Planning and Changing

Jeffrey S. Brooks & Ian E. Sutherland Vol. 45, No. 3/4, 2014, pp. x–xx

Educational Leadership in the Philippines:

Principals’ Perspectives on Problems
and Possibilities for Change

This case study of school leaders in the Southern Philippines ex-

plored principal perspectives on local dynamics that facilitate and impede
meaningful educational change. The research indicated that change is a
complicated proposition in the region, and that some principals are bet-
ter or worse equipped to lead depending on a variety of cultural, political
and organizational factors. In particular, the research revealed that prin-
cipals’ ability to establish meaningful relationships with both school sys-
tem and government officials was critical to facilitating positive change.
The article concludes by making recommendations for local practitioners
in the Philippines.

Despite innovative national policies, public education has had an

uneven evolution in the Philippines, in some ways improving rapidly and
in others remaining largely the same (Bello, Docena, de Guzman & Malig,
2009). On several occasions, well-intentioned and well-designed nation-
al reforms imported from other countries have failed upon implementa-
tion (Zulueta & Liwag, 2001). This is due in part to a number of systemic
factors: the country’s unstable political environment (Constantino, 1975,
Gregorio & Gregorio, 1976); pervasive corruption across private and pub-
lic sectors, particularly in education (Abinales & Amoroso, 2005; Chua,
1999; Reyes, 2009); a lack of adequate resources (Asian Development
Bank, 2005); and, cultural and social dynamics that effectively maintain
the status quo at the classroom, school and divisional levels (Chua, 1999).
These issues notwithstanding, many in the Philippines work toward school
and school system improvement. This study investigates the work of one
subset of educators, school administrators, in an effort to understand how
they leverage their limited agency toward positive educational change,
within their buildings, school divisions and local communities (de Guz-
man, 2006, 2007; de Guzman & Guillermo, 2007).
The purpose of this exploratory study was to understand how
school administrators influence educational change in Philippine schools.
This article is part of a larger effort to document perspectives currently un-
derrepresented in the literature, so the themes presented in this article are
understandably broad and complex. Aside from a few high-quality excep-
tions (particularly the work of Allan B. de Guzman and his colleagues),
the preparation and work of school leaders in the Philippines is largely ab-
sent from worldwide research conversations about educational leadership.
Our hope is that the perspectives in this article can inform practitioners, re-

1
Brooks & Sutherland

searchers and policymakers as they make decisions about their work relat-
ed to school improvement. As this purpose demands a deep, nuanced and
context-specific understanding of school administrators’ work, we chose a
case study research design and focused on a single school division, Region
X (Cagayan de Oro City). Data were gathered through interviews, focus
groups, observations and by collecting formal and informal documents.
We then engaged in quasi-grounded theory analysis in order to discover
themes in the data. In the sections that follow, we present a brief review of
relevant contextual literature, describe in more detail the research methods
we employed, present findings and finally consider the lessons we learned
in relation to their import and relevance for researchers, practitioners and
policy makers. We begin by offering a brief overview of literature relat-
ed to principals and educational change, before describing the context of
principal leadership in the Philippines.

Principals as Change Agents

Historically, principals have been characterized as change agents

who work with a limited and constantly evolving sphere of influence—
they are at once leaders, administrators and middle managers who mediate
tensions between policy-as-designed and policies-as-implemented (Beck
& Murphy, 1993; Fullan 1991; Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006). Principals
face challenges of increasing complexity and frequency as they fulfill their
functions and provide direction and support while seeking to influence
conditions related to teaching and learning (Seashore-Louis, Leithwood,
Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010) in times where uncertainty is the norm and
reform is often implemented from unstable footing (Evans, 2001; Fullan,
2001; O’Hara, 2006). External environmental pressures constrain leader
influence and direction and can conflict with the established norms, val-
ues and beliefs of the internal social systems of organizations (Bennis,
1989). Principals operate precariously in between these internal and exter-
nal worlds, and the relative lack of success of school reform efforts is evi-
dence of the breadth and depth of the challenge they face on a daily basis
(Fullan, 2001; Nolan, 2007). Change cannot be controlled as much as it
can be understood and led by those with the skills, knowledge and disposi-
tions to influence cultural and organizational norms (Fullan, 2001). Where
principals and school leaders are often asked to offer simple and expedient
answers, they may better serve their organizations by embracing the com-
plexity of change by challenging school communities to “face problems
for which there are no simple, painless solutions – problems that require
us to learn new ways” (Heifetz, 1994, p. 21) and to shape and reshape edu-
cational processes over time.
Educational research has broadly explored the dynamics of lead-
ing change, but of particular importance are perspectives for leading sus-
tained and meaningful change (Evans, 2001; Senge, Cambron-McCabe,

