1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Rationale

Institutional productivity problems are caused by several factors controllable

by school (Hadderman, 2015). One major reason for the lack of improvement in

schools is that administrators and teachers do not respond and implement well the

change strategies designed by distant authorities (Fullan, 2009; Marzano, 2009). It is

very much affected by the unstable governance (Halverson, 2005; Timperley, 2008),

lack of incentives to leverage productivity improvement (Marzano, 2009; Pfefferand

Sutton, 2006), structures favoring continuity over continuous improvement and

inadequate quality controls on innovations and proper use of students’ time (Barber

andMourshed, 2009). Thus, only few school heads in the world are able to bring high

academic result of their school productivity (Barbutoand Wheeler, 2006; Chenowith,

2007; Yukl, 2006). It is constantly deteriorating inspite of the professional

development plans of the Department of Education (Lapus, 2009).

Institutional productivity matters a lot in producing high achievement in its

pupils (Barber andMourshed, 2009; Chenowith, 2007; Hoxby, 2003). It gives schools

greater incentives to be more productive because parents tend to choose educational

institution that could raise students’ achievement. Moreover, it is of great advantage

to the industry and its growth where human capital has intensively built on it (Liu,

2008; Zaccaro, 2007). Administrators who are actually pursuing to raise school’s
 2

productivity induce productive staff and programs and allocate resources toward

achievement-oriented ones to make the school more efficient (Hoxby, 2003;

Leithwood and Jantzi, 2010).

Cognizant of the importance of studies on institutional productivity, the

researcher made an extensive review of literature for possible variables associated

with it. Transcendental leadership of school heads was the first variable considered

to be relevant. It plays an important factor in the productivity of the organization

(Fullan, 2009; Kishore and Nair, 2013; Labby, 2010; Smith, 2003). Transcendental

leadership uses values, attitudes, and behaviors to intrinsically motivate followers,

thus increase followers’ senses of spiritual survival, and membership resulting to

positive organizational outcomes (Ladd and Zelli, 2005; Liu, 2007; Smith, Guarino,

Strom, Reed and Adams, 2003).

Another variable that caught the attention of the researcher is accountability

climate. It is used to describe the process of proving that something has been done

or achieved to improve quality or performance (Cardona, 2000; Fullan, 2010;

Hopkins, 2007; Marley, 2009; Perry and McWilliam, 2007). However, the researcher

would like to know how accountability climate mediate the effect of transcendental

leadership on institutional productivity.

It is on the above context that the researcher took interest to examine if

accountability climate will mediate the relationship between transcendental

leadership and institutional productivity; hence, making this study a generation of

new knowledge that can give specific contribution to the field of education.
 3

Research Objectives

The main thrust of this study was to find out the mediating effect of

accountability climate on the relationship between transcendental leadership of

school heads and institutional productivity of public elementary schools in Davao

Region.

Specifically, the following objectives were formulated:

1. To describe the level of transcendental leadership of school heads in terms of:

1.1 wisdom;

1.2 humanity;

1.3 courage and

1.4 resilience.

2.To ascertain the level of institutional productivity of public elementary schools in

terms of:

2.1instructional program;

2.2 learning community;

2.3 learning climate;

2.4 organizational structure and

2.5 leadership.

3. To measure the level of accountability climate of school heads

4. To determine the significance of the relationship between:

4.1 transcendental leadership and institutional productivity;

4.2 transcendental leadership and accountability climate; and

 4

4.3 accountability climate and institutional productivity.

5. To determine the significance of mediation of accountability climate on the

relationship between transcendental leadership and institutional productivity.

Hypothesis

The following null hypotheses were formulated and tested at 0.05 level of

significance:

1. There are no significant relationships among transcendental leadership,

institutional productivity and accountability climate.

2. Accountability climate has no significant mediating effect on the relationship

between transcendental leadership of school heads and institutional productivity.

