1

WORK PERFORMANCE OF THE NQESH TOPNOTCHERS IN REGION III

A Research Proposal Presented to

Erwin P. Lacanlale, RGC, Ph.D., Ed.D.

Professor

In partial Fulfilment

Of the Requirements in

Educ 606 Advanced Research

SHERIE MAY L. OSONGCO

 2

Chapter I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Leadership matters. In difficult times, leadership matters even more. These two

simple statements are supported by extensive research in the field of education, as well as

in other leadership areas (e.g., Elmore, 2004; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; New Leaders for

New Schools, 2009).

The job description of a school principal cannot be adequately described in a

1,000-word essay, let alone in a short paragraph; today’s principal is constantly

multitasking and shifting roles at a moment’s notice. As in every organization, leadership

plays the most important role in conducting business in school organizations as well.

Organizations reach their goals more effectively and more efficiently when they are

effective.

As lead managers, school principals play a key role in school success and their

leadership skills highly contribute to the effectiveness of schools (Cemaloğlu, 2002;

Şişman, 2004). A competent and effective leader is one who affects others in the success

of the organization, motivates them, and includes them in the process. The primary duty

of school principals is to have their school reach its goals. As the roles expected from

school principals are related to the assumptions of leadership theories, school principals

should carry the leadership features described in different leadership theories. Whether it

is a primary or a secondary school, school principal is the most important person in a

 3

school’s success (Yavuz, 2006). Awareness of expectations from school principals and

their accomplishing these tasks will increase the success of schools.

Developments in education management require school principals to play

different roles. In the new information age, this change is much more rapid. Gorton and

Schneider (1991) defined the six important roles of school principals in school

management as follows: management, educational leadership, disciplinary control,

facilitator in human relations, conciliator in conflicts, and evaluator. As in every

organization, strong leadership has a crucial position in school organizations and strong

leaders can create effective organizations (Gorton & Schneider, 1991). It is often

perceived that the people responsible for a school’s success or failure are primarily

school principals.

The existence of strong leaders guided by effective, creative, visionary,

encouraging, knowledgeable, and principled leaders is vitally important to eliminate

various problems in schools and to continuously improve school education (Girard,

2000). Strong leaders can help a school become effective because they constantly and

consistently manage several simultaneously competing sets of tensions successfully (Day,

Harris, & Hadfield, 2001). Choosing and replacing teachers carefully, frequently

monitoring staff for school success, allocating most of their time and energy for school

success, supporting teachers, and providing extra sources for the school are the activities

that school principals do for school effectiveness (Mortimore, 1993).

School principals articulate a strong and positive vision of how they want to see

the school change as well as be adept at identifying problems and creating solutions for
 4

what believe is needed to achieve changes and improvement under considerations. They

need to identify clear and achievable goals and communicate these goals to others

involved in restructuring process. They cooperate and work with faculty and staff as well

as with the students, parents and other stakeholders that are involved in the process and

are flexible enough to let the plans grow and change as necessary to achieve the desired

end. They lead to make the process moving, they allow their faculty and staff to bring

their own visions and initiatives to the planning table, thereby helping them to ―own‖ the

process of sharing ideas and perspectives of programs under consideration.

Effective principals are strong educators, anchoring their work on central issues of

learning and teaching and continuous school improvement. According to Mike Schmoker

in his book Results: the Key to Continuous School Improvement , the combination of

three concepts constitutes the foundation for positive improvement results: meaningful

teamwork; clear, measurable goals; and the regular collection and analysis of

performance data. Principals must lead their school through the goal-setting process in

which student achievement data is analyzed, improvement areas are identified and actions

for change are initiated. This process involves working collaboratively with staff and

school community to identify discrepancies between current and desired outcomes, to set

and prioritize goals to help close the gap, to develop improvement and monitoring

strategies aimed at accomplishing the goals, and to communicate goals and change efforts

to the entire school community. Principals must also ensure that staff development needs

are identified in alignment with school improvement priorities and that these needs are

addressed with appropriate professional learning opportunities.