2 Planning and Changing

 Educational Leadership in the Philippines

Lucas, Smith, Dutton, & Kleiner, 2000; Vaill, 1989) and leader actions
that facilitate authentic change (Evans, 2001; Fullan, 2001, 2007; Harris
& Spillane, 2008). This demands a vision of the school as one that exists
between reality and utopia—as a place of possibility where all members’
perspectives are valued as part of the evolving mission of the organization
(Brooks, 2006). The application of systems thinking to educational change
is not new, but it has received greater attention as an important approach
to understanding and affecting change by recognizing the inter-relatedness
and reciprocal influence of the actors and components of systems (Senge,
et al., 2000). Complex systems, such as schools, have both explicit and
hidden dynamics that provide leaders with points of leverage. In addition,
leading lasting change is a focus on what Evans (2001) describes as sec-
ond order change. Second order change not only addresses the structural
changes in an organization, but specifically targets norms, values, beliefs
and culture (Evans, 2001; Vaill, 1989). Rather than a top-down linear ap-
proach, second order change recognizes organizations as complex systems
and change as unpredictable. The means, or journey, to change is as im-
portant as outcomes and a focus on one to the exclusion of the other is un-
likely to result in lasting, positive or meaningful change.
Effective leaders for lasting change learn about their organiza-
tional systems, utilize knowledge and social/political capital, and moti-
vate members of their organization to learn together for positive change
(Senge, et al., 2000). There are three types of behaviors that exemplify
effective leadership for change. First, leaders that effectively lead last-
ing change focus their actions on building relationships and trust (Fullan
2001, 2007; Kouzes & Posner, 2003). Importantly, a leader must be pro-
active, caring and focused in order to establish trusting relationships and
to nurture them as they develop over time. Second, leaders that effectively
lead lasting change distribute decision-making (Harris & Spillane, 2008).
Effective leaders understand that there is a time when they must lead and a
time when they have to follow. As school communities are by nature filled
with insightful members, creating the structures and conditions for shar-
ing ideas critically is essential (Brooks, Normore, Jean-Marie & Hodgins,
2007). Finally, to move systems towards second-order change that is last-
ing, effective leaders interrogate the status quo (Nolan, 2007). They start
by asking questions such as why do we do what we do? How effective are
our policies and strategies? Without interrogating the status quo, nega-
tive and ineffective norms can control the change process and undermine
well-intentioned efforts. In order to better understand what leadership
for change looks like in the Philippines, we offer a brief discussion of the
structure and organization of education in the country, paying special at-
tention to the ways that leadership has functioned in educational settings.

Vol. 45, No. 3/4, 2014, pp. x–xx 3

Brooks & Sutherland

Public Education in the Philippines

History. Pre-colonial Philippine educational experiences, prior to

1565, were based on the social unit in which one lived. Social units var-
ied in complexity, including the family unit, family clusters, and villages
(Jocano, 1998). The complexity of the social unit determined who was
involved in leading and educating. At the top of the social hierarchy was
the chieftain or village leader, who was a source of political authority,
knowledge, and wisdom (David, 2011; Jocano, 1998). Both boys and girls
were educated. As there were no formal schools at the time, education was
the responsibility of families and villages, and the educational leadership
modeled after the community elders, advisors and the chieftain.
Spanish colonial schools, 1565–1898, were designed to convert
and indoctrinate national Filipinos, and provide basic education (Schwartz,
1971). The Spanish colonial education did little in and of itself to pro-
vide an actual educational value to Filipinos, but it introduced policy and
leadership influence that led to the inception of secular private education,
a formal curriculum, and a free public education (Fox, 1965). The pro-
gression of Spanish educational development would later lead to the es-
tablishment of universities, colleges, and vocational schools (Fox, 1965;
Schwartz, 1971).
The United States colonization, 1898–1946, saw the institutional-
ization of a highly centralized and bureaucratic national education system
(Bernardo, 2004; de Guzman, 2007; King & Guerra, 2005). This era also
saw a great boom in the number of schools in the Philippines, and many
were built in remote areas to serve the population as a whole. The lan-
guage of instruction shifted from Spanish to English and a new emphasis
on efficiency emerged (Bernardo, 2004; Counts, 1925). This approach to
efficiency was embodied in the principal, whose chief concern during this
time was ensuring that the curriculum was faithfully implemented and that
hierarchies of decision-making were strictly observed.
Although the Philippines lacked agency in the establishment of na-
tional public education, the period of post-colonial self-governance that be-
gan after World War II imposed little change on the established U.S. colo-
nial model of public education. Similar to the process of educational transfer
through borrowing (Steiner-Khamsi & Quist, 2000), Philippine public edu-
cation has attempted to indigenize the colonial public education system. The
period was marked by key legislation such as the Education Act of 1982 es-
tablishing an integrated system of education (Republic of the Philippines,
1982), the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Republic of the Philippines, 1987)
that reaffirmed the national public education system, the 1988 Republic Act
6655 establishing a free public secondary education (Republic of the Philip-
pines, 1988), and the 2001 Republic Act 9155 (Republic of the Philippines,
2001) that articulated the governance of basic education. Despite the indi-
genization process the Philippine public education system has only become

