SCHOOL CULTURE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS TO

LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND SCHOOL

EFFECTIVENESS

PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION: A MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

2022
Volume: 6
Pages: 941-952
Document ID: 2022PEMJ389
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7392496
Manuscript Accepted: 2022-02-12
 Psych Educ, 2022, 6: 941-952, Document ID: PEMJ389, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7392496, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

School Culture and Its Implications to Leadership Practices and School Effectiveness
Elvira I. Jabonillo*
For affiliations and correspondence, see the last page.

Abstract
The primary goal of the public education reforms and restructuring movement is to improve school performance.
This study investigated the implications of school culture on leadership practices and school effectiveness. The
study’s participants were the school heads and teachers of the public secondary schools in Bohol Division, who
were selected using the simple random sampling technique. The study employed the quantitative research design
using a descriptive survey questionnaire and a causal research approach to measure the relationships of school
culture, leadership practices, and school effectiveness. Moreover, the school effectiveness was taken from the
performance indicators: dropout rate, failure rate, and promotion rate during the school year 2017-2018. Using the
SPSS, the findings revealed that leadership practices have a significant and positive relationship on school culture.
This denotes that collaborative leadership influences a strong school culture. However, there is no significant
relationship between school culture and effectiveness in terms of dropout rate, failure rate, and promotion rate.
Likewise, results indicated that school effectiveness is not significantly related to leadership practices. This infers
that school culture and leadership practices have no significant effects on school effectiveness. It denotes that
school effectiveness is not directly affected by the school culture and leadership practices. It is concluded that it is
tough to trace the linkages between collaborative school culture and school effectiveness. The assertion that
collaborative school culture makes a difference in student performance is supported by theory and experience,
however less clear to the researcher on how specifically or precisely in what ways that a school culture affects how
a school ought to be effective. It is tough to differentiate exactly how leadership styles relate to school
effectiveness, although generally, positive and strong leadership is mediated entirely by the leadership skills and
abilities of school heads. Furthermore, creating a school culture is the responsibility of the school head. Thus, the
school head can positively or negatively affects the school culture.
Keywords: leadership, school culture, leadership practices, school effectiveness

Introduction these in mind, the government, on its part has been

Every school, whether public or private, has been
pursuing its mission to provide quality education to all
learners. However, with the multifarious problems
facing the schools, especially in public schools, its
delivery is impeded. Reality tells us that albeit public
school teachers are qualified to teach, still the dearth of
educational materials, inadequate facilities and
instrumentality, and therefore the lack of personal and
professional growth hampered them to perform at their
best. Al-Samarrai (2016) mentioned the sad reality
that when students are reaching up to fifty learners in a
classroom, the learning environment becomes not
conducive to learning. This problem is also true in
private schools. They have to exert much effort to
attract a good number of learners enrolling for the
school year to ensure their survival (Al-Samarrai,
2016).
Several researchers had delved into the various
elements poignant to the academic system, a lot of
specifically, whether or not it will solve the
multifarious issues in society. Durban and Catalan
(2012) considered education as the means of
alleviating poverty, decreasing criminalities,
increasing economic benefits, and ultimately uplifting
the standard of living of the Filipino masses. With
ceaselessly investing plenty of resources into the
education sector. However, with the complexity of
educational issues, solutions are removed from reality.
Allied with this issue is that the preparation of our
learners from the fundamental education up to the
tertiary level. The queries of how well are the schools
equipped and able to train the learners under their care
are crucial. According to Durban and Catalan (2012),
it is a tragic reality that solely seven out of ten pupils
who register in Grade one end the elementary
curriculum, and from the seven who continue to
secondary, solely three will end the curriculum, and
from these three, only one will complete the tertiary
education (Durban & Catalan, 2012).
Different approaches to school improvement efforts
are studied for many years. Nonetheless, there's still
this missing piece to ultimately solve the puzzle.
According to Wagner (2006), the school culture may
be the missing link – a link that has rather more to try
and do with the culture of the school than it will with
elaborate program alignment projects, scrimmage
tests, and therefore the latest meaninglessness reform
efforts within the school improvement plans. As
pointed out by Wagner (2006), several authors and
researchers agree and refer to school climate, and more
specifically to school culture, as an important but