 5

Every school has a principal - someone appointed to take charge of the education

of the students. However, not many principals are able to achieve this by teaching the

students in person. In every other case, the principal's educational responsibility is

achieved at second hand - through the knowledge, skills and dedication of professional

teachers. This dependency on colleagues is not new, of course, for the structure of

schools has not changed much over the past fifty years. What is new, however, is the

complexity of the educational task and the higher expectation of parents, education

authorities and the Government. It is now no longer possible for a good school simply to

be 'competently managed' by the principal. Quality schooling is increasingly dependent

on leadership - particularly the quality of the educational leadership of the principal. If

you want the best for your students’ education, you will want a principal whose values,

attributes, educational knowledge and expertise to be coupled with leadership skills of the

highest order. Good educational leaders can be hard to find.

Selecting a principal is one of the most important responsibilities of the School

Management Committee. The selection of the right principal will enhance the education

of your students more than any other single act of your School Management Committee.

Rigorous, transparent and well defined selection processes are crucial for building and

sustaining successful schools. Selecting the right candidates to leadership positions has a

significant impact on school performance. An effective principal selection process

ensures that potential applicants are encouraged to apply for vacant positions and

increases the likelihood that the most appropriate candidates are appointed to these senior

leadership positions. The opportunity to appoint a principal does not come very often. So
 6

when it does, take every care to make the best possible choice. A bad choice cannot be

reversed without great embarrassment to everyone involved.

To help ensure the hiring of qualified and competent applicants, improved

qualification standards are set. The initial guidelines on the selection, promotion and

designation of school heads under DepED Order No. 85, s. 2003, with subsequent

revisions under DepED Order No. 42, s. 2007 provide, among others, that aspirants for

Principalship must pass a qualifying test in order to be considered for promotion to

Principal I positions. The Principals’ Test or originally known as the National Qualifying

Exam for School Heads serves as a mechanism for selecting school heads in the public

education sector. The test is open to all interested applicants for Principal I positions. The

National Educators Academy of the Philippines (NEAP) administers and conducts the

test in coordination with the Schools Divisions Offices (DOs) through the Regional

Offices (ROs). The nature of the test is very different from the Licensure Examination for

Teachers or the Civil Service Exam. The content of the test will be a little complex and

you may the questions easy, only few pass it as the aim of the examiners is for you not to

pass it. That’s how tough the NQESH is. Tougher than any other exams— tougher than

the bar exam! It is because the Department of Education (DepEd), through the Bureau of

Human Resource and Organizational Development (BHROD) and the Quality Assurance

Divisions of the Regional Offices (RO-QAD) wants to make sure that they choose the

finest of all aspiring school administrators.

The public elementary school system needs educational leaders who are fit to the

job professionally, and are capable of performing the duties and responsibilities of their
 7

position meritoriously and competently. If the DepEd aims to ensure that a competent school head

is appointed to manage a school and inspire its stakeholders in promoting the quality of education in this

country, then it should embark on a continuous improvement of the selection process by considering

references to make the better decisions which are based on research. Hence, this study aims at

determining the actual performance in the field of those who showed outstanding performance in the

qualifying exam. The researcher also hope that the results of this study will give significant

contribution to the Selection Committee to choose the best people to lead our schools and

enlighten the principals who are in the position right now of how crucial the roles they

are playing.

Statement of the Problem

This study seeks to examine the performance of the NQESH Topnotchers of

Region III.

Specifically, it seeks answers to the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the NQESH topnotchers of Region III in terms of

1.1 Age

1.2 Sex

1.3 Educational Attainment

1.4 Number of Actual Teaching Experience

 8

1.5 Preparations done for the NQUESH

1.6 Rating Obtained from the NQUESH

1.6 Projects Initiated

1.7 Awards Received

3. How is the performance of the NQUESH topnotchers based from the rating by domain

in the OPCRF?

4. Is there a significant relationship between

4.1 Profile of the respondents and their NQUESH Performance

4.2 Profile of the respondents and their work performance in the OPCRF

4.3 NQESH performance and work performance in the OPCRF

5. What plan of action can be proposed for the aspiring principals?

6. What are the implications of the study in the education system?

Null Hypotheses

1. There is no significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and their

NQUESH rating.
 9

2. There is no significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and their

performance.

3. There is no significant relationship between the NQUESH rating and the performance

of the respondents.