Review of Related Literature

Several approaches, point of views, theories, findings from researches and

publications, and valuable insights from different authors relevant to related topics of

the study are presented in this section that provides substantive proof to clearly

support the research objectives which is essential for the manifestation of

understanding in the study.The independent variable is transcendental leadership

with the indicators such as wisdom, humanity, courage and resilience (Kishore and

Nair, 2013). The dependent variable is institutional productivity with the indicators

such as instructional program, learning community, learning climate, organizational

structure and leadership (Salisbury, 2000). The mediating variable is accountability

climate (Rechebei, 2010).

 5

TranscendentalLeadership

There is a plethora of research that generated new ideas on leadership (Bush, 2013;

Chenowith, 2007; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May and Walumbwa, 2005; Hoxby,

2003; Rojas, 2012). In an increasingly global and complex world, effective

leadership is deemed important to answer issues on organizational failures.

Researchers have suggested many leadership theories that ensure global

sustainability along with employee engagement and profitability (Jue, 2004; Yukl,

2006). Though there is no one best leadership style applicable in certain situation

(B.M.Bass and R. Bass, 2008; Ilies, Judge and Wagner, 2006; Marshall, 2012), one

of the most successful leadership styles is transcendental leadership (Kishoreand

Nair, 2013;Liu, 2008; Teegarden, 2006; Zaccaro, 2007).

Transcendental leadership is a balanced (Avolio, 2005;Dhiman, 2007;Liu,

2008), conscious and inspired leadership that transcends self-interest and social

conformity to create a climate for creativity and innovation (Boney, 2009). As a

balanced leadership, it is concerned on the welfare of everyone that transcends

his/her organization. Conscious leadership is a leadership of self that includes self-

awareness, self-regulation as well as character strengths and virtues (Fry and

Matherly, 2015;Lowder, 2011; Marti, Gil and Barrasa,2009). Inspired leadership is

leading others through modeling and developing positive leadership behaviors

(Kishore and Nair, 2013).

Furthermore, transcendental leadership is described as a special leadership

wherein leaders transcended self into compassionate being and action (Ilies et al,
 6

2006; Kishore and Nair, 2013; Marti et al, 2009). In like manner, Gehrke (2008)

opines that transcendental leadership begins with leadership of self and ends in

contribution to the greater community. This offers a platform for an enriching and

collaborative human experience inorganizational dynamics (Harung, Travis, Blank

and Heaton, 2009; Liu, 2008; Sanders, Hopkins and Geroy, 2003).

While other styles ofleadership focus on money, people and process,

transcendental leadership initiates planet as a conceptthat needs attention (Ali, 2012;

Gehrke, 2008; Marshall, 2012).Boney (2009) stated that it is the leadership of making

a difference for the welfare of all.To measure this construct includes demonstrated

strengths in four meta-factor categories: humanity (social strengths), courage

(instinctual strengths), wisdom (cognitive strengths), and resilience (philosophical

strengths).

The first indicator is wisdom. It refers to setting clear priorities (Kishore and

Nair, 2013).It can be observed in the character strengths of creativity, curiosity, open‐

mindedness, love of learning, and perspective (Gabriel and George, 2015; Mazutis,

Morris and Olsen, 2011; Peterson and Seligman, 2014). It is required for great

leadership to happen (B.M. Bass and R. Bass, 2008; Dotlich, 2006; Jones, Harris

and Santana, 2008) because leaders play vital roles in determining the fate of their

organizations and create many organizational outcomes using their decision-making

power (Drucker, 1967; Holland, 2005; Hopkins, 2007; Tehubijuluw, 2014).

Moreover, effective school heads complete work efficiently in carrying out

responsibilities such as being sensible in the allocation of resources, when to take

actions appropriately and when to respond instead of reacting. In reaching

 7

conclusions, a leader considers factual analysis of situation (Dotlich, 2006; Kumar

and Pragadeeswaran, 2012). School heads of great wisdom display a calm

disposition under stress to appropriately solve problems about the organization and

apply appropriate rationale to make decisions. They display good judgment in

analyzing the facts that can create good relationship with the teachers. Hence,

PerryandMcWilliam (2007) found out that effective school leaders are those who

have clear clarity of priorities and application of the same under any circumstances.