4 Planning and Changing

 Educational Leadership in the Philippines

more aligned with U.S. and Western public education as evidenced by the
ongoing use of English as the overall primary language of instruction in
schools, and policy that moves public education closer to Western standards.
For example, Republic Act 10533 enhancing basic education (Republic of
the Philippines, 2012) aligned Philippine public education with Western ed-
ucation systems to be more globally competitive by increasing the number
of years of schooling by two years.
Structure and Policy. In the early 1990s, the Philippine School
System became one of the world’s largest, and it continues to provide in-
struction to an increasing number of students (de Guzman, 2006). Until
2011, the structure of the Philippine public educational system was six
years of elementary school, followed by four years of secondary educa-
tion. Schools are organized into 17 School Divisions, each of which is
comprised of several School Districts. This organizational scheme pro-
vides a clear chain of authority and regulation to a system comprised of
approximately 42,000 public elementary and secondary schools (DepEd
Fact Sheet, 2005). Recent reforms added two grade levels to make public
schools a K–12 system (Republic of the Philippines, 2012).
Despite efforts to decentralize the basic public education sector
by implementing school-based management initiatives, Philippine public
education has had limited success, only reaching the weakest forms of de-
centralization (de Guzman, 2007). School-based management delineates
the roles of various levels of leadership involving knowledge, technology,
power, material, people, time and finance. However, the Philippine central
government retains control of these key areas, especially fiscal resources.
The current system of budgeting and management undermines innovation,
meaning “few school heads exercised genuine instructional leadership or
assumed a financial management role” (de Guzman, 2007, p. 617).
Challenges. Political, economic, and policy instability and cor-
ruption are historical and present challenges for Philippine public educa-
tion and principals. Corruption is rampant in Philippine public education,
and the Department of Education is considered one of the most corrupt
branches of government (Chua, 1999). Procurement contracts are given
to friends and syndicates to which educational leaders are connected. Se-
curing a job, promotion, or transfer “For most teachers, it was, indeed,
whom they knew and who recommended them that mattered” (p. 80). Of-
ten much less qualified teachers see career advancement due to connec-
tions, leaving other qualified teachers powerless. Chua (1999) argues that
corruption is a result of Filipino values that are distorted and used as an
excuse, and that corruption is a “leadership problem” (p. 8) that reaches
back to the Spanish colonial period. McClintock (1992) suggests that co-
lonial influence extends beyond the temporal boundaries that typically de-
fine the post-colonial condition. Educational leadership must be consid-
ered in relation to colonial influence along an ongoing axis of power, a

Vol. 45, No. 3/4, 2014, pp. x–xx 5

Brooks & Sutherland

remnant of colonization. Filipino leadership currently resides in the inter-

section of its indigenous cultural roots, based on the success and surviv-
al of kinship networks, the influence of corrupt colonial Spanish leader-
ship, and the desire for membership in the American empire (Appadurai,
1996; Willinsky,1998). Therefore, it is important to understand that Fili-
pino leadership ideals, identity, and practice grapple with ongoing power
and membership dynamics that foster instability and corruption. These dy-
namics value opportunism that challenges the ethics and effectiveness of
leadership. Willinsky (1998) suggest that the empire enjoys, “the rewards
of membership,” (p.13) but has also left us with the “liabilities of an edu-
cational nature” (p. 13). The liabilities impede present day principals’ abil-
ity to lead lasting change.

Methodology

This research was conducted using a qualitative methodology con-

sistent with case study research (Merriam, 1998). The study took place in
Cagayan de Oro City in the Southern island of Mindanao in the Philippines.
Data were collected during an initial 6 month period and then follow up in-
terviews and observations helped clarify certain concepts. In the sections be-
low, we briefly provide more detail about specific aspects of the study.

Data Collection

Data collection included 43 formal semi-structured interviews

with different principals, each of which lasted between 45 minutes and
two hours. Additionally, we conducted 13 focus group interviews. The
average length of each focus group interview was approximately one hour
and fifteen minutes. The total number of participants in the study was 93
of the 99 principals in the division, an area that effectively included the
geographically diverse City of Cagayan de Oro. Data were also generat-
ed via 194 hours of observation. Technical documents such as School Im-
provement Plans, a regional accreditation report, discipline plans, meeting
agendas, and DepEd memos were collected when available. In keeping
with an inductive and iterative approach (Silverman, 2001; Fielding &
Lee, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), initial interviews were broad, and
based around the primary prompt: “What are your issues and concerns as
a school principal?”

Data Analysis

Data collected from the primary prompt yielded a great deal of rich
data. We analyzed these data using open microanalytic procedures (Silver-
man, 2001), which in turn lead to the development of several categories
of data. As we explored and refined these categories using the constant

6 Planning and Changing

 Educational Leadership in the Philippines

comparative method (Bogdan & Biklen, XXXX), we returned to the field

several times to ask more specific questions and to collection additional
data, which ultimately helped move the analytic process toward theoreti-
cal saturation (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Then, through analytic induction,
we sought to identify prevailing themes within data. These themes are pre-
sented in this article in the Findings section.