Significance of the Study

Consequently, the findings of this study will benefit the following:

This study would serve as inputs to the top-level management of the Department of Education

(DepEd) in revising/adapting guidelines for the selection and trainings of school heads.

The classroom teachers and head teachers especially those who aspire to become

principals shall be provided profound and meaningful information regarding the ways

principals do their jobs. In such a case, they may understand better the functions of their

principals that would lead them to cooperate even more and further in any school

endeavor.

The learners are always considered the end recipients of school leadership

because the quality of such leadership is reflected upon their learning experience as

indicated in their behavior and performance.

Scope and Delimitation

This study will focus mainly on the National Qualifying Examination for School Heads

(NQESH) Topnotchers from Region III since the start of the qualifying exam in 2009. It will describe the
 10

profile of the topnotchers, the NQESH rating obtained and their performance in the field after topping the

exam. Also, discussion will be centered in determining whether there is a significant relationship among

the different variables in the study.

Definition of Terms

National Qualifying Examination for School Heads (NQESH). This is a written

examination administered yearly by the National Educators’ Academy of the Philippines (NEAP) to

interested and qualified teachers aiming for a school head position. It is composed of seven domains

namely school leadership, instructional leadership, creating a student-centered learning climate,

professional human resource development, parent involvement and building community, school

management and daily operations, personal integrity and interpersonal sensitivity, English language

proficiency, and reading comprehension.

NQESH Performance. It is the collective level of accomplishment of the respondents in the

National Qualifying Examination for School Heads (NQESH)

NQESH Topnotchers. Passers who are included in the Top Ten Highest

Performer nationwide.

OPCRF Rating. These ratings refer to the accomplishment of targets or

objectives set based on NCBTSH (National Competency-Based Standard for School

Heads). Evaluation should be based on indicators and measures. CSC MC NO. 13,
 11

SERIES OF 1999 (REVISED Polices on the Performance Management System) have the

following descriptions:

Outstanding – performance exceeding targets by 30% and above of the planned

targets on the previous definition of performance exceeding targets by at least fifty (50%)

Very Satisfactory – performance exceeding targets by 15% to 29% of the planned

targets; from the previous range of performance exceeding targets by at least 25% but

falls short of what is considered an outstanding performance.

Satisfactory – performance of 100% to 114% of the planned targets. For

accomplishments requiring 100% of the targets such as those pertaining to money or

accuracy or those which may no longer be exceeded, the usual rating of either 10 for

those who met targets or 4 for those who failed or fell short of the targets shall still be

enforced.

Unsatisfactory – performance of 51% to 99% of the planned targets; and Poor –

performance failing to meet the planned targets by 50% or below.

Performance. The way school heads perform the task expected of them as

stipulated in the National Competency- Based Standards for School Heads.

Stakeholders. Stakeholders refer to anyone who is invested in the welfare and

success of a school and its students, including administrators, teachers, staff members,

students, parents, families, community members, local business leaders, and elected

officials such as school board members, city councilors, and state representatives.
 12

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the related literature and studies made abroad and in the

Philippines that furnished background information for this study. The first part presents

related literature both foreign and local and second part deals on both foreign and local

related studies.

Related Literature

Sergiovanni (1998) believed that principals provide the groundwork for

instructional practices and are the instructional leaders in school. If the principal drives

the instructional practices and is the foundation for the instruction, an assumption can be

made that a direct influence exist between leadership and student achievement.

Principals need to continue to serve his staff and build servant leaders among

them. Spears (2002) enumerated the 10 characteristics of a servant leader: listening,

empathy, healing, awareness, persuation, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship,

commitment to growth of people, and building community are what the principal try to

build in his staff.

According to Campbell (1998), todays school heads are confronted with dual

responsibility of sensing as an educational and executive leader in a world that is in

critical conditions. Principals, according to Fooster (1990) are agents of several

constituencies.
 13

Principals assume a proactive role in supporting teachers' instructional efforts.

They communicate directly and frequently with teachers about instruction and student

needs. An example of frequent interaction with teachers is principals making a

"conscious effort to interact in a positive manner with every teacher on a daily basis"

(Reitzug, 1989, p. 54). Effective principals consistently communicate that academic gains

are a priority (Andrews, Soder, & Jacoby, 1986). They interact directly with teachers on

instructional issues. Reitzug's (1989) analysis of teacher and principal interactions

revealed that in the school where students were achieving there were more interactions

dealing with instructional matters. Furthermore, a greater amount of time was spent

during those interactions than the time span of conversations of a non-academic nature.

