommodate the time-consuming nature of Phil-IRI assessments. This

responsiveness to Teacher Workload is a critical enactment of Adaptive Leadership—changing the school

structure to fit pedagogical necessity. This behavior directly validates the literature (Agaton & Cueto, 2021)

which suggests that administrative flexibility is vital for maintaining program fidelity, as it acknowledges and

mitigates the time constraints identified in the literature review (Moore, 2023).

The Gap: Insufficient Pedagogical Coaching: The weakness in this domain lies in the specificity of feedback.

The lowest agreement (78.4%) in this section was regarding whether the feedback provided was specific and

actionable. While monitoring happens, the feedback is often generic. Effective Instructional Leadership requires

that observation feedback be pedagogical and actionable—telling a teacher exactly how to modify a reading

intervention for a frustration-level reader, rather than just checking that the intervention occurred. This suggests

that administrators need to upskill in literacy pedagogy themselves to provide better instructional mentorship

and move the monitoring process beyond mere surveillance.

The Sustainability Domain: Institutionalization vs. Dependency

Composite Mean: 3.29 (High)

Strongly

Disagree (1)

Agree

(3)

Strongly

Agree (4)

Composite

mean

Survey Item

Disagree (2)

Missing

0

Our school administrators

have clear plans to sustain

1

3

27

26

20

3.29

the

Phil-IRI

reading

program over the long term.

Administrators

involve parents and the

community to support and

actively

3

2

21

0

3.31

3.29

sustain

the

reading

implementation.

The

school

leadership

1

25

23

recognizes and appreciates

the efforts of teachers in

Page 6151

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

implementing the Phil-IRI

program.

Administrators

review and update the Phil-

IRI program based

feedback from teachers.

regularly

1

3

2

27

26

20

22

0

3.35

3.29

on

I

feel

motivated

and

supported by my school

administrators to continue

implementing the Phil-IRI

program effectively.

I

believe

the

is

Phil-IRI

deeply

1

3

27

20

0

program

3.27

integrated into our school's

overall academic goals and

long-term planning, not just

a temporary initiative.

There

are

ongoing

professional development

opportunities provided by

administrators that help me

maintain and improve my

3.27

skills

in

Phil-IRI

and

reading instruction.

Administrators proactively

address issues like teacher

workload or burnout to

1

3

28

19

0

ensure

the

long-term

viability of the Phil-IRI

program.

I perceive that new teachers

3.27

joining

our school are

adequately onboarded and

supported in their role

regarding

program.

the

Phil-IRI

Administrators effectively

communicate the long-term

vision and benefits of the

Phil-IRI program, which

encourages my continued

commitment.

3.29

3.27

I am aware of how our

school plans to continue the

Phil-IRI program even with

Page 6152

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

potential changes in school

leadership or staff.

Our administrators foster a

collaborative environment

1

3

27

28

20

19

0

3.27

where

teachers

feel

empowered to contribute

ideas for the continuous

improvement of the Phil-

IRI program.

I

perceive

administrators

teachers' input

that

value

when

3.29

making decisions about the

long-term direction of the

Phil-IRI program.

Administrators

involve

1

3

28

27

19

20

0

teachers in identifying and

addressing challenges that

could threaten the Phil-IRI

program's longevity.

3.29

I feel that the successes and

positive impacts of the

Phil-IRI

program

are

regularly celebrated and

communicated by school

administrators.

Administrators ensure that

1

3

27

20

0

opportunities

learning or

for

mentoring

peer

3.29

related to Phil-IRI practices

are available to sustain

teacher expertise.

Administrators

seek ways to integrate the

Phil-IRI program with

other school initiatives to

ensure its sustained

relevance and support.

actively

Quantitative Findings on Stakeholder Engagement: This domain scored the lowest overall, though still rated

"High," highlighting the inherent difficulty of long-term program maintenance. Strengths included recognizing

teacher efforts and actively involving parents in the program.

Integrated Discussion: Distributed Leadership and Resource Brokering: A standout qualitative finding was

the emergence of Public-Private Partnerships. Teachers specifically mentioned collaboration with San Miguel

Corporation and local NGOs to secure resources. These partnerships are concrete evidence of Distributed

Leadership extending beyond the school walls. Administrators are acting as "boundary spanners" or resource

brokers, a function essential for sustainability, especially given the chronic lack of funds for reading materials

Page 6153

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

in Philippine public schools. This validates the need to expand leadership functions to community actors

(Spillane, 2006).