The second indicator is humanity. It refers to the complete lack of ego in

pursuing common goals and the ability to put others’ interest over one’s (Kishore and

Nair, 2013).The virtue of humanity can be observed in the character strengths of

love, kindness and social intelligence (Mazutis et al, 2011; Peterson and Seligman

2014).Gandz, Crossan, Seijts and Stephenson(2010)stated that good leaders will be

committed to the good of the organization they serve and the people who follow them

rather than solely to their own self‐benefit.

Transcendental leadership style utilized by school leaders affects teachers’

performance (B.M. Bass and R. Bass, 2008; Gehrke, 2008; Jue, 2004; Lowder,

2011).Commitment to job can be carried out given the proper motivation and

inspiration to work despite all odds in the working environment (Baguio, 2012;

Bennis, 2007; Harris, 2014; Harung et al, 2009).Tehubijuluw (2014) believed that the

role of the transcendental leader is needed to assist in achieving the workers’

happiness and satisfaction with their jobs (Dhiman, 2007; Jones et al, 2008; Liu,

2008) and in the same time helping the organization to achieve its objectives and

allow employees to flourish within the organization (Dotlich, 2006; Marti et al, 2009).
 8

The leaders will help the workers maintain their hope during hard times of their work

and provide services to the clienteles with high spirit (Ali, 2012;C. Heath and D.

Heath, 2010; Nielsen, Randall, Yarker and Brenner, 2008; Nordin, 2009; Weisberg,

Sexton, Mulhern and Keeling, 2009).

In addition, effective leaders display a modest assessment of own importance.

They are genuine who they claim to be. Rubin, Munz and Bommer (2005) opine that

a transcendent leader sees others as legitimately valuable despite differences and

behaves appropriately to the situation. Moreover, Dhiman (2011) found that school

heads should know how to consider the feelings of their subordinates. This implies

that a transcendent leader shows consideration toward others consistently, displays

sincere concern for the feelings of others, expresses thanks for the efforts of others

and demonstrates a spirit of benevolence toward others.

Consequently, the school management should try its best to address the

intrinsic needs of the subordinates (Dhiman, 2007; Jue, 2004; Liu, 2008) and strive to

improve its leadership strategy to enhance the harmonious relationship by being

kind, considerate (Ali, 2012; Harris, 2014) and sensitive to the weaknesses and

strengths of the subordinates (Gehrke, 2008; Marshall, 2012; Sanders et al, 2003).

Monitoring each of the teachers’ needs must be done regularly in order to solicit their

suggestions and recommendations (Lowder, 2011) so that they are greatly motivated

to give their best in doing the daily tasks (Baguio, 2012; Bennis, 2007; Tehubijuluw,

2014).

The third indicator is courage. It refers to the ability to take accountability and

action for all credits and debit(Kishore and Nair, 2013).Its virtue can be observed in
 9

the character strengths of bravery, persistence, integrity, and vitality (Mazutis et al,

2011; Peterson and Seligman, 2014).

Courage must be a part of the leadership practice. Successful school leaders

show great determination, with the willpower and patience to see things through

(Fryer, 2011; Jones et al, 2008; Tucker, 2011). They are willing to take risks and are

steadfast in challenging under-performance or poor behavior (Ali, 2012; Bennis,

2007; Heaton and Schmidt-Wilk, 2008). A common requirement of leaders at all

levels is having the courage to make tough decisionsand take difficult actions (Burke

and Cooper, 2009; Pfefferand Sutton, 2006; Teegarden, 2006).

Accordingly, great leaders courageously accept responsibility (Jue, 2004;

Yukl, 2006; Zaccaro, 2007), implement change (Gehrke, 2008; Marshall, 2012;

Teegarden, 2006), use standards in hiring, keep everyone focused on what’s

important, communicate for understanding, coach others, address conflict, keep

focus on the positive, and instill culture of ethics and integrity (B.M. Bass and R.