Instructional leaders focusing their interactions on primarily instructional topics were also

documented by Greenfield (1991). Moreover, these principals not only discussed

academic issues, they guided, encouraged, reinforced, and promoted teachers'

instructional efforts (Venezky & Winfield, 1979). Cuban (1989) found that such

principals were flexible and supportive with teachers' efforts to adapt, modify, or adjust

instructional approaches to meet the needs of students. Sizemore, Brossard, and Harrigan

(1983) reported that in a high achieving, predominantly African-American elementary

school, teaching assignments were matched with teachers' expertise for meeting the needs

of students. Support for the teachers' instructional efforts occurs because these

instructional leaders are cognizant of what the teachers are doing. They are aware

because they are involved.

A list of competencies for principals recommended by a National Association of

Secondary School Principals' task force includes problem analysis, organizational ability,
 14

decisiveness, effective communication skills, and stress tolerance. In addition to

traditional requirements such as these, personal qualities must also be given consideration

to counter what Richard Ihle (1987) calls a disturbing trend "toward greater weight being

given to academic credentials." The NASSP has developed a statement of ethics for

principals that recognizes their important professional leadership role in the school and

community. Principals must articulate a vision and values that they can use to transform

or revitalize a school's atmosphere, according to the Office of Educational Research and

Improvement's Principal Selection Guide (1987). They should be determined, creative,

and enthusiastic--willing and able to confront problems and seek out opportunities to

inspire their school communities toward beneficial change. This growth needs to occur,

Richard DuFour and Robert Eaker (1987) state, through empowerment rather than

coercion, by "delegating, stretching the ability of others and encouraging educated risk."

The principal must be the catalyst and champion of school improvement.

Early identification and encouragement of potential candidates, especially

teachers who show promise of administrative ability, Ihle (1987) says, would reduce the

tendency for self-selection or the hiring of "good paper." To ensure greater consistency of

recruitment goals and practices, a written policy should be developed by a trained search

committee.

"Applications, transcripts, references, interviews, and assessment data," Mark

Anderson (1988) claims, can help determine an applicant's level and range of

competency. Broadening the search committee to include parents, teachers, students, and
 15

community members, and circulating surveys for input on desirable principal traits,

would give everyone a sense of participation in the selection of a new principal.

To expand their pools of qualified applicants, school districts are resorting to

indistrict training programs, career ladders, and internships, as well as outside

recruitment. For example, in 1987 Oregon's David Douglas School District began its

STAR (Selecting and Training Administrative Recruits) program, which identifies and

trains "prospective principals from within the district's teacher corps," according to

Anderson. Instructional units, taught by experienced district administrators, precede a

weeklong practicum designed by each participant. Interested candidates then complete

internships that are interspersed with workshops in educational leadership. Another

district described by Anderson provides a full-time internship as an assistant to the

superintendent in order to expose prospective principals to real-life administrative

situations. Extended internships (six months to one year) provide valuable experience for

candidates and additional information for selectors. Long-term internships also enable

both parties in the selection process to make a more informed decision.

In today’s environment, command- and- control leadership no longer works because leaders must earn

people’s respect and trust. Servant leaders are free to be flexible and situational (Blanchardand Hodges,

2003, Wong 2003), because they are no longer imprisoned by their own need for power and pride. They

are willing to employ different kinds of legitimate power to facilitate worker development and accomplish

organizational goals (Bass, 1998,Hersey, Blanchard and Natemeyer, 2001). Page and Wong ( 2000)

proposed a conceptual model of servant leadership with servanthood at the heart of the model. They also

developed an instrument that measured both the characteristics and the process of servant leadership. Its
 16

revised form has been used by more than 100 organizations and universities for research and evaluation

process.

Measuring principal performance is even harder than measuring teacher

performance. In a series of studies, we’ve learned that this is true for measures based on

student achievement growth and for measures based on professional practice. It is much

harder to measure principal value-added because students don’t change principals every

year, and principals’ effects on students are mostly indirect: principals affect student

achievement through teachers. They can improve the school environment in ways that

enable better teaching, develop the skills of their teachers, or put better teachers in the

classroom. Although a teacher can produce measurable effects on student achievement in

a single year of instruction, a principal’s efforts are likely to require several years before

their full effect on student outcomes becomes evident.