The Gap: Fragility of Continuity: A concerning finding is that only 78.4% of teachers were aware of

continuity plans in case of leadership turnover. This points to a fundamental fragility: if the current principal

leaves, the program, which relies heavily on personal connections (e.g., the relationship with San Miguel Corp),

might collapse. Sustainability is currently driven by personality (the current leader's energy and connections)

rather than policy (institutionalized systems). True sustainability requires that the program be formally

embedded in the School Improvement Plan (SIP) and school culture so it survives inevitable leadership

transitions, mitigating the risk identified by Fullan (2007).

Qualitative Themes and Integrated Insights

The qualitative analysis provided the "human story" behind the statistics, offering rich, integrated insights into

the daily operational reality of Phil-IRI implementation. Five major themes emerged:

1. Administrative Responsiveness: This theme reinforced the high quantitative scores on monitoring and

support. Teachers appreciated when leaders solved immediate, practical problems, such as intervening

with parents when students had irregular attendance to ensure assessment completion. This highlights

a supportive, hands-on style of leadership.

2. Workload Constraints: Despite administrative efforts to adjust schedules, the sheer volume of work

remains a pervasive hurdle. Teachers requested more than just time; they requested streamlined

processes and de-loading to allow focus on the core task of instruction and remediation.

3. The "Supply Chain" Issue: A recurring systemic frustration was the delayed delivery of materials

(forms, passages) from the central office. While school administrators managed the distribution of local

materials effectively, systemic delays from the Division Office disrupted the assessment calendar,

highlighting a bottleneck that requires higher-level intervention.

4. Professional Development Needs: Teachers explicitly requested regular, continuous training, not just

one-off seminars. They need continuous coaching on how to accurately interpret Phil-IRI data to create

differentiated lessons, supporting the finding that instructional feedback is currently too generic.

5. Community as a Resource: The recommendation to conduct "Parent Reading Seminars" highlights

a strong shift toward viewing parents as pedagogical partners, not just financial supporters. This theme

strongly validates the necessity of Distributed Leadership in building a collaborative ecosystem for

literacy.

CONCLUSION

The study confirms that school administrators in the Tagoloan East and West Districts are performing their roles

with a high degree of commitment and competence, particularly in the operational and logistical domains of

the Phil-IRI program. The consistently high composite means across all variables (Development: 3.38;

Monitoring: 3.37; Sustainability: 3.29) suggest that the "mechanics" of the program—planning, testing,

resource provision, and data collection—are functioning well under the initial implementation phases of the

MATATAG Curriculum. Administrators are successfully managing the day-to-day requirements, establishing a

solid foundational environment conducive to the literacy initiative.

However, the findings also illuminate the difference between implementation and integration.



Implementation is strong: The evidence shows high fidelity in logistical compliance. Materials are

ready, tests are conducted according to schedule (often with adaptive adjustments), and reports are filed.

This success is directly attributable to the effective Instructional Leadership displayed by the

administrators in managing the curriculum and ensuring resource allocation.

Page 6154

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025



Integration is Developing, but Vulnerable: The data reveals that the Phil-IRI program is not yet fully

integrated into the school's long-term culture. Vulnerabilities exist in three key areas: Strategic

alignment with the broader MATATAG curriculum goals, the depth of instructional feedback (moving

beyond compliance checking), and the assurance of long-term continuity (institutionalization).The

leadership style observed is predominantly Instructional (managing the program) and Distributed

(sharing tasks with teachers and parents), but it needs a stronger infusion of Transformational

elements—specifically in communicating a shared strategic vision that ensures every teacher understands

the "why" behind the data.

The prevailing leadership style observed is predominantly Instructional (managing the program effectively)

and Distributed (sharing tasks with teachers and external partners like San Miguel Corporation). While effective

for immediate operational success, this model needs a stronger infusion of Transformational elements.

Specifically, leadership must focus on communicating a shared strategic vision that ensures every teacher

understands the "why" behind the Phil-IRI data and how their individual efforts contribute to eradicating the

"Frustration Level" gap in the district.