Findings

Analysis of principal interview data suggested ten emergent

themes. These themes included:
1) Curriculum
2) Instruction
3) Facilities
4) Technology
5) Politics
6) Policy
7) Finance
8) Communication
9) Religion
10) Corruption
In the subsequent sections, we will explain salient aspects and provide
data related to each theme. These sections are intentionally broad rather
than detailed, as the purpose of the study was to explore issues holistically.
Subsequent reports from this research will relate more nuanced investiga-
tions of each of these themes.

Curriculum

Principals indicated that the National Curriculum, which is shared

by all public schools in the country, is “both helpful and problematic.”
On the one hand, it gives educators direction and focus. It also allows for
clear expectations across schools and is helpful when dealing with issues
such as student mobility, a common dynamic in Philippine schools. On the
other hand, there are some negatives to the national curriculum. For exam-
ple, some parts of curriculum cannot be covered in depth (or at all) due to
limited resources. Science and mathematics in particular are an issue, be-
cause many schools do not have the equipment or materials to do experi-
ments or analysis that the curriculum demands. To illustrate, one principal
explained, “I have no microscopes but there are four units in 9th grade that
demand them. So, what can I do? You simply can’t complete a lesson on

Vol. 45, No. 3/4, 2014, pp. x–xx 7

Brooks & Sutherland

microscopes without one.” Principals also suggested that the curriculum is

too ambitious and that it does not allow for mastery. Instead, teachers must
keep moving to the next lesson or unit regardless of student performance.

Instruction

In terms of instruction, principals explained that large class sizes

prevent innovative or appropriate strategies from being implemented. In
many schools, classes can exceed a 50:1 student to teacher ratio, and that
instruction happens in bare, cinder block rooms designed to accommodate
half as many students. Moreover, teachers are trying to teach complicated
topics and lessons without books, technology or other instructional materi-
als. As in other countries, teachers often use their own meager earnings to
buy resources for class, or more commonly they make use of “indigenous
teaching materials” such as discarded magazines to augment oral lessons.
Language is a major problem with regard to instruction. As the
medium of instruction in Philippine schools is English, students who come
from families that speak Tagalog or a regional dialect can be at a disadvan-
tage in terms of instruction. This disadvantage is manifest both in terms
of in-class instruction and because parents are unable to assist students
with their studies. “How can I speak with the parents if we don’t share a
language?” one principal opined. She continued by noting that “my first
language is Maranao, and I also speak English, Cebuano and Filipino [Ta-
galog] but it isn’t enough. Many of my students’ parents speak only their
tribal language, not even Filipino—definitely not English.”
Principals also noted that there is a pervasive problem with stu-
dents not having their basic needs met—they come to school hungry,
malnourished, without having slept and having worked jobs to help their
families make ends meet. This, in turn, prevents learning as students are
distracted, too tired or too hungry to engage their lessons properly. In ad-
dition to nutritional problems, unstable family situations also have a nega-
tive impact on instruction in that students at times fail to attend school due
to family issues related to poverty, mobility or an inability to travel to the
school site. Absences, then, have a tremendous impact on instruction, not
only because students miss important lessons, but because the large class
sizes make remediation extremely difficult. When students miss instruc-
tion, as they commonly do, it is nearly impossible for teachers to provide
the individualized instruction that would help them get back up to speed.

Facilities

School facilities in Filipino public schools are often inadequate, in

terms of size, security and safety. Moreover, uncertainty of land ownership
can be an important issue for certain schools. It is not uncommon for prin-
cipals to arrive at school in the morning to find that a family has moved

8 Planning and Changing

 Educational Leadership in the Philippines

into one of the school classrooms or buildings. Often, these families will
produce a deed saying that they own the land and are entitled to inhabit
the space. This is the result of both corruption within the local and regional
deed offices and poor records-keeping that means school officials are un-
able to produce the proper documentation to refute such claims. This can
not only interrupt instruction, but can create extremely complicated legal
and political dynamics with which a principal must engage. One principal
described a situation they faced one morning:
I arrived and a family had moved into one of our classrooms. They
had a caribou and some chickens feeding outside the door and all
of their belongings in one of the rooms. Of course, I was outraged
and confused, but when I questioned them they produced an of-
ficial deed that was signed by the Barangay Captain. It turns out
that he owed this family a favor and somehow produced this deed.
In the end we were able to move the family out by negotiating
with the Captain, but it interrupted instruction for two months.
Unfortunately, such legal-political issues are only part of the fa-
cilities issues principals face in the Philippines. Many building projects
are left unfinished. It is common to find a school without a roof or a floor
because a project’s budget was either mismanaged or taken by graft or
corruption. Many school’s perimeter fences are routinely compromised,
which is a pervasive security problem. This means that looting is common,
and as one principal remarked, “I always wonder what the classrooms will
look like when I arrive in the morning.” It is common to find all of the
electrical wiring ripped out of the walls and ceiling, taken overnight by
thieves who will sell the materials on the black market. Instructional ma-
terials are often destroyed or stolen and many schoolrooms are vandalized
on a weekly basis. The schools themselves are often in a state of disrepair,
many needing to be renovated or condemned. The money to perform up-
grades is often appropriated, but too often winds up in the pockets of cor-
rupt officials rather than in the buildings.