Elvira I. Jabonillo 941/952

Psych Educ, 2022, 6: 941-952, Document ID: PEMJ389, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7392496, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
often-overlooked component of school improvement.
School heads faced numerous challenges as
experienced by the researcher in her eighteen years of
managing a school as a School In-Charge and a full-
pledged School Principal. There is a need to
determine first what defines their schools to effect
positive change. They must recognize what works
supported tested assessment results, what would
possibly work supported solid theory, and the way to
facilitate the transformation of their schools to the
community and their partners and how to articulate the
changes to develop the foremost necessary resource –
the human resources. Productive school culture
depends upon quality school improvement, evidenced-
based leadership practices, increased stakeholders
partnership, and the high-level performances of
teachers and staff (Gruenert, 2008).
Anchored on the preceding facts and existing realities,
the researcher is impelled to undergo this study, with
the hope of providing the school heads and teachers
with the knowledge and assessment of their school’s
cultural “health”. It is also the desire of the researcher
to propose a capability-building program for the
school heads and teachers in the public secondary
schools of Bohol Division, which will focus on
collaborative school culture, strong leadership, and
school effectiveness in their partnership efforts with
stakeholders.
The aim of this study is to assess the culture of the
school and its implications for leadership practices and
school effectiveness. It also aims to determine barriers
to increased performance and identify specific actions
that should be taken to effect change in leading,
guiding, and inspiring stakeholders to be engaged
through the change process.
Research Questions
This study aims to investigate the implications of
school culture on leadership practices and school
performance. Specifically, it sought to answer the
following questions:
1. What is the respondents’ assessment of their school
culture in terms of:
1.1. professional collaboration;
1.2. affiliative collegiality; and
1.3. self-determination/efficacy?
2. What is the respondents’ assessment of the school
leadership practices as to:
2.1. modeling the way;
2.2. inspiring a shared vision;
2.3. challenging the process;
Elvira I. Jabonillo
2.4. enabling others; and
2.5. encouraging the heart?
3. What is the school's effectiveness in terms of:
3.1. drop-out rate;
3.2. failure rate; and
3.3. promotion rate?
4. Is there a significant relationship between school
culture and school effectiveness as to:
4.1. drop-out rate;
4.2. failure rate; and
4.3. promotion rate?
5. Is there a significant relationship between school
leadership practices and school effectiveness as to:
5.1. drop-out rate;
5.2. failure rate; and
5.3. promotion rate?
6. Is there a significant relationship between school
leadership practices and the school culture?
7. Is there a significant difference between the
assessments of the respondents on the school culture
and school leadership practices?
8. What capability development program is proposed
to improve school performance?
Literature Review
Culture, in the simplest term, is described as the
people’s beliefs and perceptions of their workplace.
Culture could be a term that tries to capture the
informal, implicit, typically unconscious facet of any
human organization. Schein (2012) defines culture as
a pattern of the group learned assumptions that are
taught to new members. According to Deal and
Kennedy (2008), these assumptions include the current
and historic decisions that are made within the group
to solve problems, and these decisions are based on
institutional heroes and traditional ways of handling
decisions and situations within a school setting. A
strong positive culture enables people to feel better
about what they do, so they work harder (Deal &
Kennedy, 2008).
School culture, as defined by the Glossary of
Education Reform (2013), generally refers to the
beliefs, perceptions, relationships, attitudes, and
written and unwritten rules that shape and influence
every aspect of how a school functions, but the term
also encompasses more concrete issues such as the
physical and emotional safety of students, the
orderliness of classrooms and public spaces, or the
degree to which a school embraces and celebrates
racial, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural diversity. This
further means that, like the larger social culture, a
school culture results from every conscious and
942/952
Psych Educ, 2022, 6: 941-952, Document ID: PEMJ389, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7392496, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
unconscious view, value, interaction, and practice, and
it's heavily fashioned by a school’s expressed
institutional history. Students, parents, teachers,
school heads, and totally different staff all contribute
to their school’s culture, as do different influences just
like the community throughout the school is based, the
policies that govern however it operates, or the
principles upon which the school was supported.
According to Wagner (2006), school culture is consist
of “the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors which
characterize a school”. In other words, the school
culture is the shared experiences both in school and
out of school (traditions and celebrations) that create a
sense of community, family, and team membership.
People in any healthy organization should have an
agreement on the way to do things and what's worth
doing. Workers' stability and customary goals
permeate the school. Time is ready aside for school-
wide recognition of all school stakeholders. Common
agreement on curricular and instructional elements,
furthermore as order and discipline, are established
through accord, open and honest communication is
inspired; and there's an abundance of humor and trust.
Additionally, tangible support from leaders at the
school and district is present.
The literature reviews on this study, for the most part,
supported the assessment of the school culture
throughout the academic setting, which promotes
robust leadership and results in school effectiveness.
Educational researchers agreed that, as the leaders of
individual schools, principals impact the school’s
culture (Sergiovanni, 2005). School culture is often
changed by leadership and also the decision-making
method of the school leaders. According to Bandura
(1993), as cited by Sergiovanni (2005), the school
head can positively or negatively affect the school
culture.
Shaping the culture inside the school could be the
focus of school heads. As Sackney and Mitchell
(2014) summarized his findings, he proposed that
leadership practices should be enhanced further so that
school heads can strive for a complete understanding
of how to mold a positive culture within their schools
for an ultimate gain in student performance. Sackney
and Mitchell (2014) further stressed that since school
culture has been positively tied to student
achievement, it is imperative that school leaders foster
a positive school culture and practice effective
decision-making (Sackney & Mitchell, 2014).
Griffith (2009) asserted that future studies should
continue to direct assessment of principal behaviors
Elvira I. Jabonillo
about specific processes (e.g., the principal’s
facilitation of collegiality and trust among staff,
statement of the school mission, and influence on
teacher expectations) for student learning and better
performance. Further, a more comprehensive and
coherent conceptualization of the link between school
culture and schools effectiveness would help principals
manage schools more effectively (Griffith, 2009).
According to Deal and Peterson (2009), culture
influences everything that happens in a school. They
affirmed that school culture is the key factor in
determining whether improvement in school is at all
possible. According to Barth (2002), the more
understood, accepted and cohesive the culture of a
school, the better able it is to move toward the ideals it
holds and the objectives it wishes to pursue; such is the
power of culture that any effort to improve school
effectiveness must take it first into account.
Several studies on the correlation between school
culture and leadership practices were shown in this
study. The researchers Arbabi and Mehdinezhad
(Arbabi & Mehdinezhad, 2015) found out that
collaborative leadership has shown to possess a direct
correlation to teacher efficaciousness, and an initial
driver at school improvement. Artino (2012) also
stressed that positive teacher efficacy and teacher
retention had been linked to actions taken by the
school head to create a positive school culture.
According to Ingersoll (2011), schools in which
teachers have more control over key school-wide and
classroom decisions have fewer issues with student
misbehavior, show more collegiality and cooperation
among teachers and administrators, have more
committed and engaged teaching staff and do a better
job of retaining their teachers.
In the study of Karadag et al. (2014), they pointed out
that the opportunity to improve student achievement
lies within school culture and leadership. On the
other hand, Piotrowsky in his study “The Impact of
Leadership on School Culture and Student
Achievement (Piotrowsky, 2016) found out that there
was a negative correlation between collaborative
leadership and poverty, due to the small sample in the
study. He proposed that in the schools, the leader has
to focus on; valuing teachers’ ideas, trusting the
professional judgment of teachers, laudatory
recognition of teachers that perform well, involving
teachers s in decision-making, facilitating teachers
working along, keeping teachers enlightened
concerning current problems, rewarding teachers for
experimenting with new concepts and techniques,
supporting risk-taking and innovation in teaching, and
943/952
Psych Educ, 2022, 6: 941-952, Document ID: PEMJ389, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7392496, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
protecting instruction and planning time. In terms of
practice, the results of this study suggested that the
essential behavior of a leader is to set direction. This
finding is supported by the literature of Leithwood and