Even so, despite the knotty problems associated with measuring principals’

professional practices and their contributions to student achievement, the situation is not

hopeless. An ongoing U.S. Department of Education study is examining the

implementation and impacts of evaluation and feedback measures for teachers and

principals; the principal evaluation measure is the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership

in Education, or VAL-ED. Borrowing an idea from the ―360‖ evaluations that are often

used in the business world, the VAL-ED includes a survey of the school’s teachers.

Although I tend to be skeptical of claims that schools should borrow a lot from business,

this seems like a no-brainer. Why doesn’t every school use a teacher survey to inform the

evaluation of the principal?

 17

The VAL-ED has not yet been validated to show that the teacher survey rating is

related to student achievement growth, but I’d bet it provides better information about

principal performance than either a rating by a supervisor or any currently existing value-

added measure. We know that students can identify effective teachers; surely teachers

can identify effective principals. If I were a superintendent and needed to evaluate my

principals, the first thing I would do is ask the teachers.

Before, schools have not always had principals. Around the beginning of the twentieth century,

as schools grew from one-room schoolhouses into schools with multiple grades and classrooms, the need

arose for someone to manage these more complex organizations. This need was filled initially by

teachers, who continued to teach while dealing with the schools’ management needs. These teachers were

called Teachers In-Charge (TICs). As schools continued to grow, TICs were allowed to set classroom

teaching and became full-time administrators in most schools due to the many demands their

management responsibilities placed on their time. As managers, principals were responsible for financial

operations, building maintenance, student scheduling, personnel, public relations, school policy regarding

discipline, coordination of the instructional program, and other overall school matters. The management

role included some curriculum and instructional supervision, but overall school management was the

primary role principals played until the early 1980s. As the accountability movement gained momentum,

the role of the principal evolved from school manager and instructional leader to initiator of school reform.

The examination for prospective School Heads is a brain child of DepEd Region I. It was first

administered in Region I in 2007. Later, when the other Regions of the country learned of this new policy

thrust for School Heads, they too have adopted the system making it already a nationwide educational

practice. Therefore, it can be said safely that Region I was the pioneer in School Heads qualifying

examination.
 18

RA 9155, otherwise known as the ―Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001‖, without the

lower echelons of the bureaucracy realizing it, was a breakthrough in inverting the hierarchical perspective

in the system. It catapulted the principal with his teachers to where they should have been all along at the

top of the heap. Since the principal leads the school, he was given power and authority to make decisions

that would result in the achievement of instructional goals. It also meant that he was going to be

accountable for all actions that he would take at the school level. This was the essence of school-based

management. It assumed that principals are also self-directing, capable, and action-oriented

administrators. It veered away from the conservative notion of having a subservient attitude in the work of

managing his school. The particular concern, therefore, is the area of instructional supervision which is the

direct manifestation of the principal’s leadership vis-à-vis instruction. Traditionally practiced, it gave the

impression that teachers are a helpless lot. They had to be guided intensively by the supposed instructional

authorities. It engendered a kind of supervision that snooped, fault-found, dictated, evaluated, and judged.

It caused a kind of professional trauma in teachers which left them insecure and submissive. Then and up

to now, instruction-related activities were supervisor-initiated and driven. Some of these were the

preparation of a supervisory plan, holding of professional meetings and conferences, evaluation of lesson

plans, conceptualization, and implementation of local in-service training programs and classroom of

observation visits.

Bugna (2011) in her article entitled Effective Principal’s Office Management in the Modern

Teacher (June 2011) says that an effective management is one of the factors that affect the capability of a

principal. It is a complicated job because it involves managerial functions such as planning, organizing,

directing, and controlling the various activities in the school.