Technology

Modern technology is ubiquitous in the Philippines, but just

like among citizens, there is tremendous inequity among schools. Some
schools have state-of-the-art technology and others some have nothing.
Some schools have Internet-based web resources to aid instruction and
others have no electricity. Since many children have cell phones, Inter-
net usage among students can be positive—we frequently observed teach-
ers and students using their phones as part of instruction—but it can also
be a problem if left unregulated, and students are often distracted by their
phones during instruction. Despite the fact that many students and teach-
ers have cell phones, technology to support daily instruction is rare. Very
few teachers have computers or overhead projectors in their classrooms.

Vol. 45, No. 3/4, 2014, pp. x–xx 9

Brooks & Sutherland

Approximately 70% of the classrooms had a usable chalkboard, but many

teachers did not have any chalk. This is in part due to the poor state of the
technology infrastructure in schools and in part because of a lack of in-
structional technology in general. Technology to support administration
is basically non-existent—there are insufficient data collection or analysis
systems for administrators who would like to use them.

Politics and Policy

In the Philippines, school leadership is a political activity. Politi-

cally savvy school leaders are able to leverage resources from Barangay,
City, District, and Divisional levels and from other stakeholders such as
the German Doctors (a philanthropy active in the Philippines for many de-
cades), parents, and businesses. Leaders who lack such savvy or lose their
political capital suffer severe consequences, both personally (they may
lose their jobs) or organizationally, as they will be much less likely to gar-
ner resources or community support. A group of principals explained this
relative level of political capital by saying that some of the principals were
“near to the heart” while others were “far from the heart.”
The policy environment in the Philippines is unstable at both na-
tional and local levels, and this has a profound impact on the way that
schools are governed. Due to cronyism, political reasons and a general in-
stability in the school system, school leaders and teachers are moved fre-
quently. One school involved in the study had seven principals in a single
year, as they were each appointed and then moved quickly into more afflu-
ent schools after gaining “experience.” At all levels of the system, policies
and personnel change dramatically when a new leader takes charge. It is
common for schools to have a huge turnover in teachers when new prin-
cipal is appointed and for a similar change to take place when a there is a
new superintendent. Policies are implemented and enforced in an inequi-
table and inconsistent manner that lacks transparency.

Finance

Low educator salaries are a major problem in the Philippines.

Teachers and principals generally do not earn a salary that allows them
to move above a basic level of subsistence. Additionally, one “hidden”
dynamic that further undermines educator earning potential is that to ob-
tain a degree in the first place, most teachers have to borrow money from
loan sharks. In return, teachers and principals often pay over half of their
monthly salary back to the loan sharks when they finally do have a posi-
tion. It is a sad but common sight to see a row of loan sharks lined up out-
side the school division headquarters on pay day. Teachers will often walk
out of the queue after receiving their pay, walk across the street to their
loan shark and dutifully hand over half of their wages. One principal not-

10 Planning and Changing

 Educational Leadership in the Philippines

ed that “it breaks your heart. Most of these teachers will never escape the
clutches of these loan sharks. They work so hard and then hand over their
wages when they are paid.”
Beyond personal situations, schools face significant funding is-
sues. Annual appropriations exist on paper but are not reaching the schools.
As one principal explained:
The MOU [Memorandum of Understanding] between the division
and school calls for us to receive 1.1 million pesos per year, but
the money never arrives. This year, I went to the division office the
day after I was supposed to receive the funds and I was told that
it was on the way. Weeks passed and then months. I called, and
visited and spoke with everyone but no one could tell me where
the money was. Eventually I received some money, in the amount
of 11,000 pesos. I can barely run the school for a month on that
amount but it is my annual appropriation. We all know where the
money goes—into the pockets of school officials and politicians.
Everyone steals from the children and no one cares.
As a result, principals must be innovative and creative to be able to provide
even the most basic services to their students and fellow educators. One
principal explained their feeding program only worked because teachers
brought in one pocketful of rice a week:
It’s sad, but it’s the only way we can feed the children and for
some of them it is their only meal of the day. We make a congee
[porridge] out of the rice so it will go further. Even then, we can
barely feed the hungriest of the hungry. Some children who des-
perately need food have to go without.
A great deal of funding for important programs must be generated at the
classroom and site-levels. This includes finding money and resources for
basic instructional materials like books, desks and pencils, in addition to
feeding and health programs that meet basic health and nutritional needs.

Communication

Communication is a problem for school principals in the Philip-

pines. The DepEd memo system, the main way that policy changes are
communicated, is confusing and inconsistent. Basically, it is an endless
stream of paper communiqués that arrive inconsistently via post. The na-
tional web site is occasionally updated but not in a timely manner, and
much of the principal’s monthly divisional meeting is given over to memo
updates, rather than to professional development, which is ostensibly the
meeting’s purpose. There is little communication between administrators,
who are extremely protective of their knowledge and of the scarce re-
sources they have in their schools. This prevents them from sharing ideas
and best practices. Trust between administrators is generally quite low.