Riehl (Leithwood, & Riehl, 2013). As defined by the
survey, the variable unity of purpose enclosed
establishing a mission, clearly communicating the
mission to teachers, gaining stakeholder buy-in of the
mission and teaching performance matches the mission
of the school.
Lee-Piggott (2016) suggested a framework of the new
principal leadership–school culture interplay. This
framework captures to some extent the complexity of
the reciprocation, showing that the degree of stability
between new principals and their inherited school
cultures may depend on the absence or presence of a
number of personal, cultural and contextual factors;
their nature or degree of positivity and; the extent of
their influence on other factors. The manifestation of
the interaction additionally depends on the character
and influence of the actions of the varied members
inside the school, particularly those of the new school
head. The framework shows that schools, and thus the
interplay between leadership and school culture, are
not impervious to external factors, such as policy
dictates, especially in highly centralized education
systems.
Lee-Piggott (2016) again found out six evidence-based
claims made to explain the nature of the interplay
between new principal leadership and school culture
and two additional ones concern the impact of the
interplay. The eight claims were reiterated here. Six
claims about the nature of the leadership-school
culture interplay: Claim 1: There are two phases of
new principal leadership-school culture interaction: (1)
Inheriting; and (2) Building and shaping. Claim 2:
New principals draw from the same set of leadership
practices to reculture their schools but are disposed to
particular types and strategies depending on their
professional judgments. Claim 3: New principals may
adjust their leadership approaches in response to
school members’ responses to their leadership. Claim
4: School members’ trust is both a precondition to
their support of new principal leadership and a
consequence of new principals’ trust-building
behaviors. Claim 5 : System mandates and
inadequacies can frustrate the efficient development of
the leadership-school culture interplay. Claim 6: The
degree of compatibility of values between new
principals and their inherited school cultures is a major
influencing factor to the nature of their interaction and
ultimately, the degree of school change and
Elvira I. Jabonillo
improvement.
Two additional claims concern the impact of the
leadership-school culture interplay (Piggott, 2016):
Claim 7: The degree of improvement realized at a
school serving a disadvantaged community to which a
new school head has been appointed is critically
dependent on (a) the new school head’s depth and
breadth of school culture awareness; (b) the degree and
nature of his/her responsiveness to school cultural
context; and (c) the nature of school members’
responses to their new school head’s leadership. Claim
8: Negative critical incidents are the main source of
new principals’ emotional tensions and on-the-job
learning. These eight claims indicate essential
implications for school improvement, recruitment, and
selection of new school heads, school heads’
preparation, novice school heads’ CPD and, leadership
practices (Lee-Piggott, 2016).
On the other hand, Edmonds (2011) nobly emphasized
that effective schools have well-defined goals and
purposes, a clear sense of mission, and an active
presence of purposing. Duttweiler (2010) synthesized
more recent literature on effective schools into the
following characteristics: emphasizing student-
centeredness and promoting student-learning; offering
academically-rich programs and positive school
climate; fostering collegial interaction and extensive
staff development program; practicing shared
leadership; promoting creative problem solving, and
active involvement of parents and the community.
This study centered on the main idea of school culture,
but not in a typical manner with the school head being
the sole leader. Instead, the focus for the literature
review incorporated three main components necessary
to promote lasting changes in the school setting. These
components consist of professional collaboration
among school administrators and teachers; collegiality
among teachers; and their self-determination or
efficacy.
Professional Collaboration
Collaboration occurs when two or more people in an
organization work together to realize or achieve a
goal. Collaboration is very similar to cooperation.
Most collaboration needs leadership, though the form
of leadership is often social at intervals a
suburbanized, and democratic cluster. Groups that
work collaboratively will get immense resources,
recognition, and reward once facing competition for
finite resources. According to Vislocky (2015),
having a supportive school head can make all the
944/952
Psych Educ, 2022, 6: 941-952, Document ID: PEMJ389, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7392496, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
difference for a teacher. In most schools, teachers
want to know that their principal has their best
interests in mind. One of the primary duties of a
school head is to provide ongoing, collaborative
teacher support as part of the Office Performance and
Commitment Review (OPCR). The relationship
between a teacher and a school head must be designed
on a foundation of trust, though this kind of
relationship takes heaps of time to create. School
heads should slowly cultivate these relationships,
whereas taking the time to grasp every teacher's
strength and weaknesses. It’s vital to notice that any
significant changes in schools, particularly if the
school head is new to that school, ought to be created
solely when seeking and considering input from
teachers. Teachers should tend time to figure along in
an exceedingly cooperative effort. As Vislocky (2015)
wrote, the collaboration will strengthen relationships
amongst the faculty members, providing the new or
struggling teachers with an outlet to gain valuable
insight and advice, and allows teachers to share best
practices and success stories. This means that the
school head becomes the propulsion during this
collaboration, and those who reject the importance of
peer collaboration are marketing its price way short.
Affiliative Collegiality
Collegiality is defined as the cooperative interaction
among colleagues (House Dictionary, 2018). Gappa,
Austin, and Trice (2010) referred it as the
opportunities for faculty members to feel that they
belong to a mutually respected community of scholars
who value each faculty member’s contributions to the
institution and feel concern for their colleagues’ well-
being. In other words, affiliative collegiality
represents a reciprocal relationship among colleagues
with a commitment to sustaining a positive and
productive school setting as crucial for the progress
and success of the school community.
According to Gumus (2013), collaboration involves
volunteer interactions of at least two co-equal parties
toward achieving a common good. In educational
settings, affiliative and collegial relationships among
teachers include teachers’ efforts in core
tasks (Cournoyer K. , 2017). Collaboration among
teachers can be either indirect that may occur before or
after school or within the teacher planning period; or
direct, which incorporates peer coaching or
supervision and differing types of cooperative teaching
practices, as cited by Gumus (2013). Teacher
collaboration will additionally be classified as formal
and informal. Teachers might get wind of formal
groups to collaborate to enhance their teaching,
Elvira I. Jabonillo
whereas collaboration might additionally occur while
teachers speak informally concerning their classroom
practices.
Teachers’ professional collaboration is an important
part of efforts to enhance teacher motivation, increase
teachers’ self-efficacy, provide moral support for
teachers, and augment teacher job satisfaction (Printy
& Marks, 2016). As pointed out by Gable and
Manning (2007), extant researches also identified
collaboration among teachers as an essential factor
affecting the implementation of reform initiatives in
schools positively. Finally, and maybe most
significantly, the educational experiences teachers
attain as a result of their cooperative efforts may build
them a lot of competence in terms of improving the
school culture. Given the robust proof on several
positive outcomes of teacher collaboration, both
researchers and policy-makers are encouraging
teachers to alter their ancient follow that has been
principally isolated, toward a lot of cooperative and
open interactions with one another. Therefore,
distinguishing the factors which will facilitate this
dramatic transition is incredibly necessary. Teachers
are those who will confirm the extent and quality of
collaboration. Their commitment and avidity to figure
along are very important for productive and effective
school culture.
Self-determination/Efficacy
Wehmeyer et al. (2010) defined self-determination as
the attitudes and abilities required to act as the primary
causal agent in one’s life and to make choices
regarding one’s actions free from undue external
influence or interference. In other words, a person’s
actions are self-determined if the person acts
autonomously, regulates his or her behavior, initiates
and responds to events in an exceedingly very manner
indicating psychological authorization, and behaves in
an exceedingly very manner that's self-realizing.
According to Wehmeyer, et al (2010), a person acts in
ways that make positive use of knowledge and
understanding about his or her characteristics,
strengths, and limitations. Self-determination is
synonymous to efficacy. Self-efficacy, as defined by
Bandura (2010), and cited by Artino (2012), is a
personal belief in one’s capability to organize and
execute courses of action required to attain designated
types of performances. Self-efficacy is hypothesized to
associate degree on an individual’s selection of
activities, effort, and persistence across a large vary of
human functioning. However, self-efficacy does not
equate to a general confidence in one’s competence;
instead, it is additional task and state of situation
945/952
Psych Educ, 2022, 6: 941-952, Document ID: PEMJ389, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7392496, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

