See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288745230

School leadership in the Philippines: Historical, cultural, and policy dynamics

Article  in  Advances in Educational Administration · December 2013

DOI: 10.1108/S1479-3660(2013)0000020011

CITATIONS READS

2 938

2 authors, including:

Jeffrey S. Brooks
Monash University (Australia)
53 PUBLICATIONS   398 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Edited Book: Educational Leadership and Music: Lessons for Tomorrow's School Leaders View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jeffrey S. Brooks on 03 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sutherland & Brooks 1

Becoming and Developing School Leaders in the Philippines1

The preparation and development of school leaders in the Philippines is

influenced by historical, policy and cultural dynamics. These are manifest both in the

path educators take to become principals and in the way they develop and practice their

skills once they are on the job (de Guzman & Guillermo, 2007). In this chapter, we will

discuss how the history of the Philippines educational system interacts with

contemporary policies and cultural dynamics to shape the way that leaders are prepared

and the way they acquire and develop their skills as they do their work in schools.

A Brief History of Philippine Education: The Legacy of Four Eras for Principals in

the 21st Century

The history of Philippine education can be conceived as taking place in four

distinct eras, each of which has made a contribution to the way that principals are

prepared and developed in the 21st century. These four eras are (a) Pre-Colonial, (b)

Spanish Colonization, (c) United States Colonization and (d) Independence and the

Republic of the Philippines (Arcilla, 1999; Shukla, 1996).

Pre-Colonial Philippine Education. Pre-colonial Filipinos lived in complex

cultures that produced unique language, music, art, written literature, spoken literature,

and belief systems, which were passed on through generations (David, 2011). The

educational unit and educational experiences were based on the social group in which one

lived. Social groups varied in complexity, including the family unit, family clusters, and

villages (Jocano, 1998). The complexity of the unit determined who was involved in
                                                                                                               
1
This is a draft copy of the book chapter: Sutherland, I. E. & Brooks, J. S. (2014). Becoming and
developing school leaders in the Philippines. In A. H. Normore & N. Erbe, (Ed.) Collective efficacy:
Interdisciplinary perspectives on international leadership (pp. 199-213). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited. Please contact the authors before citing.
 
Sutherland & Brooks 2

leading and educating. This contributed to core Filipino values related to deference to

authority, and created a basic hierarchical social structure. Typically, at the top of the

hierarchy was the chieftain or village leader, also called Datu, Raja, or Panglima (David,

2011). The chieftan was a source of political authority, knowledge, and wisdom. Along

with the assistance of a council of elders, the chieftain developing laws and settling

disputes. As there were no formal schools at the time, education was the responsibility of

families and villages, and the educational leadership modeled after the example of the

chieftain.

Spanish Colonization. Spanish colonization was a major factor in shaping

Philippine education, though it is arguable that there was considerable autonomous

Filipino educational activity underlying the policies and practices of the Spanish

(Schwartz, 1971). The Spanish colonial education had two tracks. Catholic catechism

schools were designed to convert and indoctrinate national Filipinos and provide basic

education (Counts, 1925; Fox, 1965; Schwartz, 1971), and the Spanish schools provide a

duplication of the Spanish education system for resident Spaniards and privileged

Filipinos who were given exceptions. The Spanish colonial education did little in and of

itself to provide an actual educational value to Filipinos on the whole, but brought about

policy and leadership influence that lead to the inception of secular private education, a

formal curriculum, and a free public education (Fox, 1965). Although Islam and Islamic

institutions have existed in the Philippines since the fourteenth century (Majul, 1999;

Counts 1925), although the Spanish colonization succeeded in making the Philippines a

Catholic country, and in establishing hierarchies of power and knowledge (Milligan,

2003). Catholic Priests served religious, community, and educational leaders, and for the
Sutherland & Brooks 3

first time introduced an entirely new social structure and flow of authority in Filipino

communities which included the development of a sense of “colonial debt” (David, 2011,

p. 41), which accepted maltreatment of colonial leaders as a cost of progress towards

civilization. In many cases Catholic priests worked hand-in-hand with the military and

government, and were quite powerful in their local communities. The Spanish introduced

a formal system of schooling that meant the establishment of universities, colleges,

vocational schools, tertiary schools and secondary schools (Fox, 1965; Schwartz, 1971).