Vol. 45, No. 3/4, 2014, pp. x–xx 11

Brooks & Sutherland

Communication with parents can also be problematic due to a va-

riety of reasons. The first is language. There are approximately 150 lan-
guages spoken in the Philippines, and it is common that parents and edu-
cators do not share a language. This can create problems involving and
keeping parents informed of school activities. Another complicated dy-
namic is the use of media by disgruntled parents. Several principals indi-
cated that it is fairly common for families who have a bad experience with
the school to turn up within a few minutes on the radio, airing their griev-
ances without any evidence. This can cause very serious public relations
issues and can mean sanctions against schools and principals from higher-
level administrators who only hear one side of the story.

Religion

Religion is a very complicated issue for school leaders in the Phil-

ippines—and in many ways it is more complex in Mindanao than any-
where else in the country. Though the Philippines is a largely Catholic
country, Cagayan de Oro’s province (Misamis Oriental) is adjacent to the
ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) that is a wholly Mus-
lim province with a history of violent separatist politics. Occasionally the
violence spills over into Cagayan de Oro. That said, most educators sepa-
rate these extremists from their Muslim neighbors, and religious tolerance
is generally high in the city’s schools. Many schools in Cagayan de Oro
house Madrasahs, which basically operate like a Muslim school-within-
a-school. Even though the student population has a good representation
of Muslim students, the Madrasahs are not well attended. This is largely
because they place an additional academic burden on students. Choosing
to enroll in the Madrasah is effectively choosing twice the workload of a
general education student. Madrasahs are not often stocked with age-ap-
propriate materials, and young children are commonly given instruction
using adult books and teaching resources. While there is a general toler-
ance, the system is set up to promote exclusion rather than understanding.
There are no spaces for educators or students to learn from or about other
religious belief systems. These are separate and unequal schooling situa-
tions within the school.

Corruption

Corruption exists in different forms at all levels of the system be-

cause it is an accepted systemic value. People who are victims of corruption
in the schools are by and large those with the least political influence—stu-
dents and teachers. As one moves up the system in terms of authority, in too
many cases an accompanying amount of influence sadly takes the form of
exploitation for personal gain. That said, while it is accepted, some princi-
pals take a stand against corruption. As one principal explained:

12 Planning and Changing

 Educational Leadership in the Philippines

Corruption in education amounts to one thing—stealing from

children. I refuse to do it. I will not do it and I will speak out when
I see it…except against someone who could cost me my job, and
that means the people higher up the chain. If I speak out against
the people who really do the stealing, I will lose my job immedi-
ately. It’s terrible. The people high up in the system are the same
people who speak out against corruption and they are the worst
offenders.
More research is necessary, but corruption seems to be in part due to sim-
ple unethical behavior and in part due to traditional positive Filipino cul-
tural values such as respect for authority, a generosity to one’s elders and
congenial kinship being warped in a bureaucratic system.

Discussion

Principals in the Philippines work in a unique political and social

context. They have many challenges but also work hard to educate stu-
dents and to serve their community. Calls to reform the national education
system have been aired for decades and social, cultural and political cri-
tiques go back as far as José Rizal’s magnum opus Noli Me Tangere (Con-
stantino, 1975). As we sought more to document issues than critique the
social, cultural and political systems that perpetuate them, it is beyond the
purpose of this study to make macro-level recommendations or to deeply
investigate long-entrenched values, beliefs and practices. However, it is
our intent to make some recommendations at the school site, district, and
division levels that local educators and reformers might consider.
First, it seems important for school leaders to establish and main-
tain effective support networks (Brooks et al., 2007; Fullan, 2001). The most
effective principals develop these networks both within the school system
(teachers, district administrators, division administrators) and in their local
communities. It seems particularly important for school principals to have
the support of their Barangay Captain, the neighborhood official with the
most authority in a community. Moreover, there are few opportunities to
network with other educators at the national and international levels, but
these opportunities should be explored more fully (Bello et al., 2009).
Second, it is imperative that principals practice ethical and pro-
active leadership that benefits students and teachers (Chua, 1999). They
must put student needs above all others and approach student support from
a holistic perspective, looking first to meet their basic needs such as nu-
trition, and then building on that by developing capacity for excellent in-
struction (Kouzes & Posner, 2003). This means both procuring resources
and providing professional development opportunities for teachers.
Third, at the district level, it could be fruitful to create support
communication networks at the district level. Such structures have the po-
tential to provide some stability to the system, allow greater sharing of re-

Vol. 45, No. 3/4, 2014, pp. x–xx 13

Brooks & Sutherland

sources and help establish and develop district resource centers that can
share instructional resources and offer targeted professional development.
Fourth, there are certain changes that could be implemented at all
levels of the system, in order to improve education in general and principal
work in particular. All levels of the system should institute and practice fi-
nancial transparency and accountability systems. All levels should provide
realistic training in an on-the-job/simulation/ active learning format rather
than seminar format. This would emphasize skills and processes related
to security analysis, electrical skills, plumbing, and communication skills
(letter writing, public speaking, etc.). Finally, monthly principal meetings
should be used to share and distribute resources and for training, not only
for distributing information in a one-way and confusing manner. We real-
ize that these recommendations are easier stated than implemented, but we
also feel an ethical obligation to put them forward.