specific, and people develop self-efficacy believes in flu en ti al p erso n in a sch o o l (Deal and
concerning specific goals. Peterson, 2016). This means that the theory being
developed by Deal and Peterson asserts that leadership
School Culture and Leadership Practices has a significant and direct effect on school culture
As cited by Turan and Bektas (2013), the formation of through particular behaviors, and leadership practices
organizational culture is a complex process that has an impact on school effectiveness, as mediated
involves many variables, such as socialization, rituals, through school culture. The leadership practices that
language, authority, economy, technology, and affect school culture are a part of the reciprocal
influence. For this reason, a culture emerges as a method of interacting with and about others (Deal, &
product of the interaction of the many dimensions Peterson, 2016). A considerable body of proof
(Turan, & Bektas, 2013). A number of these indicates that the school head directly affects and
dimensions is also a lot of dominant than others. influences school culture. According to Deal and
However, the formation of a typical culture initially Peterson (2009), the leadership of school heads is key
depends on the presence and association of a bunch of to building a strong school culture. Symbolic
individuals interacting with one another. According to leadership, combined with competent administration,
Tarter et al. (2014), organizational culture holds its therefore, forms a context for successful school reform
units together and shares values, norms, philosophies, and improvement. The school heads who use such an
perspectives, expectations, attitudes, myths, and trends approach stand the best chance of developing schools
that give it a distinctive identity (Tarter, & that give students the knowledge and skills they will
Hoy, 2014). For this reason, the main task of the need outside the local community to succeed in the
school head in making a positive atmosphere is to world and workplace of the 21st century (Deal,
contribute to the creation of collaborative school Terrence, Peterson, & Kent, 2009).
culture to result to the school's formal and informal
dimensions integrating each other. In this sense, School Culture and School Effectiveness
school heads, teachers, and students take pride in the
schools they belong. According to Maslowski (2001), there is sufficient
evidence to indicate that school culture is a significant
According to Kiraz et al. (2016), this common mediating factor between principal leadership and
sentiment provides cohesion and convergence among school effectiveness. His statement was confirmed by
administrators, teachers, students, and parents. This Ebadollah (2011) about the general knowledge
was confirmed by Celikten and Can (2013), that to base regarding school culture. According to him,
strengthen positive school culture, school heads ought school culture does affect the behavior, achievement,
to celebrate success in conferences and ceremonies, and effectiveness of elementary and secondary school
explore opportunities to inform stories regarding students (Ebadollah, 2011).
success and cooperation and use transparent and
shared language to strengthen the commitment of
Methodology
employees and students. This statement means that in
their daily work, school leaders additionally reinforce
the standards and values of the school through their The following discussion deals with the research
statements and discourse with others. According to design, research environment, and the participants of
this point of view, leadership within the school isn't the study, the instrument used, sampling and data
solely the function of the school head; however, gathering procedures, as well as the statistical
additionally an inclination to achieve a shared goal technique employed in this study
conjointly with stakeholders. School leadership and
school culture can even be outlined as nested Research Design
processes. Even though, school culture is constructed
on the history and deep values of the school Based on primary school administrators' and teachers’
community, substituting and renovating the school perceptions, this study uses a correlational research
culture is contributed through the essential design to determine the relationship between school
performance of the school leader. culture and leadership practices, and school
effectiveness. Also, in this study school culture is
According to Deal and Peterson (2016), this aspect of treated as the independent variable, and leadership
the relationship between school culture and leadership practices and school effectiveness are treated as the
is associated with changing the culture in a positive or dependent variables to determine how school culture
negative way. The school head may be the most and its dimensions (professional collaboration,