Bass, 2008; Hoxby, 2003; Jones et al, 2008; Pfeffer and Sutton, 2006).

Based on the pronouncement of Pfefferand Sutton (2006), accepting

responsibility for all the actions of schools from students to teachers when an

unfortunate event happens under hisleadershipis a strong, long-term strategy.

Courage comes from being able to convince others to move beyond their own

comfort zones to stretch toward new horizons to implement change.

Moreover, courageous school leaders fight to keep the focus on what’s

important that is, the learning of students (Bennis, 2007; Dotlich, 2006; Holland,

2005; Ilies et al, 2006; Jandaghi, Matin and Farjami, 2009). Leaders make sure that
 10

communication is clear, concise and on-point. School leaders have a responsibility of

coaching those within their schools or districts (Dhiman, 2007; Liu, 2008; Ali,

2012;Lowder, 2011). This means setting aside the title of being a boss (Burke and

Cooper, 2009; Pfeffer and Sutton, 2006)and inspiring those within to reach for higher

levels of performance and providing them with the direction to do just that (Goker,

2006; Pink, 2011; Tucker, 2011).School leaders foster positive belief on teamwork

and work diligently to foster ethics and integrity in their schools or districts

(Teegarden, 2006).

Align to the pronouncement of Burke and Cooper (2009),the school head must

take action quickly in matters of importance and is firm with regard to taking action.

His study observed that school heads have demonstrated the ability to make the

tough decisions to advance objectives. Leaders should be persistent in the pursuit of

stated objectives and shows equitable regard for circumstantial evidence.

Consequently, school heads make morally sound decisions and serve as respectable

example.

The fourth indicator is resilience. It refers to the ability to adapt and act in

response to a dynamic environment (Kishore and Nair, 2013).It is a set of dimensions

that relate to a global leader’s ability to cope with the highly stressful challenges of

leading across multiple time zones (Yukl, 2006), large distance, myriad cultures and

widely varying international political and regulatory system (Harris, 2014; Weisberg et

al, 2009).

Successful school leaders are optimistic and resilient, remain calm in a crisis

and are energetic and positive at all times (Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber,
 11

2009;Hopkins, 2007; Stronge, Richard and Catano, 2016). Best school leaders are

visionaries with a clear sense of moral purpose. Successful leaders have great vision

that is, the ability to formulate and shape the future, rather than be shaped by events

(Bennis, 2007; Dhiman, 2011; Liu, 2008).

Further, resilient leaders embody values such as equality, honesty, loyalty and

responsibility (Hopkins, 2007), trustworthiness, integrity, accountability, credibility,

respect and fairness (Dhiman, 2007; Dhiman, 2011; Lowder, 2011) and to possess a

heightened level of moral capacity (Johnson andKardos, 2007; Stronge et al, 2016;

Teegarden, 2006). In school, administrators are committed to their goals that they

transcended the boundaries of self and their constituents; encouraging a second line

of communication within and/or outside their organizations. Commitment to the final

goal or task emerged as a very important factor of leadership (Baguio, 2012). Dotlich

(2006) noted that leaders exhibited a high clarity of the vision of the goal/task.

Resilience of school heads lead them to adapt and act in response to a

dynamic environment such as being receptive to all points of view and inquisitive

about learning new things. Leaders must adapt quickly to change as presented by

Kishore and Nair (2013). School heads who display commitment to selfless ideals

are likely to succeed as a leader. Transcendental leadership as a spiritual leadership

is believed to be more important to consider in carrying responsibilities of a leader

and to motivate others to support his/her vision. In addition, Nielsen et al (2008)

stated that resilience must be possessed by a school head to plan for the future with

foresight. Further, school heads who cannot express belief in what is possible do not
 12

tend to pioneer new ideas for positive solutions. Hence, Marques (2006) found out

that effective school leaders are those who find alternatives to optimize outcomes.