Catholic priests served as heads of many of these schools but as the number of schools

increased headmasters became increasingly common, and their responsibilities generally

revolved around establishing and instilling order among teachers and students, providing

instruction and procuring resources for the school.

United States Colonization. The United States colonization saw the

institutionalization of a highly centralized and bureaucratic national education system

(Bernardo, 2004; de Guzman, 2007; King & Guerra, 2005). This era also saw a great

boom in the number of schools in the Philippines, and many were built in remote areas to

serve the population as a whole. The language of instruction shifted from Spanish to

English and a new emphasis on efficiency emerged (Bernardo, 2004). This approach to

efficiency was embodied in the principal, whose chief concern during this time was

seeing that the curriculum was faithfully implemented and that hierarchies of decision

making were strictly observed.

Independence and the Republic of the Philippines. The Philippines became an

independent Republic in 1947, which brought about a shift away from the extreme

centralization the country experienced during US occupation. Though the government

Sutherland & Brooks 4

established a national curriculum and a regional system of education that created school

divisions, the period is characterized by increasing decentralization. This decentralization

was accelerated in the last decade of the 20th century, as shown by research that school

leaders increasingly took on responsibilities that had before been centralized above their

positions at the district, division or national levels: Instruction time, designing programs

of study, defining course content, choosing textbooks, teaching methods, mode of

grouping students, support activities for students, creation/abolition of grades, setting

qualifying exams, methods for assessing students’ regular work, hiring teachers, fixing

teacher salaries, and use in school for capital expenditures( de Guzman, 2007; King and

Guerra, 2005). Given these shifts in education over time as an historical backdrop, it is

important to also consider how the contemporary position of the school principal is

shaped by contemporary educational policy.

Educational Policy and The Principalship in the Philippines

In the early 1990s, the Philippine School System became one of the world’s

largest, and it continues to provide instruction to a great number of students. According to

de Guzman (2006), “The Congressional Commission on Education Study…disclosed that

enrolment at all levels was 16.5 million as of 1991. Recent statistics from the Department

of Education (DepEd) alone reveals that as of Curriculum Year 2003–2004, the combined

enrolment size in the basic education is 19,252,557 (DepEd Fact Sheet, 2005) implying a

dramatic increase in and demand for education in the country” (p. 56). Until 2011, the

structure of the Philippine public educational system was six years of elementary school,

followed by four years of secondary education. Schools are organized into 17 School

Divisions, each of which is comprised of several School Districts. This organizational

Sutherland & Brooks 5

scheme provides a clear chain of authority and regulation of approximately 42,000 public

elementary and secondary schools” (DepEd Fact Sheet, 2005). Recently, the government

approved adding grades increasing the public education by two years or grade levels to a

K-12 system (Republic of the Philippines, 2012), further taxing a system with limited

educational and human resources in relation to the growing demand.

In the Philippines, federal educational policy provides guidance for the way

people become principals, and it also frames the basic functions of the position in the

overall context of Philippine education. The most important contemporary policy

document that frames the principalship is Republic Act 9155, titled, “An Act Institutiting

a Frame Work of Governance For Basic Education, Establishing Authority And

Accountability, Renaming The Department Of Education, Culture, and Sports As The

Department Of Education, And For Other Purposes.” (Republic of the Philippines, 2011).

De Guzman and Guillermo (2007) paraphrase Republic Act 9155 (RA 9155) in

explaining the basic role and functions of school principals (and school superintendents)

in the Philippines:

“Schools are either state-run or privately owned stock or non-stock institutions. In

the case of public elementary and secondary schools, the following provisions

govern the selection of a school principal, to wit: The school shall be the focal

point and center of formal education. The class is where the teaching learning

process shall take place and should be managed efficiently and effectively. For

the purpose, the schools division superintendent shall appoint a school principal

for every complete public elementary and public high school or a cluster thereof,

in accordance with existing Civil Service rules and regulations. The school
Sutherland & Brooks 6

principal shall function both as an instructional leader and administrative manager

to ensure that goals for quality education are met and shall be assisted by an office

staff for administrative and fiscal services” (p. 217).