Elvira I. Jabonillo 946/952

Psych Educ, 2022, 6: 941-952, Document ID: PEMJ389, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7392496, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
affiliative collegiality, and self-determination/efficacy)
have impacted on leadership practices and school
effectiveness. This study employs a descriptive type
of research. This research design was employed in this
investigation with the aid of standardized survey
questionnaires for gathering data from the two groups
of research participants. A school culture survey
questionnaires and inventory forms for the leadership
practices, and the school’s performance indicators on
promotion rate, dropout rate, and failure rate were
employed in this study. The said instruments were
used to evaluate the present situation in the schools.
Research Environment
The research locale was the Sixty-six schools selected
at random as the sample population of the secondary
schools in the Division of Bohol this school year
2018-2019, composed of Fourteen (14) schools in the
First Congressional District (CD1), Twenty Four (24)
schools in the Second Congressional District (CD2)
and Twenty Eight (28) schools in the Third
Congressional District (CD3).
Research Participants
The school administrator and at least two teachers per
school were the participants of this study. There were
Sixty Six (66) school administrators and One Hundred
Fifty-Nine (159) teachers who were randomly selected
and answered the online survey questionnaire. The
distribution of the participants is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Distribution of Participants
Research Instruments
The School Culture Survey by Christopher R. Wagner
(2006), adapted by the Georgia Institute for School
Improvement, Inc. (GLISI) was used to determine the
school culture of the secondary schools in the Division
of Bohol this school year 2018-2019. The Leadership
Practices Inventory (LPI) by Jim Kouzes and Barry
Elvira I. Jabonillo
Posner was used to determine the leadership practices
of the school heads, and the school’s performance
indicators on promotion rate, dropout rate and failure
rate for the school year 2017-2018 were used to
determine the school effectiveness. Pilot testing was
employed to Pagnitoan National High School, the
current station of the researcher, which was not
included as participants of the study. The instruments
used were checked and verified by the Division
Technical Working Group (TWG) on Research before
the data collection of the schools under study.
Sampling
The sample was chosen randomly using the simple
random sampling technique. There were 66 out of the
172 secondary schools, and the researcher asks the
respondents to respond in an online survey
questionnaire.
Data Collection
The researcher employed the following steps in
gathering data: The researcher was permitted by the
Schools Division Superintendent to conduct the
research study through the Division Memorandum, as
one of the recipients of the Basic Education Research
Fund for 2018. An email was sent to the sample
schools through the school administrators, indicating
the link to the online survey. The researcher then
waited for one week and made a follow-up email after
two weeks to those schools who have not yet answered
the online survey. Moreover, the researcher assured
the participants regarding the confidentiality of their
responses to encourage them to answer the
questionnaires honestly and objectively. Likewise, the
researcher was asking the participants’ full cooperation
in accomplishing the instruments since they will
benefit from the results of the study.
Results and Discussion
This part deals with the presentation, analysis, and
interpretation of data based on the collected results. It
presents the school heads’ and teachers’ perception of
school culture in terms of professional collaboration,
affiliative collegiality, and efficacy. Moreover, this
chapter also shows the participants’ perceptions of the
leadership practices of their schools based on five
indicators, and their performance based on three
indicators. Table 1 shows the assessment of the school
heads and teachers on school culture along with
professional collaboration, affiliative collegiality, and
self-determination or efficacy.
947/952
Psych Educ, 2022, 6: 941-952, Document ID: PEMJ389, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7392496, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