Institutional Productivity

A productive institution has the following essential traits namely: clear focus,

responsive internal and external adaptation mechanisms (Fullan, 2009; Marley, 2009;

Tehubijuluw, 2014), intrinsic and extrinsic incentives (Hadderman, 2015; Liu, 2008;

Marshall, 2012), and continuous improvement (Cooley, 2003; Goker, 2006; Hopkins,

2007; Yukl, 2006). In addition, Labby (2010) identifies five dimensions of productive

organization. Productive schools would have a clear objective function with

measurable outcomes, incentives linked to success,efficient access to information,

adaptability, and use of the most productive, cost-effective technologies.

The first indicator is instructional program.Itrefers to a replicable instructional

activity that is designed and implemented to achievean instructional goal (Ladd and

Zelli, 2005; Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom and Anderson, 2010; Smith et al, 2003).

Affective, academic, social, or physical changes in the group of learners would

determine the success of an instructional program (Hadderman, 2015; Timperley,

2008).

Every instructional program combines a curriculum component (what we

teach), and a teaching procedure (how we teach). In each instructional program the

essence of instructional accountability like program effectiveness, resides in the

relationship between the curriculum component and the teaching component

(EarleyandBubb, 2005; Marzano, 2009; Marzano, Waters and McNulty, 2005). If

 13

curriculum goals have been carefully and appropriately set for each learner, then

teaching procedures must be progressively adjusted and revised based on the extent

to which the curriculum goals have been achieved (Newmann, Smith, Allensworth

and Bryk, 2001; Saunders, Goldenberg, and Gallimore, 2009; SteneirandKowal,

2015).

The principal's role in the instructional process is very crucial in schools where

numbers of students are at-risk in making academic gains. They become servants to

their vision of success for all students (Anderson and Turnbull, 2016; Marshall,

2015). They convey this vision to teachers, students, and parents through their

actions. Principals participate in the instructional process through their discussions

with teachers about instructional issues (Corcoran, Casserly, Price-Baugh, Walston,

Hall and Simon, 2013; Halverson, 2005; Steiner andKowal, 2015), their observations

of classroom instruction (Carroll, Fulton and Doerr, 2010), and their interactions with

teachers when examining student data (Carton, 2008; Fullan, 2010; Newmann et al,

2001; Warren, 2015).

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

They communicate directly and frequently with teachers about instruction and

student needs. Moreover, these principals not only discussed academic issues, they

guided, encouraged, reinforced, and promoted teachers' instructional efforts

(Anderson and Turnbull, 2016; Corcoran et al, 2013; Saunders et al, 2009; Steiner

andKowal, 2015). Marshall (2015) found that such principals were flexible and

supportive with teachers' efforts to adapt, modify, or adjust instructional approaches

to meet the needs of students.

 14

The second indicator is learning community.Learning community shares

collective responsibility for the learning of all students within the school. Collective

responsibility brings together the entire education community, including members of

the education workforce namely teachers, support staff, administrators (Bolam,

McMahon, Stoll, Thomas and Wallace, 2005; Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu

and Easton, 2010; Fullan, 2010; Halverson, 2005) as well as families, policy makers,

and other stakeholders, to increase effective teaching in every classroom

(Hargreaves, 2007; Little, 2006, Vescio, Ross and Adams, 2008).

Moreover, collective participation advances the goals of a whole school as

well as those of individuals. Communities of caring, analytic, reflective, and inquiring

educators collaborate to learn what is necessary to increase institutional productivity

(DuFourandFullan, 2013). Learning community members strive to refine their

collaboration, communication (Duffett, Farkas, Rotherham and Silva, 2008;

DuFourandMarzano, 2011; Lieberman and Miller 2008), and relationship skills

(Halverson, 2005) to work within and across both internal and external systems to

support quality performance of school. Hence, Hargreaves (2007) added that they

develop norms of collaboration and relational trust and employ processes and

structures that unleash expertise and strengthen capacity to analyze, plan,

implement, support, and evaluate their practice.