The success or failure of a school in carrying out its objectives and goals depends on

management of areas such as school buildings and other structures, equipment and facilities, personnel
 19

organization, organizational climate, information system, record management. Bueno (2014) in her article

entitled The Principal as Instructional Leader in RA 9155 in the Modern Teacher (January 2014) says

that, everything that had to be done needed to emanate from an upper level in the structure and then

allowed or directed to tickle down the educational system. Regualos (2014) in her article entitled The

Anatomy of a Prospective School Head in the Modern Teacher, October 2014 says that, the prospective

school head must have the following 4 C’s:

CHARACTER. Prospective School Heads must treat students with respect and demonstrate a

high standard of morality.

COMPETENCE. Prospective School Heads must know the subject matter of each teacher and

are enthusiastic about it.

COMMITMENT. Prospective School Heads are always available for devoting extra time and

they are ready to help students in their endeavors.

COMPASSION. Prospective School Heads must understand and realize that students have

minor and major problems that affect their learning. They should reach out to touch the lives of students.

The concept of quality basic education relies on the managerial and supervisory skills provided

by a school head to the teachers, the school itself, and all other stakeholders. Quality education is

dependent on quality teachers which in turn rely on quality management. In this aspect, the DepEd

provides opportunities for professional development through trainings, seminars, and a rigid selection

process. In this view, the school head or principal is a critical conveyor for teacher development because

he/she has the control of how things will work out. School heads must therefore be appointed to the

position with the best possible criteria or requirements in order to ensure that quality educational services

will be delivered. It is therefore necessary that top quality school heads shall be preferred. Presently, the
 20

selection process of a prospective school head is founded not only in his/her accomplishments but also in

passing the National Qualifying Examination for School Heads (NQESH)

– an initiative of the DepEd.

In the Department of Education, school heads are selected and promoted on basis

of merit through their outstanding accomplishments, such as outstanding employee

award, innovations introduced, research and development projects conducted,

publication/ authorship, consultancy/resource speakership and linkages and resource

mobilization. (DepEd Order No. 85, s. 2003) The Merit Selection Plan of the Department

of Education says among other things that ―the selection of employees shall be based on

their relative qualifications and competence to perform the duties and responsibilities of

the position. The competence and qualification of candidates for appointment shall be

determined on the basis of (1) Performance, which covers appointment by promotion or

transfer. On this, the performance rating of the appointee for the last three (3) rating

period prior to the effectively date of the appointment should be at least Very

Satisfactory. (2) Education and Training should include educational background,

successful completion of training courses accredited by the Civil Service Commission,

scholarships, training grants and other which must be relevant to duties of the position to

be filled.; (3) Experience and Outstanding Accomplishments- include occupational

history, relevant work experience acquired either from the government of private sector

and accomplishments worthy of special commendation; (4) Psycho-social Attributes and

Personality Traits refer to the characteristics or traits of a person whick involve both

psychological and social aspects.

 21

RELATED STUDIES

A study design to determine the predictive validity of the teacher competency test

scores on teacher performance was conducted by Madu (2000). The data consisted of the Texas

Examination of Current Administrators and Teachers (TECAT) scores and teacher performance rating

scores earned by a random sampling of teachers who took the TECAT examinations and were rated by

the use of the Teacher Appraisal Instruments in 2005-2006. The results revealed significant differences in

the mean performance scores for teachers who passed the TECAT and teachers who did not pass the

TECAT, thus suggesting that certain performance scales (when sex, age, teaching experience and

educational level were compared) could be predicted by test scores. This study showed that teachers who

had better command of the basic skills tended to show superior performance. It was axiomatic that

teachers could teach only what they know.

Performance appraisal and teacher evaluation systems in schools have been

subject to criticism in many countries because they have not met perceived requirements

of educators and/or the state. In a study conducted Helen S. Timperley, (1998) which

sought the views of New Zealand secondary school principals to whom responsibility for

developing appraisal systems has been devolved since 1989, result showed that in

general, principals developed systems that met their own requirements and were

reasonably satisfied with their efforts. Some principals prioritised developmental

purposes while others included accountability purposes. These two groups experienced

different outcomes. In some cases, staff opposition prevented principals from developing

accountable systems. Although the performance appraisal systems developed by

 22

principals mostly met their own requirements, most did not all meet the state’s

requirements for accountability.