Ultimately, the study concludes that administrators are effective enablers of the Phil-IRI program. They buffer

teachers from external shocks (like attendance issues and resource delays) and provide the necessary tools. To

move the program from a state of "High" operational success to one of "Excellent" and sustainable

integration, the focus must fundamentally shift from managing resources to managing talent (mentoring)

and from managing compliance to managing systems (institutionalization). This strategic pivot is essential

for achieving the foundational literacy goals mandated by the MATATAG Curriculum.

Ultimately, the study concludes that administrators are effective enablers of the Phil-IRI program. They buffer

teachers from external shocks (like attendance issues) and provide the necessary tools. To move from "High" to

"Excellent," the focus must shift from managing resources to managing talent (mentoring) and managing

systems (institutionalization).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the empirical findings and theoretical gaps identified, the following recommendations are proposed to

strengthen the Phil-IRI implementation in the Tagoloan East and West Districts and within the broader context

of the MATATAG Curriculum.

Recommendations for School Administrators:

1. Enhance Feedback Loops through Structured Coaching:

Action: Move beyond checking for compliance. Administrators should develop and utilize specific observation

tools (rubrics) designed solely for reading classes. This will allow them to give granular, actionable feedback on

pedagogical strategies tailored to the needs of students identified at the Frustration and Instructional levels.

Rationale: The finding that feedback lacks specificity ({x}=3.27) indicates a need for administrators to become

literacy coaches, focusing on how a teacher differentiates instruction based on Phil-IRI results, rather than just

if the intervention occurred.

2. Democratize the Strategic Plan and Vision:

Action: Ensure that the "Master Plan" for literacy—how the school will move 35% of students out of the

"Frustration Level" within one year—is not merely a document for the principal's office. It must be consistently

discussed in Learning Action Cell (LAC) sessions so every teacher understands the long-term trajectory and their

specific role in achieving the MATATAG goals.

Rationale: Bridging the gap in strategic awareness ({x}=3.25) requires a strong exercise of Transformational

Leadership, ensuring teacher buy-in and ownership beyond superficial compliance.

Page 6155

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

3. Formalize Sustainability through Institutional Documentation:

Action: Document best practices and partnership agreements (e.g., with San Miguel Corporation and NGOs) in

a formalized "School Reading Handbook" or policy manual.

Rationale: The current dependency on personality for resource generation is a critical vulnerability ({x}=3.27).

Institutionalizing these processes ensures that if leadership changes, the essential resource relationships and

operational continuity remain intact, utilizing the principles of Distributed Leadership.

Recommendations for District/Division Offices

1. Address Supply Chain Issues via Decentralized Printing:

o

Action: The recurring issue of delayed delivery of materials needs immediate systemic intervention. The

Division should explore authorizing local reproduction of materials earlier in the school year or piloting

the digitization of assessment tools where feasible.

Rationale: Systemic bottlenecks disrupt the school calendar, undermining the administrator's ability to

maintain program fidelity. Decentralization empowers local leaders to maintain control over the

assessment timeline.

2. Standardized Training in Data Interpretation:

o

Action: Institutionalize annual professional development training that focuses not just on how to

administer the Phil-IRI test, but on remedial reading strategies and data analysis for the frustration-level

learners identified by the test.

o

Rationale: This training will equip administrators and teachers with the necessary skills to transition the

program from an assessment tool to a powerful diagnostic and intervention mechanism, aligning with

the core intent of the MATATAG curriculum.

6.3 Recommendations for Teachers

1. Leverage Data for Differentiated Instruction:

o

Action: Move beyond data submission. Teachers should utilize the Phil-IRI results to group students

dynamically for reading interventions and actively share successful strategies during LAC sessions.

o

Rationale: The ultimate measure of the program is student literacy growth. Teachers must treat the Phil-

IRI results not as a compliance report, but as a live, evolving blueprint for instruction.

2. Establish Peer Mentoring Systems:

o

Action: Experienced teachers should mentor novices in the precise administration and interpretation of

the Phil-IRI tool to ensure consistency and reliability of data.

o

Rationale: This strengthens internal capacity, distributes instructional leadership horizontally, and

reduces the administrative burden on school heads.

Implications For Practice

This study holds several significant practical implications for the broader educational landscape under the

MATATAG Curriculum, particularly in terms of leadership development and resource mobilization.

Shift in Principal Training: The Imperative of Data Literacy:

Page 6156

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025



Leadership development programs for principals must now emphasize Data Literacy as a core

competency. It is no longer sufficient to merely collect Phil-IRI data; principals must be equipped to lead

statistical analysis sessions (e.g., comparing pre-test to post-test trends) to identify school-wide reading

deficits and track the effectiveness of specific interventions. This empowers them to provide genuine

evidence-based instructional leadership.