The authors see RA 9155 as an alignment of federal law to some current global trends

related to the principalship in that it suggests a leadership role rather than one solely

focused on administration or management. That said, they also note that the policy

frames the work of the school principal in a distinctly Anglo-Western perspective. This is

problematic for many cultural and logistical reasons. In the Philippine context, some of

the idealized notions upon which policies rest are in fact not the way education is

practiced in developing countries, where principals do not often follow a rational-linear

path to the position and there is no requirement that they have experience as a teacher,

thereby limiting their potential as instructional leaders (English, 1994, 2002). As the

authors note, “many of them have never been in a classroom, and their appointment is the

result of political intervention” (de Guzman & Guillermo, 2007, p. 217).

Yet despite a lack of required, formal preparation demands on the position have

increased in recent years:

“the role of a principal has evolved from managerial to leadership functions.

Today, the principal is viewed as a leader charged with the function of initiating

change by raising the level of expectations for both teachers and students

(Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2004); developing a caring community in the school

(Sergiovanni, 1999); exercising effective instructional leadership (Gurr, Drysdale,

& Mulford, 2006; Schutte & Hackmann, 2006), site based decision-making

(Whitaker, 2003); and spending more time with parents and community (Kochan,
Sutherland & Brooks 7

Spencer, Matthews, 2000), among others. These roles have situated the principal

in a context where his capability and cope-ability skills are tested.

Accordingly, the governance scheme provides a certain amount of professional

development at the School Division Level, usually offered in the form of regularly-

offered Management Communication (MANCOM) Meetings. These meetings vary with

respect to the content and quality of professional development on offer. At times, they

emphasize relevant skills related to the evolving principal role in the conceptual, human

and technical domains (Northouse, 2012).

Interestingly, the Filipino context places special importance on developing skills

as a listener, with respect to relationship building with internal and external school

community members. “Listening is a skill that principals need to nurture. This skill

makes the principal’s decisions needs-based. As a skill to be practiced by principals,

listening is a two-way endeavor that makes a school a caring community” (de Guzman &

Guillermo, 2007, p. 221). Further, the authors noted that the

“principal works neither in a vacuum nor in isolation. To find meaning in one’s

leadership work is to recognize the presence of the outside world…This

awareness enables the principal to evidence a high degree of sensitivity to and

sensibility of the needs, problems and concerns of both students and parents.

Today, more than ever, the boundary-spanning functions of the principal cannot

be overlooked (Whitaker, 2003). As the school becomes more and more

permeable, there is a need for school principals to see parents and students as

effective conduits of needs-based planning and as responsive partners in

participative decision-making. Parents and students as principal’s co-creators

Sutherland & Brooks 8

make the school vision a shared vision. In today’s era where school proliferation

and competition exist, parents and students are the most potent communicators of

the school’s vision and philosophy” (de Guzman & Guillermo, 2007, p. 221-222).

Yet, without an understanding of the cultural dynamics that provide both a pretext and

context for leadership practice, educational policies and planned professional

development cannot positively influence the lives of students and the work world of

educators.

Cultural Dynamics

Dimmock and Walker (2005) argued for the importance of understanding the

contexts and cultures in which leadership is nested. One must understand not only the

culture of the organization(s) in which leadership happens but also the norms, values and

institutions of the people beyond the schoolhouse. As educational leadership is an applied

field, the dual aim of cultural analysis in education is to help deepen understanding to

make inquiry relevant to practice. The connections, interactions, and reciprocal influence

that exist between leadership and culture can lead to an improvement in the development

and practice of leaders. Recognizing that culture is complex and ever changing, we do not

attempt here to present a holistic perspective of school leadership as it occurs in Filipino

culture, but rather a selective perspective based on particular dynamics related to kinship.

Cultures are defined by the shared values and social structures that distinguish one

group of people from another, but there is also great variety among subcultures in the

larger group (Brooks & Normore, 2010; Dimmock & Walker, 2005). Some value more

formal bureaucratic structures to exert influence to get things done, while others prioritize

relationships. Philippine culture is identified as collectivist (Hofstede, Hofstede, &

Sutherland & Brooks 9

Minkov, 2010), and the Filipino workplace has been described as familial (Restubog &

Bordia, 2006). One’s relationship to other individuals and groups and a commitment to

serving group needs takes precedence over one’s self (Walker & Dimmock, 2002).

Maintaining Smooth Interpersonal Relationship (SIR) is a priority (Vasquez, Keltner,

Ebenbach, & Banaszynski, 2001; Restubog & Bordia, 2006).

