Keywords

School Governance; Practices; Elementary School Administrators

Introduction

In the Philippines, the majority of public elementary school administrators received compensation according to their plantelia item that is nearly entirely determined by their number of years of service and their highest degree attained. Several public school systems in the Philippines have recently adopted such ‚performance-pay‛ policies. On the other side, the absence of critical information and the exceptional centralization of decision making in education, highly inhibit the degree to which, parents, local communities, children, teachers, civic leaders, district education authorities and civil society groups can influence management and decision making processes and make legitimate demands to improve quality of education.

Howell, West, and Peterson [10] suggested that nearly half of all support performance-pay for teachers whose students are making academic progress, while about a third of Americans directly oppose such a plan.

Department for Education [6] stated that the initiative for school improvement will now primarily lie with head teachers, teachers and governors and, as a result, schools will be held to account by parents and the community for their performance.

According Clark [4]; Machin and Vernoit [13] the major decisions that school systems and schools have to make, those concerning the curriculum and the way resources are allocated and managed have a direct impact on teaching and learning, since the early 1980s, many school systems have granted individual schools increasing authority to make autonomous decisions on curricula and resource allocation on the premise that individual schools are good judges of their students’ learning needs and of the most effective use of resources. However, the rationale was to raise performance levels by encouraging responsiveness to student and school needs at the local level and this has involved increasing the decision-making responsibility and accountability of principals and, in some cases, the management responsibilities of teachers or department heads and yet school systems differ in the degree of autonomy granted to schools and in the domains for which autonomy is awarded to schools.

According to Gunnarsson et al. [8]; Zhao and Akiba [21], parents were often looed forward as partners with teachers and principals in order to better meet the learning objectives of their children. This partnership can take the form of: parents discussing educational matters with their children; parents supervising their children’s progress through education; parents communicating with the school; and parents actively participating in school activities. While the first two forms of parental involvement involve interactions between parents and their children, the latter two involve interactions between parents and the school major education-improvement programme that modified how education policy objectives are set, the way resources are allocated, how education is monitored, how the central government supports schools and local authorities and teachers’ career trajectories.

An comparative study at an international scale shows that effective principals are likely to display both administrate and instructional leadership [17].

Balarin [1] presented the proofs support this view and highlight the close relationship between the quality of governing bodies and school performance where governing bodies are effective and challenging in their scrutiny and monitoring role, and schools are better placed to achieve their statutory duties. However, Balarin [1]; Ranson and Crouch [19] suggests that governors see themselves as more accountable to the schools and/or rather than the surrounding community.

The schools that participated in the National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS) were surveyed independently by Figlio and Kenny [7] independently surveyed the and they then supplemented the NELS dataset with information on whether schools compensated teachers for their performance, the test scores were higher in schools that individually rewarded teachers for their classroom performance.

According to Hess and Loveless [9]; Berends and Zottola [2]; Jensen [11] the underlying assumptions about parental and student choice; and, in some cases, adopting schoolchoice practices has led to greater socio-economic and academic segregation among schools and in some school systems, more responsibility for regulating enrolment has been given to the education authority.

The researcher aimed to determine the school governance practices among elementary school administrator in the District of Lambunao East, Division of Iloilo, Philippines, hence this study.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed at ascertaining the school governance practices among elementary school administrator in the District of Lambunao East, Division of Iloilo for the school year 2014-2015. It further aimed to find out the level of school governance practices and their differences in the practices among the respondents.

Materials and Methods

The participants of this investigation were the 48 randomly selected elemetary school head in the District of Lambunao East, Division of Iloilo, Philippines. The simple random sampling method was employed in the selection of the sample participants of the study. The researcher made instruments was used to gather the needed data for the investigation, dully validated by panel of experts with a cronbach alpha of 0.89. The statistical tools were the mean; standard deviation; and ANNOVA. The .05 alpha significance level was used as the criterion for the acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis.