Moreover, school heads assessed school leadership

Table 1. Respondents’ Assessment on School Culture
N1 = 66; N2 = 159
The results revealed that both the school heads and the
teachers rated professional collaboration and self-
efficacy with a weighted mean of 4.51 and 4.31,
respectively, which is described as “Always”. This
means that school heads and teachers always work
together and involve each other in the decision-making
process. Nevertheless, teachers rated affiliative
collegiality with a weighted mean of 4.18, which is
described as “Often”. This rating depicts that school-
related or work-related disagreements were oftentimes
voiced out and discussed and sometimes teachers and
school heads talk/meet outside of school to enjoy each
other’s company. The overall school culture weighted
mean of 4.39 and 4.26, which are described as
“Always” denotes that the set of norms, values, and
beliefs expected of a school head and a teacher in
school were highly evident thus problems, challenges
and, at times, failures in school can easily be fixed.
Deal and Peterson (2009) studied as far as school
culture as the key factor in determining whether
improvement in school is at all possible. The more
understood, accepted, and cohesive the culture of a
school, the better able it is to move toward the ideals it
holds and the objectives it wishes to pursue.
practices as to inspiring a shared vision and
challenging the process with a weighted mean of 4.35
and 4.26, which is described as “Always”. It can be
gleaned from the results that the school head-
respondents always build consensus around a common
set of values; talk about future trends that influence
how work is done; challenge teachers to innovate ways
to improve the teaching-learning process; develop a
cooperative relationship within the school, and always
praise individual for a job well done. Further, teacher-
respondents assessed school leadership practices as to
inspiring a shared vision and challenging the process
with a weighted mean of 4.13 and 4.05, respectively,
which is described as “Often”. This results confirmed
that teachers have observed school heads, who often
show others how their long-term interest can be
realized and seeks out challenging opportunities that
test their skills and abilities. According to Sackney
(2008), school leadership practices should be enhanced
further so that school heads can try for a complete
understanding of how to mold a positive culture within
their schools for an ultimate gain in student
performance. Such is the power of culture that any
effort to improve school effectiveness must take it first
into account (Barth, 2002). Table 3 displays the profile
of the school effectiveness in terms of drop-out rate,
failure rate, and promotion rate during the school year
2017-2018.
Table 3. Profile of the School Effectiveness during the
School Year 2017-2018 N = 66

Table 2 presents the assessment of the school head and

teacher-respondents on school leadership practices as
to modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision,
challenging the process, enabling others, and
encouraging the heart. The results showed that both
school heads and teachers rated modeling the way,
enabling others, and encouraging the heart with a
weighted mean of 4.20 and above, which is described
as “Always”.

Table 2. Respondents’ Assessment on School

Leadership Practices N1 = 66; N 2 = 159

Elvira I. Jabonillo 948/952

Psych Educ, 2022, 6: 941-952, Document ID: PEMJ389, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7392496, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

The results revealed that the majority, 36 or more than

54% of the schools that participated in the survey
ended the school year with a drop-out rate of range leadership practices and school performance in terms
“2.00-2.99%” and none of the schools ended the of drop-out rate, failure rate, and promotion rate.
school year with a drop-out rate of 5% and above. The
average of 2.48% revealed further that the secondary Table 5. Test of Relationship Between the School
schools’ drop-out rates are still imminent, although the Leadership Practices and School Effectiveness N1 =
school heads and teachers have exerted efforts and
66; N2 = 159
initiatives to reduce the drop-out rates. The results
also revealed that 32 or more than 48% of the
secondary schools have a failure rate that ranges from
“2.00 to 2.99”. An average of 2.61% failure rate
revealed that most secondary schools still need to
maximize their efforts in increasing the number of
students who can master the competencies in all
learning areas. The table explains further that 48 or
72.73% of the secondary schools have promotion rates
ranging from 90 to 93.99%. This data confirmed that a
good number of secondary schools endeavor to enable The results showed that there is no significant
their students to be promoted to the next grade level at relationship between school leadership practices and
the end of the school year. An average of 92.26% school performance in terms of drop-out rate, failure
promotion rate showed, however, that secondary rate, and promotion rate, since the computed
schools still need to intensify their efforts in correlation values of 0.031, 0.183 and -0.014 with
conducting interventions so that their students can significant values of 0.805, 0.142, and 0.909,
master the competencies in all learning areas. Table 4
respectively are greater than the pre-set level 0.05,
illustrates the test of the relationship between the
school culture and school effectiveness in terms of
hence, the researcher failed to reject the null
drop-out rate, failure rate, and promotion rate. The hypothesis. The results further explained that school
results revealed that there is no significant relationship leadership practices have no significant influence on
between school culture and school effectiveness as to school performance. There are some aspects of the
drop-out rate, failure rate, and promotion rate since the school social environment that makes a difference in
computed correlation values of -0.071, 0.143, and the academic performance of schools (Brookover, &
-0.116 with significant values of 0.570, 0.253, and
Lezotte, 2003)
0.355, respectively are greater than 0.05 level of
significance. Thus, the researcher failed to reject the
null hypothesis. The results implied that school
Table 6 expresses the test of the relationship between
school leadership practices and school culture. The
culture has no direct effect on school effectiveness.
results portrayed that there is a significant relationship
Table 4. Test of Relationship Between the School between school leadership practices and school culture
Culture and School Effectiveness N1 = 66; N2 = 159 along professional collaboration, affiliative
collegiality, and self-determination/efficacy since the
computed correlation values of 0.871, 0.792, and 0.738
which is interpreted as a “strong positive relationship”
with the significant values of both <0.001 is lesser
than 0.05 level of significance. Thus, the null
hypothesis is rejected. This statement simply means
that school culture greatly influences the leadership
Further, a more comprehensive and coherent
practices of the school heads.
conceptualization of the link between school culture
and school effectiveness would help principals manage
schools more effectively (Griffith, 2009). Table 5
displays the test of the relationship between the school