Conclusion

There are wonderful things happening in classrooms and schools

all over Cagayan de Oro, but principals face daunting political and social
dynamics that prevent them—and their teachers and students—from real-
izing their full potential. Positive change and great teaching are happen-
ing, but they are not systematic or systemic and generally happen in spite
of the system rather than because of it. Many decisions in the Cagayan
de Oro schools are made for political rather than for educational reasons.
This is not altogether bad, possibly, but the majority of students suffer in
the system the way it currently operates (Chua, 1999; Reyes, 2009). When
a school system is ineffective and unethical behavior is institutionalized
in this way, it presents certain opportunities and challenges. In terms of
challenges, it is hard for improvement to be sustained, supported and cel-
ebrated. Principals are in vulnerable positions, and as a result their careers
are entirely dependent on political change. In such a situation, students
and educators suffer. That said, there is always the possibility of positive
change and hope for a better future. A leadership that is committed to pro-
moting and rewarding ethical behavior can be established at the school,
district or division level with increased transparency and accountability.
Yet in order for such change to take hold, there must be a cultural and po-
litical shift, led by a champion of ethical behavior and by policies that
are actually practiced in an equitable manner. This champion has not yet
come and this system is not in place, but we have much hope for a better
tomorrow.

References

Abinales, P. N. & Amoroso, D. J. (2005). State and society in the Philip-

pines. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

14 Planning and Changing

 Educational Leadership in the Philippines

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of global-

ization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Arcilla, J. S. (1999). An introduction to Philippine history. Manila: Ateneo
de Manila University Press.
Asian Development Bank. (2005). Poverty in the Philippines: Income, as-
sets and access. Manila: Author.
Beck, L. G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Understanding the principalship: Meta-
phorical themes 1920s–1990s. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bello, W. H., Docena, M., de Guzman, M., & Malig, L. (2009). The anti-
development state: The political economy of permanent crisis in the
Philippines. Manila: Anvil.
Bennis, W. M. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Bernad, M. A. (1971). Philippine culture and the Filipino identity. Philip-
pine Studies, 19(4), 573-592.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2004). McKinley’s questionable bequest: Over 100 years
of English in Philippine education. World Englishes, 23(1), 17–31.
Bogdan & Biklen (?).
Brooks, J. S. (2006). The dark side of school reform: Teaching in the space
between reality and utopia. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Brooks, J. S., Normore, A. H., Jean-Marie, G., & Hodgins, D. (2007). Dis-
tributed leadership for social justice: Influence and equity in an urban
high school. Journal of School Leadership 17(4): 378–408.
Chua, Y. T. (1999). Robbed: An investigation of corruption in Philippine
education. Manila: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
Constantino, R. (1975). The Philippines: A past revisited (Vol. I). Manila:
Author.
Counts, G. S. (1925). Education in the Philippines. The Elementary School
Journal 26(2),94–106.
David, E. J. R. (2011). Filipino-American postcolonial psychology.
Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
De Guzman, A. B. (2006). Reforms in Philippine basic education viewed
from key elements of successful school-based management (SBM)
schools. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 5, 55–71.
De Guzman, A. B. (2007). The serendipity of principalship: Meaning
making of a Filipino secondary school principal. Asia Pacific Educa-
tion Review, 8(2), 216–223.
De Guzman, A. B. & Guillermo, M. L. T. L. (2007). The serendipity of
principalship: Meaning-making of a Filipino secondary school princi-
pal. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(2), 216–223.
English, F. W. (2002). The point of scientificity, the fall of the epistemo-
logical dominos, and the end of the field of educational administra-
tion. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21(2), 109−136.
English, F. W. (1994). Theory in educational administration. New York:
Harper Collins.