Result and Discussion

Table 1 shows that generally, the result revealed that the extent of school governance practice being implemented is ‚Highly Govern‛ (M=4.06) and when categorized as to govern school autonomy; school choice; private and public stakeholders; management and leadership of school administrators to be very high with a means of 4.23, 4.23, 4.24 and 4.23. While other factors like parent’s involvement; school policy; quality assurance; student’s achievements; and teachers monitoring practices; highly observe the school governance with a means of4.18,4.07,3.82; 3.76and 3.61. The extent of school governance being implemented by school administrators is ‚Very Highly Governed‛.

The extent of school governance practice is much expected given the recent state of greater autonomy for schools, the developing education context and the relationship between the governing body and the senior leadership team, it is timely to examine more closely the role of the governing body. Ranson and Crouch [19] suggested three possible governance models: a business model in which schools are seen as a business and require a governing body with experience of running a business to support the leadership team. an executive and stakeholder scrutiny model, which is a hybrid model incorporating an executive group who are accountable to a wider stakeholder group and a community governance model, through which governors ‘become leaders and enablers of community development’ through schools working together in an area with families.

Table 1

The Level of School Governance Practices

School Governance Mean Description SD
School Autonomy
School Choice 4.23 Very Highly Govern 0.773
Private and Public Stakeholders 4.23 Very Highly Govern 0.694
Management and Leadership of School Administrators 4.24 Very Highly Govern 0.642
Parent Involvement 4.23 Very Highly Govern 0.651
School Policy 4.18 Highly Govern 0.888
Quality Assurance 4.07 Highly Govern 0.701
Students Achievements 3.82 Highly Govern 0.66
Teachers Monitoring Practices 3.76 Highly Govern 0.681
School Autonomy 3.61 Highly Govern 0.778
School Choice 4.23 Very Highly Govern 0.394
General Mean 4.06 Highly Govern

Legend:

Mean Description
4.21 – 5.00 Very Highly Govern
3.41 – 4.20 Highly Govern
2.61 – 3.40 Govern
1.81 – 2.60 Moderately Govern
1.00 – 1.80 Not Govern

The ANOVA results showed that there is no the significant difference on the program/activities under school governance and when categorized as to school autonomy (p=.229); school choice (p=.229); private and public stakeholders (p=.229); management and leadership of school administrators (p=.229); parents involvement (p=.229); school policy (p=.229); quality assurance (p=.209); students achievements (p=.286); and teachers monitoring practices (p=.286). The result accepted the hypothesis that there is no the significant difference on the program/activities under school governance.

In parallel with the results among the many decisions that school systems and schools have to make, those concerning the curriculum and the way resources are allocated and managed have a direct impact on teaching and learning. Since the early 1980s, many school systems have granted individual schools increasing authority to make autonomous decisions on curricula and resource allocation on the premise that individual schools are good judges of their students’ learning needs and of the most effective use of resources. The rationale was to raise performance levels by encouraging responsiveness to student and school needs at the local level [20] [3] [5] and [13]. This has influenced increasing the decision-making responsibility and accountability of school administrators and, in some situation, the management responsibilities of teachers or department heads. Yet school governance differs in the degree of autonomy granted to schools and in the domains for which autonomy is granted to schools.

Table 2

ANOVA Results in the Differences in School Governance Practices

School Governance F Sig. Description Decision
School Autonomy 1.656 0.229 Not Sig. Accept Ho
School Choice 1.656 0.229 Not Sig. Accept Ho
Private and Public Stakeholders 1.656 0.229 Not Sig. Accept Ho
Management and Leadership of School Administrators 1.656 0.229 Not Sig. Accept Ho
Parent Involvement 1.656 0.229 Not Sig. Accept Ho
School Policy 1.656 0.229 Not Sig. Accept Ho
Quality Assurance 1.772 0.209 Not Sig. Accept Ho
Students Achievements 1.38 0.286 Not Sig. Accept Ho
Teachers Monitoring Practices 1.38 0.286 Not Sig. Accept Ho

Conclusion and Recommendation

The elementary school administrators highly practiced in school governance and their is a variation in th program/activities can be implemented by the respondents regardless of school governance practiced. It is recommended that the participants should be able to frame interventions on governance program based on their strengths and weaknesses. Finally, the respondents should attend ciminars, trainings, and workshop so that their skills will be upgraded in school governance.