Elvira I. Jabonillo 949/952

Psych Educ, 2022, 6: 941-952, Document ID: PEMJ389, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7392496, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
Table 6. Test of Relationship Between the School
Leadership Practices and the School Culture N1 = 66; N2
= 159
Educational researchers agreed that, as school leaders,
school heads’ leadership practices impacted the
school’s culture (Sergiovanni, 2005). The school
heads can positively affect the school culture
(Bandura, 1993). Table 7 shows the test of the
difference between the assessments of the school head
and teacher-respondents on school culture and school
leadership practices. As to school culture, the results
revealed that there is a significant difference between
the assessments of the school heads and teachers on
school culture along with professional collaboration
and affiliative collegiality since the computed t-values
of -2.397 and -2.308 with a significant value of 0.018
and 0.022, respectively are lesser than 0.05 level of
significance.
Table 7. Test of Difference Between the Respondents’
Assessment of School Culture and Leadership
Practices N1 = 66; N 2 = 159
The results showed that school heads and teachers
have different observations on their school culture,
along with professional collaborations and affiliative
collegiality. However, there is no significant difference
between the assessments of the respondent on school
culture, along with self-determination or efficacy since
the computed t-value of -1.148 with a significant value
of 0.253 is greater than 0.05 level of significance.
These results inferred that school heads and teachers
have a common line of thinking on the school culture
along with self-determination or efficacy.
Elvira I. Jabonillo
Furthermore, there is a significant difference between
the assessments of the respondents on the overall
school culture, since the computed t-value of -2.099
with a significant value of 0.038 is lesser than the pre-
set level of significance 0.05 thus, the null hypothesis
was rejected. The results implied that school heads
and teachers were statistically different in the
manifestations of their school culture. In line with the
statements of Lee-Piggott (2016) that the manifestation
of the interplay also depends on the nature and
influence of the actions of the various members within
the school, especially those of the new school head.
On the other hand, there is a significant difference
between the assessments of the school head- and
teacher-respondents on the school leadership practices
as to modeling the way, challenging the process,
enabling others, and encouraging the heart since the
computed t-values of -3.428, -2.557, -3.003 and -2.840
with the significant values of 0.001, 0.012, 0.003,
0.005, correspondingly are lesser than 0.05 level of
significance. The results implied that the respondents
have statistically different observations on the
leadership practices manifested by the school heads
during their stay in school. Besides, there is no
significant difference between the school leadership
practices as to inspiring a shared vision, since the
computed t-value of -1.427 with a significant value of
0.055, which is greater than 0.05 level of significance.
The results implied that school heads and teachers
have common assessments of the school leadership
practices manifested by the school heads in inspiring a
shared vision of the school. Furthermore, there is a
significant difference between the assessments of the
respondents on the overall school leadership practices
since the computed t-value of -2.871 with a significant
value of 0.004 is lesser than a 0.05 level of
significance. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected.
The results inferred that the assessments of the school
heads and teachers on the school leadership practices
were statistically different. This statement denotes
further that school heads have a different line of
thinking compared to the teachers on school
leadership-related concerns.
Conclusion
Based on the findings, the following conclusions were
formulated. There is no significant relationship
between school culture and school effectiveness; it is
therefore concluded that it is difficult to track the
linkages between collaborative school culture and
school effectiveness. The assertion that collaborative
school culture makes a difference in student
950/952
Psych Educ, 2022, 6: 941-952, Document ID: PEMJ389, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7392496, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
performance can be supported by theory and
experience, but less clear to the researcher as to how
exactly or precisely in what ways a collaborative
school culture affects how a school should be
effective.
Likewise, there is no significant relationship between
school leadership practices and school effectiveness, it
can be concluded that it is difficult to differentiate
precisely how leadership styles relate to school
effectiveness, though typically, positive and strong
leadership are mediated entirely by the leadership
skills and abilities of school heads. According to the
review of literature, Marzano (2005) affirmed that the
collaborative school culture, as established by the
building school heads, has both a direct and an indirect
impact on student performance.
On the other hand, there is a significant relationship
between school leadership practices and school
culture; it is concluded that creating a school culture is
the responsibility of the school leader. By better
representing the organization’s culture, the school
administrators can strengthen their symbolic
leadership practices. Teachers perceived school
principals as role models of the school culture. Thus it
is consistent with descriptions of leadership as
influencing and guiding factors toward strong school
culture.
There is certainly not a definitive answer about exactly
how and to what extent school culture influences the
effectiveness of a school, but there are indications that
it is a construct of importance. School administrators
may want to consider the following recommendations
in the pursuit of school improvement: (1) School heads
must use the school culture survey to measure the
strength and weaknesses of their school culture and
provide themselves an opportunity to cultivate a
positive school culture based on the results of the
study. Teachers and administrators must decide if there
are areas of school culture that they would like to
improve. Researchers must use other indicators to
measure school effectiveness to test further the
implications of school culture to school effectiveness.
(2) Researchers must use the other methodology to
realize what other factors of leadership practices could
have connections with school effectiveness. (3)
Researchers must also use another methodology to
estimate school effectiveness other than the promotion,
drop-out, and failure rates. Even though initially there
was some correlation, none of the subscales of school
culture was found to be a direct cause of school
effectiveness. There are some possible reasons for the