Vol. 45, No. 3/4, 2014, pp. x–xx 15

Brooks & Sutherland

Evans, R. (2001). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance,

and the real-life problems of innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fielding, N. G., & Lee, R. M. (1998). Computer analysis and qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fox, H. F. (1965). Primary education in the Philippines: 1565–1863. Phil-
ippine Studies, 13(2), 207–231.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fullan (2001).
Fullan (2007).
Gregorio, H. & Gregorio, C. (1976). Introduction to education in Philip-
pine setting. Quezon City, Philippines: Garotech.
Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2006). Models of successful princi-
pal leadership. School Leadership and Management, 26 (4), 371-395.
Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The
sustainability and non-sustainability of the three of secondary school
change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, p.
3–41.
Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership: Leading or misleading. Educa-
tional Management and Administration, 32(1). 11-24.
Harris, A., & Spillane, J. P. (2008). Distributed leadership through the
looking glass. British Educational Leadership, Management, and Ad-
ministration Society. 22(1), 31–34.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Jocano, F. L. (1998). Filipino indigenous ethnic communities: Patters,
variations, and typologies. Location: Publisher.
King, E. M., & Cordeiro-Guerra, S. (2005). Education reforms in East
Asia: Policy, process, and impact. In World Bank (Ed.), East Asia de-
centralizes: Making local government work (pp. 179–208). Washing-
ton DC: Editor.
Kochan, F., Spenser, W., & Matthews, J. (2000). Gender-based percep-
tions of the challenges, changes, and essential skills of the principals.
Journal of School Leadership, 10 (4), 290-310.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2003) Encouraging the heart: A leader’s guide
to rewarding and recognizing others. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Re-
view of research: How leadership influences student learning. New
York: The Wallace Foundation.
Majul, C. A. (1999). Muslims in the Philippines. Manila: University of the
Philippines Press.
Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2007). Intercultural Communication in
Contexts. (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
McClintock, A. (1992). The angel of progress: Pitfalls of the term ‘post-
colonialism’. Social Text, 31(32), 84–98.

16 Planning and Changing

 Educational Leadership in the Philippines

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in

education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nolan, M. 2007. Mentor coaching and leadership in early care and educa-
tion. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson/ Delmar.
Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership theory and practice, 6th ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Hara, H. (2006) Diversity education teacher preparation. Multicultural
Education, 14(1), 39-41.
Philippine Department of Education (2002). Order no. 26, s. 2002: Enjoin-
ing compliance to DECS order no. 120, s. 1999. Retrieved from http://
www.depedcebuprovince.ph/memo/memo296_2005.pdf
Republic of the Philippines (1982). Batas Pambansa BLG 232: An act
providing for the establishment and maintenance of an integrated
system of education. Retrieved from http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/
bataspam/bp1982/bp_232_1982.html
Republic of the Philippines (1987). 1987 Constitution of The Republic
of the Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.lawphil.net/consti/
cons1987.html
Republic of the Philippines (1988). Republic Act No. 6655: An act es-
tablishing and providing for a free public secondary education and
for other purposes. Retrieved from http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/
repacts/ra1988/ra_6655_1988.html
Republic of the Philippines (2001). Republic act number 9155: An act in-
stituting a frame work of governance for basic education, establishing
authority and accountability, renaming the department of education,
culture, and sports as the department of education, and for other pur-
poses. Retrieved from http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2001/
ra_9155_2001.html
Republic of the Philippines (2012). Republic act number 10533: An act
enhancing the Philippine basic education system by strengthening its
curriculum and increasing the number of years for basic education,
appropriating funds therefor and for other purposes. Retrieved from
http://www.gov.ph/2013/05/15/republic-act-no-10533/
Reyes, V. C. (2009). Corruption and implementation: Case studies in Phil-
ippine public administration. Manila: University of the Philippines
Press.
Seashore-Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson (2010).
Schwartz, K. (1971). Filipino education and Spanish colonialism: Toward
and autonomous perspective. Comparative Education Review, 15(2),
202–218.
Schurman, J. G. (1902). Philippine Affairs: A Retrospect and Outlook; an
Address. New York: Scribner.
Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B. J., Dutton, J.,
& Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook.
New York: Doubleday.

Vol. 45, No. 3/4, 2014, pp. x–xx 17

Brooks & Sutherland

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1999). Refocusing leadership to build community. The

High School Magazine, 7 (1), 11-15.
Shukla, S. (1996). From pre-colonial to post-colonial: Educational transi-
tions in Southern Asia. Economic and Political Weekly, 31(22), 1344-
1349.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyz-
ing talk, text, and interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. & Quist, H. O. (2000). The politics of educational bor-
rowing: Reopening the case of Achimota in British Ghana. Compara-
tive Education Review, 44(3). 272–299.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded
theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Theoharis, G. & Brooks, J. S. (Eds.) (2012). What every principal needs to
know to create equitable and excellent schools. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2004). Principals’ sense of effi-
cacy: Assessing a promising construct. Journal of Educational Admin-
istration, 42 (5), 573-585.
Vaill, P. B. (1989). Managing as a performing art: New ideas for a world
of chaotic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Whitaker, K. S. (2003). Principal role changes and influence on princi-
pal recruitment and selection: An international perspective. Journal of
Educational Administration, 41 (1), 37-54.
Willinsky, J. (1998). Learning to divide the world: Education at empire’s
end. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Winston, B. E. & Patterson, K. (2006) An integrative definition of lead-
ership. International Journal of Leadership Studies 1(2). Download-
ed from http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/
vol1iss2/winston_patterson.doc/winston_patterson.htm.
Zulueta , F. M. & Liwag, D. B. (2001). Social problems and issues in the
Philippines. Manila: National Book Store.

Jeffrey S. Brooks is a Professor in the Department of Leadership and

Counseling at the University of Idaho, Boise.

Ian E. Sutherland is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Ed-

ucational Foundations and Leadership at Old Dominion University,
Norfolk, Virginia.

18 Planning and Changing