The "Whole School" Approach and Formalized Partnerships:



The successful establishment of partnerships, such as those with San Miguel Corporation, proves that

literacy success cannot be solved by teachers and school funds alone. Schools must actively cultivate an

ecosystem of support, leveraging Distributed Leadership to formalize relationships with community

stakeholders (GPTA, LGUs, NGOs). This minimizes the risk of resource gaps and creates a shared

accountability for student learning that transcends the school gates.

Workload Rationalization and Adaptive Structuring:



The study validates the necessity of "de-loading" teachers during high-stakes assessment periods. The

practice of schedule adjustments must be formalized as policy. Schools should further consider utilizing

non-teaching personnel or trained parent volunteers (where appropriate) to assist with logistics, such as

test material collation and attendance tracking. This rationalization of workload allows the highly skilled

teacher to focus primarily on the diagnostic and intervention aspects of the Phil-IRI, maximizing their

pedagogical impact and aligning with the focused objectives of the MATATAG Curriculum.

By addressing these administrative and systemic areas, the Phil-IRI can successfully evolve from a required

annual report into a dynamic, transformative tool that genuinely eradicates learning poverty and builds a nation

of proficient readers.

REFERENCES

1. A Abril, A. A., et al. (2022). [The role of Phil-IRI as a diagnostic and assessment instrument in informing

targeted interventions]. Adapon, A., & Mangila, R. J. (2020). [The effect of the Care for the Non-Readers

(CRN) program on the reading ability of Filipino students]. Almagro, R., Flores, L. C., & Amora, M. V.

(2024). [Administrative tactics for reading program sustainment in the Philippines].

2. B Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1985). [Seminal work on Transformational Leadership Theory]. Bass, B.

M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership.

Sage Publications.

3. C Culduz, M. (2024). [Roles of school administrators in resource allocation and professional growth].

4. D DepEd. (2023). [DepEd’s measure against systemized concerns and realignment of the curriculum].

DepEd Order No. 010, s. 2023. (2023). Rationalizing the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum and the

Phased Implementation of the MATATAG Curriculum. Department of Education. DepEd Order No. 12,

s. 2011. (2011). National Reading Program. Department of Education. DepEd Order No. 14, s. 2018.

(2018). Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-

IRI). Department of Education.

5. F Figuracion, J. B., & Ormilla, J. B. (2021). [Effectiveness of a library hour program in improving word

reading performance among Grade V students].

6. H Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). [Seminal work on Instructional Leadership Theory].

7. I IIARI. (2025). [Journal article on time limitations and workload in Phil-IRI implementation]. IJARIIS.

(2024). [Journal article on lack of consistent adherence to prescribed program interventions]. IJARIIS.

(2025). [Journal article on the enhanced role of Phil-IRI in the MATATAG Curriculum]. IJFMR. (2025).

[Journal article on inadequate instructor training and resource limitations in Phil-IRI]. IJMABER. (2025).

[Journal article on the MATATAG Curriculum]. Illescas, M. A. P., & Manzano, R. C. (2023).

[Challenges and practices of school-based management in public elementary schools].

8. L Lindström, R., & Roberts, J. (2023). [Integrating behavioral supports with reading interventions].

9. M Mangila, R. J., & Paculaba, R. A. (2020). [The role of culturally responsive teaching practices in

contributing to pupils' engagement and academic achievement].

Page 6157

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

10. OECD. (2018). PISA [Programme for International Student Assessment] results. OECD. (2022). PISA

[Programme for International Student Assessment] results. Ormilla, J. B., & Dupra, D. M. (2023).

[Readiness of higher education institutions for quality assurance].

11. P Perez, J., & Lumaad, D. (2021). [Educational leadership and management approaches effect on school-

based management and reading programs]. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2025). [Report on functional

illiteracy among Filipino students]. Pocaan, F., et al. (2023). [Strategic reading interventions among left-

behind Filipino learners].

12. R ResearchGate. (2024). [Long-term readability program sustainability].

13. S Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.

14. U UNESCO. (2017). [Report on the importance of literacy as a support pillar].

15. W World Bank. (2022). State of Global Learning Poverty.

Page 6158

ww w .rsisinternational.org