lack of significance. For instance, a school might
Elvira I. Jabonillo
provide services such as Teacher Collaboration,
Professional Development, or Collegial Support, but
those services might not be related to the real needs of
teachers in the field for improving their school’s
effectiveness. (4) Researchers must use other variables
to assess their school culture. Additionally, a future
investigation can include an analysis of school culture
among elementary schools. This study could also be
replicated among elementary and secondary schools to
determine the relationship between the factors of
collaborative school culture and student achievement,
and the difference in leadership practices among
elementary and secondary school heads.
References
Al-Samarrai, S. (2016). Assessing basic education service delivery
in the Philippines. In Public education expenditure tracking and
quantitative service delivery study. Washington, DC: World Bank
Group.
Angus J. Macneil, Doris L. Prater, Steve Busch. (2009). The Effects
of School Culture and Climate on Student Achievement.
International Journal of Leadership in Education.
Arbabi, A. & Mehdinezhad, V. (2015). School principal's
collaborative leadership style and relation it to teacher's self-
efficacy. International journal of research studies in Education, 5(3),
3-12.
Artino, A. R. (2012). Academic self-efficacy: From educational
theory to instructional practice. Perspective on medical education,
1(2), 76-85.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. In
F. U. Pajares, Adolescence and Education. Information Age
Publishing.
Bandura, A. (2010). Self-effiacy. The Corsini Encyclopedia.
Bandura, B. (1993). Standards, accountability, and developmental
appropriateness: A leadership challenge for middle school
principals. Educational Leadership Journal, 56-57.
Barth, R. S. (2002). The culture builder. Educational Leadership
Journal, 59(8), 6-12.
Brookover, W. & Lezotte, L. . (2003). Changes in school
characteristics coincided with changes in student achievement. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University College of Urban
Development: ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
181005.
Celikten, M. , & Can, N. (2013). Ideal teacher from the perceptions
of administrators, teachers and parents. Erciyes Universitesi Egtim
Fakultesi Dergisi, 15, 254-265.
Cournoyer, K. (2017, December 6). Building a Positive School
Culture to Combat Teacher Turnover. Retrieved from huffpost.com:
www.huffingtonpost.com/teach-plus/building-a-positive-schoo_b_1
3299490.html
Deal, T. & Kennedy, A. (2008). The new corporate cultures. MA:
Perseus Books.
951/952
Psych Educ, 2022, 6: 941-952, Document ID: PEMJ389, doi:10.5281/zenodo.7392496, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
Deal, T.E., & Peterson, K. D. (2016). Shaping school culture. John
Wiley & Sons.
Deal, Terrence E., Peterson, Kent D. (2009). The principal's role in
shaping school culture. Washington, DC: Superintendent of
Documents, US, Government Printing Office.
Durban, J. M., & Catalan, R. D. . (2012). Issues and concerns of
Philippine education through the years. Asian Journal of Social
Sciences & Humanities, 61-69.
Duttweiler, R. (2010). The school's district's role in creating high
performing urban middle schools. New York: New York Turning
Points.
Ebadollah, A. (2011). Organizational culture and productivity.
Precedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 772-776.
Edmonds, R. (2011). Effective Schools for the Urban Poor.
Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-24.
Education in the Philippines. (2018, May). Retrieved December 3,
2018, from studycountry.com: www.studycountry.com
Education in the Philippines. (2018, May). Retrieved from
www.studycountry.com.
Gable, R. A. & Manning, M. L. . (2007). In the midst of reform: The
changing structure and practice of middle school education. The
Clearing House, 71(1), 58-62.
Gappa, J. M. & Austin, A. E. (2010). Rethinking academic traditions
for 21st century faculty. AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom, 1(1),
1-20.
Griffith, D. (2009). Development for school improvement:
Empowering learning communities. Boston: Pearson.
Gruenert, S. (2008, April 1). Development of a School Culture
Survey. Missouri, Columbia.
Gumus, S. (2013). The effects of teacher-and-school-level factors on
teachers' participation in professional development activities: The
role of principal leadership. Journal of International Education
Research, 9(4), 371.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2011). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An
organizational analysis. American educational research journal,
38(3), 499-534.
Karadag, E., Kilicoglu, G., & Yilmaz, D. (2014). Organizational
cynism, school culture and academic achievement: The study of
Structural Equation Modelling. Educational Sciences, Theory and
Practice, 14(1), 102-113.
Kiraz, E. , & Ozdemir, D. (2016). The relationship between
educational ideologies and technology acceptance in pre-service
Elvira I. Jabonillo
teachers. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(2).
Lee-Piggott, R. (2016). New principal's leadership and school
culture: A study of three primary schools facing challenging
circumstances in Trinidad and Tobago (Doctoral dissertation).
Leithwood, K. & Riehl, C. (2013). What do we already know about
successful school leadership? Chicago: American Education
Research Center.
Maslowski, R. (2001). School Culture and School Performance: An
Explorative Study into Organizational Culture of Secondary Schools
& Its Efects. Netherlands: Twente University Press.
Piotrowsky, M. J. (2016). The impact of leadership on school culture
and student achievement.
Printy, S. M. & Marks, H. M. (2016). Shared leadership for teacher
and student learning. Theory into practice, 45(2), 125-132.
Sackney, L & Mitchell, C. (2014). Leadership for learning: a
Canadian Perspective. In Leadership for learning, 123-136.
Schein, E. (2012). Organizational culture and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. (2005). The headteachership: A reflective practice
perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tarter, C. J., & Hoy, W. K. (2014). A systems approach to quality
schools: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational
Administration, 42(5), 535-554.
Turan, S, & Bektas, F. (2013). The relationaship between School
culture and leadership practices . Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, 52, 155-168.
Vislocky, K. (2015). The relationaship between school culture and
student achievement in middle schools.
Wagner, C. R. (2006). The School Leader's Tool for Assessing and
Improving School Culture. Shaping school culture, 41-44.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M. & Hughes, C. (2010). A national
survey of teachers' promotion of self-determination and student-
directed learning. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 58-68.
Affiliations and Corresponding Information
Elvira I. Jabonillo, PhD
Pagnitoan National High School
Department of Education
Division of Bohol, Philippines
952/952