If leadership is defined as the art and science of influencing a group toward the

attainment of shared goals, then it follows that effective school leaders understand and

utilize the structures through which power and influence are distributed and activated in a

specific culture. The Philippines is described as a large power-distance culture, where

the relationship between subordinates and superiors is emotional in nature. Power and

influence are held by a few, not widely distributed (Hofstede, et al., 2010). Thus, the

familial relationship systems, or kinship systems, are the culturally specific structures

through which power and influence are activated (Restubog & Bordia, 2006). In the

subsequent section we turn our attention towards how the relationship and power

dynamics interact in the Filipino concept of kinship, and what that looks like for a school

principal.

Leadership and Filipino Kinship

Although kinship systems in the Philippines can vary depending on region (Eggen,

1941; Jocano, 1968), kinship is the nucleus of the Filipino social organization and is

integral to the Filipino concept of self and the way individuals interact with others

(Jocano, 2001). The core Filipino value, kapwa, means the “unity or oneness of a person

with other people” (David, 2011, p. 130). Kapwa establishes the way one relates to

another (pakikikapwa), and the norms for maintaining good relationships

Sutherland & Brooks 10

(pakikisama)(Jocano, 2001; Vasquez, et al., 2001). The manner in which people

exercise pakikikapwa and pakikisama through kinship can be biological, ritual, or fictive.

Biological kinship is the established by the Filipino concept of dugo, or blood. Nasa dugo,

meaning “in the blood” (Jocano, 2001, p. 68), refers to inherited characteristics and

relational bonds of biological kinship. The biological form of kinship is the strongest

basis for leveraging influence, especially in community and political leadership.

Filipinos believe that blood is thicker than anything. The moment a man runs for

public office, his relatives will compaign [sic] and vote for him. The

qualifications and the personality of the man are disregarded. What is important

is that he is a relative (Andres, 1989, p. 43).

Ritual kinship in the Philippines includes the popular culture Catholic imposed

Campradrazgo system (Jocano, 1968, Hofstede, et al., 2010), which identifies kin in

godparents in the Catholic tradition, and even blood-brother rituals in the indigenous

context. Fictive kinship often revolves around the barkada, or “gang of friends” —

people who develop a strong bond, much like that of a second family, though they are not

related by blood. The barkada is the group with whom one does business and generally

looks out for. As Hofstede and colleagues (2010) state, “Collectivist societies usually

have ways of creating family-like ties with persons who are not biological relatives but

who are socially integrated into one’s in-group” (p. 111). Thus, the Filipino organization,

such as the school, takes on familial dynamics (Restubog & Bordia, 2006).

Schools and the communities in which they operate are dependent on fictive

kinship systems with the principal serving as a patriarch or matriarch. The principal has

control of elements of schooling like enrollment, the release of records and report cards,
Sutherland & Brooks 11

and influence over teacher job placement and promotion. Through these and other areas

of control, the principal’s influence reaches into the community where the school is

situated. For example, a principal may use the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) to raise

funds from the parent community. The PTA leadership may enjoy a close connection to

the principal, and an increased capacity for influencing practice. In turn, out of expected

loyalty, the PTA works hard to use their community connections to motivate parents to

contribute to the principal’s fund raising efforts. Another example is that in order to

secure a job or a promotion a teacher may need to give their first month’s salary to the

principal (Chua, 1999). That act both buys favor, and establishes a relationship between

the principal and teacher.

Ritual and fictive kinship depend on actors establishing patron-client relationships

(Wong, 2010). The patron-client relationships allow actors to construct meaning, provide

access to power and influence, and create opportunity for both the patron and client. This

power and relationship structure in Filipino culture is called the padrino system. Padrino

is the Spanish equivalent to the Filipino words ninong/ninang (godfather/godmother) and

kumpadre/kumadre (co-father/mother), and refers to the patron who may be a family,

school, or community leader. In order to build influence and authority, leaders must

develop and nurture loyalty in a network of ritual or social relations. The patron-client

relationships often form through acts of favor, which result in the clients owing debts of

gratitude, called utang na loob, to the patron. Debts of gratitude lead to loyalty and social

capital, which can be leveraged for political, material, and social opportunities. The

benefit to the client depends on how close the client is to the patron in the kinship
Sutherland & Brooks 12

network. The stronger the relationship, the closer the client is to the patron, the greater

opportunity the client has to leverage the patron’s influence (Wong, 2010).