Gökhan Özaslan, (Department of Education Sciences, Necmettin Erbakan

Universitesi, Konya, Turkey) interviewed 16 principals from the public and private

schools and describe the variations in the ways that principals conceptualize their basis of

power in schools. The analysis of the interviews revealed eight ways of understanding a

principal’s power basis. These potential power bases were: teachers’ sense of reciprocity;

teachers’ sense of responsibility; organizational rules and regulations; principals’ deep

knowledge and experience; in-service training; principals’ reputation for being fair and

impartial; teachers’ sense of identification with their principal; and principals’ control

over teachers’ employment. Participants from public and private schools held generally

similar conceptions. The conception of in-service training remained limited to private

school principals. The power basis of principals’ control over teachers’ employment was

not emphasized but could still be perceived as a conception in certain statements by

participants.

In 2005, Rouse conducted a study on the perceived leadership practices of school

principals as corroborated by the teachers at Sullivan country. The study aimed to

determine if the teachers of Sullivan country perceive that their principals use the same

leadership practices as the principlas reported they use. Rouse used the Leadership

Practices Inventory developed by KOuzes and Posner (1977) and he found out that the

principals significantly reported higher levels of each leadership as well as teachers’

perception of their principal’s leadership practices.

 23

A descriptive study was conducted by Mayores (2005) to determine the leadership

roles and practices of public elementary school heads which was the basis for a proposed

action plan to enhance their leadership capabilities and competence. Teachers and school

heads served as the respondents of the study. Leadership roles are dependent upon the

position held by the leaders, civil status, length of service, educational qualification,

salary level, years of experience in the current position and previous position held. These

leadership roles are direction setter, change agent, spokesperson and coach.

In 2013, Vicente conducted and evaluation on administrative and instructional

leadership roles of school principals, stated that majority of the administrative roles are

considered not a problem in terms of evaluation of the elementary and secondary school

principals. Hence, she recommended that school administrators should allocate funds

from the MOOE for the staff development training and workshop for at least three times

a year.

A study conducted by Ceralde (2014) determined the performance of the 2013 NQESH passers

involving 101 respondents. From their performance in the NQESH, the significant predictors of NQESH

performance based on some identified variables were also identified. Results showed that NQESH

examinees’ profile cut across ages, sex positions, educational attainment, specialization, and years in the

service but extremely first taker-achievers and experienced school managers. They have a ―highly

favorable‖ attitude towards the teaching profession, reliably ―high‖ emotional intelligence, and ―high‖

motivational orientation with particularly ―very high‖ interest in school management, and dependably

―high‖ learning skills and strategies. This is expected of them being all NQESH passers.
 24

The studies conducted by Helen S. Timperley, (1998), Gökhan Özaslan, Rouse

(2005), Mayores (2005) deals mainly with principals as respondents. The present study

will also be directed to principals but data will come mainly from the stakeholders.

Madu (2000) and Ceralde (2014) both examined predictors to good performance in teaching and

in NQESH. NQESH performance of the Region III topnotches in the present study will be examined

weather it is a predictor to the performance of the principals as perceived by various stkeholders.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

NQESH TOPNOTCHERS IN NQESH TOPNOTCHERS IN

REGION III REGION III

PROFILE
Work Performance by domain in the
 Age OPCRF
 Sex
 Educational Attainment
 Number of Actual Teaching
Experience
 Preparations done for the
NQUESH
 Rating Obtained from the
NQUESH
 Projects Initiated
Pa  Awards Received

Plan of action for the aspiring principals

Implications to the education system

 25

Chapter 3

METHODS OF STUDY AND SOURCES OF DATA

This chapter presents the research design, sample, procedure, instruments,

construction and validation of test and statistical treatment to get the pertinent data in the

study.

Research Design

This study will make use of descriptive- correlational design. The descriptive method

of research will be utilized to describe the profile of the NQESH Topnotchers from Region III. The

NQESH ratings from the National Educators’ Academy of the Philippines (NEAP) will be

obtained by the researcher from the internet (https://www.scribd.com) will also be analyzed.

Furthermore, the respondents’ performance rating in the OPCRF and as perceived by the teachers and

stakeholders will also be examined.

Descriptive research, as defined by Best (1989), describes and interprets what is. It is concerned

with conditions of relationships that exist, practices that will prevail, beliefs, processes that are going on,

effects that are being felt, or trends that are developing

Correlational research design will also be employed to determine the relationship

between the profile and NQESH Rating, profile and performance and the NQESH rating

and the performance.