In schools, parents and teachers work hard to establish patron-client relationships

with principals to gain opportunity and favor. The strength of the symbiotic relationships

within the kinship structures determines how much power and influence leaders have.

However, the relational prioritization does not always lead to ethical leadership. We now

explore how the prioritization of relationship in kinship systems can be used in positive

and negative ways in schools and communities.

Prioritizing Relationships

Filipino kinship systems can exploit power and influence in both constructive and

destructive ways depending on how leaders use relationships to exert influence. Positive

expressions of influence within Filipino kinship include the kapwa norm pakikiramay, “to

empathize with others in time of crisis” (Jocano, p.91). The empathy can be expressed

thorugh bayanihan, meaning working together. Bayanihan represents Filipino

camaraderie, helping those in need, and the positive sense of community.

Etymologically speaking, bayanihan comes from the Tagalog word bayani

which means “hero.” For Filipinos, bayanihan is a multi-facted concept that

means unity of objective, brotherhood, developing of everyone, devoted and

wholehearted work, recognizing the strong ones and strengthening the weak

ones, and love and loyalty.… manifested symbolically in community

participation when one member moves his nipa and bamboo house from one

place to another. It describes the willingness of every Filipino to offer a

Sutherland & Brooks 13

shoulder to help ease the load or burden of kababayan or fellow Filipino under

any circumstance (Andres, 1989, p. 116).

The power dynamics of Filipino kinship can also be destructive. Corruption is a

fact of life in the public and private sectors in the Philippines, even reaching the top

leadership in the country. Two recent presidents of the Philippines, President Estrada

(Gonzales, 2000; Republic of the Philippines, 2001) and President Arroyo (Republic of

the Philippines, 2008), have been tried for corruption. Recently, the Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court was impeached on grounds of corruption (Republic of the Philippines,

2012).

Corruption is also rampant in Philippine public education. The Department of

Education is considered one of the most corrupt branches of government (Chua, 1999).

Procurement contracts are given to friends and syndicates to which educational leaders

are connected. Securing a job, promotion, or transfer “For most teachers, it was, indeed,

whom they knew and who recommended them that mattered” (p. 80). Often much less

qualified teachers see career advancement due to connections, leaving other qualified

teachers powerless. Chua (1999) argues that corruption is a result of Filipino values that

are distorted and used as an excuse, and that corruption is a “leadership problem” (p. 8)

that reaches back to the Spanish colonial period.

If corruption flourishes at DECS, it is also partly due to the culture of

subservience so pervasive among its employees, especially teachers. Since the

Spanish times, the maestras have been conditioned to be meek and obedient.

They are also tyrannized by the fear that their superiors can make life difficult

for them, as indeed some have” (pp. 8-9).

Sutherland & Brooks 14

The Filipino leadership concept makes its full circle before colonial influence.

McClintock (1992) argues that post colonial influence is usually mistakenly measured on

a temporal axis, rather than an axis of power and influence. We see the Filipino kinship

system has operated as a cultural mainstay, in spite of the ongoing and overlying

influence of colonial power.

Summary and Conclusion

In the Philippines, the principal works in a complicated and interconnected

historical, policy and cultural milieu. Leadership in the Philippines originated in the

context of the village community, and continues to operate with community and familial

dynamics as leaders, administrators and managers conduct their work in formal

educational organizations. The country has experienced historical periods of pre-colonial,

colonial and post-colonial influence that initially created highly centralized policy

frameworks and leadership models but have more recently given way to more

decentralized practices that are in-keeping with worldwide leadership trends. Yet, while

the Philippines has adopted some more modern ways of thinking about the principalship,

there is a tension in that in order to be culturally relevant, these ideas must be interpreted

in relation to how leadership actually occurs in Filipino culture. Leadership operates most

effectively in Filipino culture through relationships and kinship networks. Effective

school leaders utilize kinship dynamics and networks to leverage influence in the schools

and communities where they work. The relationship prioritization of leadership can lead

result in positive community building or corruption, both of which are tolerated for the

sake of smooth interpersonal relations.

Sutherland & Brooks 15

The preparation and professional development of principals in the Philippines

continues to evolve. As we consider the deep history and complicated context in which

principals work, we offered three ways that characterize the development and practice of

effective school leaders.. First, the development and practice of school leaders in the

Philippines includes a deep understanding of historical and cultural influences on Filipino

leadership in practice. This will mean a meaningful and respectful integration of local

traditions and indigenous ways of knowing with Western ideas and innovations. Rather

than accepting concepts from the West, the Philippines will best be served by developing

indigenous forms of educational leadership that are informed by external ideas but rooted

in Filipino values. Second, the practice and development of school leaders in the

Philippines engages the unique gaps between theory, policy, and practice. Unfortunately,

there is little research that examines the principalship from a critical perspective or that

looks at the complicated intersections of these dynamic aspects of their practice. Finally,

the development of school leaders and practice of leadership in the Philippines has a

strong emphasis on ethical leadership. This is critical as leaders are to stand up to cultural

dynamics manifest as corruption and nepotism. Ultimately, though, we recognize that

there is much good work happening in the Philippines and that for real and substantive

change is to take place, it should be led and developed by Filipino leaders and with a

sensitivity to the unique challenges and opportunities that face school principals in the

Philippines.

References

Arcilla, J. S. (1999). An introduction to Philippine history. Manila: Ateneo de Manila

University Press.
Sutherland & Brooks 16

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2004). McKinley’s questionable bequest: Over 100 years of English

in Philippine education. World Englishes, 23(1), 17-31.

Counts, G. S. (1925). Education in the Philippines. The Elementary School Journal. 26,

2, 94-106.

David, E. J. R. (2011). Filipino-/American postcolonial psychology. Bloomington, IN:

AuthorHouse.

De Guzman, A. B. (2006). Reforms in Philippine basic education viewed from key

elements of successful School-Based Management (SBM) schools. Educational

Research for Policy and Practice, 5, 55-71.

De Guzman, A. B. (2007). The serendipity of principalship: Meaning making of a

Filipino secondary school principal. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(2), 216-223.

De Guzman, A. B. & Guillermo, M. L. T. L. (2007). The serendipity of principalship:

Meaning-making of a Filipino secondary school principal. Asia Pacific

Education Review, 8(2), 216-223.

English, F. W. (2002). The point of scientificity, the fall of the epistemological dominos,

and the end of the field of educational administration. Studies in Philosophy and

Education, 21(2), 109−136.

English, F. W. (1994). Theory in educational administration. New York: Harper Collins.

Fox, H. F. (1965). Primary education in the Philippines: 1565-1863. Philippine Studies.

13(2), 207-231.

Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., & Mulford, B. (2006). Models of successful principal leadership.

School Leadership and Management, 26 (4), 371-395.

Jocano, F. L. (1998). Filipino indigenous ethnic communities: Patters, variations, and

Sutherland & Brooks 17

typologies.

King, E. M., & Guerra, S. C. (2005). Education reforms in East Asia: Policy, process, and

impact. In East Asia decentralizes: Making local government work, 179-208.

Washington D.C.: World Bank Publications.

Kochan, F., Spenser, W., & Matthews, J. (2000). Gender-based perceptions of the

challenges, changes, and essential skills of the principals. Journal of School

Leadership, 10 (4), 290-310.

Majul, C. A. (1999). Muslims in the Philippines. Manila: University of the Philippines

Press.

Northouse, P. G. (2001). Leadership theory and practice, 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines (2011). Republic act number 9155: An act instituting a frame

work of governance for basic education, establishing authority and accountability,

renaming the department of education, culture, and sports as the department of

education, and for other purposes. Downloaded from

http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2001/ra_9155_2001.html

Republic of the Philippines (2012). Republic act number 10533: An act enhancing the

Philippine basic education system by strengthening its curriculum and increasing

the number of years for basic education, appropriating funds therefor and for

other purposes. Downloaded from http://www.gov.ph/2013/05/15/republic-act-

no-10533/

Schwartz, K. (1971). Filipino education and Spanish colonialism: Toward and

autonomous perspective. Comparative Education Review, 15(2), 202-218.

 Sutherland & Brooks 18

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

Magazine, 7 (1), 11-15.

Shukla, S. (1996). From pre-colonial to post-colonial: Educational transitions in Southern

Asia. Economic and Political Weekly, 31(22), 1344-1349.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2004). Principals’ sense of efficacy: Assessing a

promising construct. Journal of Educational Administration, 42 (5), 573-585.

Whitaker, K. S. (2003). Principal role changes and influence on principal recruitment and

selection: An international perspective. Journal of Educational Administration, 41

(1), 37-54.

View publication stats