According to Fraenkel and Wallen (1986), a correlational study describes the degree (strength or

magnitude) to which two or more quantitative variables are related and it does so by the use of
 26

correlational coefficient. Furthermore, if a relationship magnitude exist between two variables, it becomes

possible to predict a score on either variable if a score on the other variable is known.

Sample and Sampling Technique

The respondents of this study will be the passers from Region III who made it to

the top ten in the country.

Data Gathering Instruments

The researcher will devise a template in which each respondent will personally fill in the data

pertinent to his/her profile. It will require information about age, sex, highest educational attainment, years

in the service, and their preparations done for the qualifying exam.

Actual NQESH rating of the topnotchers will be obtained from the internet and will be confirm

through the Region III HRDD. Moreover, the OPCRF ratings of the respondents will also

be requested from their respective division offices.

 27

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. BOOKS

Marzano, Robert J., Waters, Timothy, and McNulty Brian A. School Leadership that Works:
FromResearch to Results.Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Publications,
USA, 2005.

McShane, Steven L. and Von Glinow, Mary Ann. Organizational Behavior (Essentials)
2nd Edition.
McGraw Hills/Irwin Publication Co. NY, 2009

Sergiovanni, Thomas J. 2001. The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective, 4th edition.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Sevilla, Consuelo, et.al. An Introduction to Research Methods.Q.C.: Rex Printing Co., Inc.,1989.
Seyfarth, John T. 1999. The Principalship: New Leadership for New Challenges. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill.

Ubben, Gerald C.; Hughes, Larry W.; and Norris, Cynthia J. 2001. The Principal: Creative
Leadership for Effective Schools, 4th edition. Allyn and Bacon.

B. ARTICLES

Bueno, Elizabeth B. ―The Principal as Instructional Leader in RA 9155‖, The Modern Teacher,
January 2014.

Bugna , Marjorie P. ―Effective Principal’s Office Management‖, The Modern Teacher, June
2011 DECS,
Master Plan for Basic Education (1995-2005), A Brochure DECS, Primer on the
Secondary Education Development Program EDCOM, Making Education Work: An
Agenda for Reform, A Brochure

Cindi Rigsbee. What Makes a Principal Great?..February 18, 2009

İzzet Döş, Ahmet Cezmi Savaş,Elementary School Administrators and Their Roles in the
Context of Effective Schools. First Published March 3, 2015 Research Article

MICHAEL WINERIP.The Secrets of a Principal Who Makes Things Work. SEPT. 25,
2011
 28

SomprachKanokornbBouphanPrachakcThe Perspective of School Principals on Novice

Teachers’ Collective Work.

Rick DuFour and Mike Mattos. How Do Principals Really Improve Schools?April 2013 |
Volume 70 | Number 7 The Principalship Pages 34-40

Devon Crossfield1 and Paul Andrew Bourne2 .Management of Interpersonal Conflict

between Principals and Teachers in Selected Secondary Schools in Bermuda

C. EXTERNAL LINKS

Department of Education (www.deped.gov.ph) DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2007. Revised Guidelines on
Selection, Promotion, and Designation School Heads

DepEd Order No. 47, s. 2007, Revised Guidelines on Selection, Promotion, and Designation
of School Heads. 89

DepEd Order No. 66, s. 2007, Revised Guidelines on the Appointment and Promotion of
other Teaching, Related Teaching, and Non-Teaching Positions. DepEd Order No. 97, s.
2011.

Revised Guidelines on the Allocation and Reclassification of School Heads.

DepEd Memorandum No. 132, s. 2013,
Principals’ Test.

National Center on Education and the Economy, Teacher and Principal Quality,Center on
Educational Benchmarking, ncee.org.

National Educators Academy of the Philippines (NEAP). NEAP Training Center, Teachers’ Camp,
Baguio City.

D. UNPUBLISHED THESES

Fernando, Rosalia C. (2013). Transformational Leadership Behaviors of the Public Elementary School
Heads of Tarlac Province Division. Basis for an Action Plan

Lanuza, Nestor S. (2018). Realms of Leadership of the Outstanding Public Secondary School Principals
in Region III. Case Analysis
29
30