Consequently, learning community in a successful institution entails the

mission and goals of the strategic plan that are understood and practiced. The

school’s policies, practices and development are clearly provided. Moreover, annual

reports, building and district evaluations are presented completely and accurately to
 15

stakeholders. Also, shared decision-making is practiced among students, teachers

and members of the community. School head, teachers and community

stakeholders accept shared responsibility for implementing decisions (Bryk et al,

2010).

The third indicator is learning climate. Noteworthy studies have clarified the

abstract and complexnature of the school environment. The school environment

hasoften been conceptualized as the psychosocial context in whichteachers work

and teach (Saunders et al, 2009). According toDuffett et al (2008), it is the quality of

the working environmentthat reflects the way which people interact and react, anda

measure of school characteristics that teachers, administrators, parents, and policy

makers consider to be important (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro and Lovett, 2010;

Warren, 2015). It can fosterresilience (Flores and Sta. Cruz, 2010; Springer, Ballou,

Hamilton, Lockwood, McCaffrey and Stecher, 2010)or become a risk factor in the

lives of people who workand learn within (Newmann et al, 2001). Exploring the

school environment where student and teachers engage in the last stage of learning

to teach is not onlyimportant in its own right (Gregory and Chapman, 2015), but it

may also reveal how variousschool environmental aspects influence their satisfaction

withteaching and their commitment to teaching career (Cossin and Caballero, 2013;

Hirschyand Braxton, 2006; Warren, 2015).

Likewise, learning climate can have an important influence on children’s

learning and development (Halverson, 2005; Vescio et al, 2008) as a connection to

the external environment and theplace where they spend a large share of their

day(Flores and Sta. Cruz, 2010). Pupils’ own perceptions of positive psychosocial
 16

school climates have also been associated with positive developmental outcomes

(Hirschyand Braxton, 2006), such as good mental health, and a low risk of

delinquency and truancy (Cossin and Caballero, 2013; Fullan, 2010; Gregory and

Chapman, 2015; Springer et al, 2010).

Furthermore, schools are social organization in which students, teachers,

administrators, and many kinds of service personnel occupy distinctive positions and

are expected to behave in certain ways (Warren, 2015). The relationships among

many kinds of people in schools help to run the school organization effectively

(Flores and Sta. Cruz, 2010; Fryer, 2011; Lieberman and Miller, 2008).Every

educational organization has a climate that distinguishes it from other schools and

influences behavior and feelings of teachers and students for that school (Fullan,

2010). Springer et al (2010) refers environment as aset of factors which gives each

school a personality, a spirit and a culture. Studies have found that

schoolenvironment influences student cognitive and affective outcomes and values

(Warren, 2015). Other studies also showed teacher job satisfaction is influenced by

environmental factors of school (Gempes, Bontao, Prado and Penaso, 2011; Gregory

and Chapman, 2015).

The fourth indicator is organizational structure. An organizational structure

defines the scope of acceptable behavior within an organization, its lines of authority

and accountability, and to some extent the organization's relationship with its external

environment (Carton, 2008; Fryer, 2011). More specifically, it shows the pattern or

arrangement of jobs and groups of jobs within an organization (Avolio, 2005; Hirsh

and Hord, 2008). It should be shaped and implemented for the primary purpose of
 17

facilitating the achievement of organizational goals in an efficient manner. Indeed,

having a suitable organizational structure in place (Hattie, 2009).

All sorts of different organizational structures have been proven effective in

contributing to organization’s success (Hattie, 2009; Hirsh andHord, 2008). It is

particularly important for decision-making, communication (Carroll et al, 2010; Hattie,

2009; C. Heath andD. Heath, 2010), achieving goals and results and chain of

command. In essence, organizational structure fosters teamwork, where everyone in

the department works toward a common goal (Duffett et al, 2008; Fullan, 2010; Little,

2006). Moreover, Fryer (2011) added that organizational structure enables

organizations to better manage change. Department heads and managers can meet,

outline various problem areas, and come up with a solution as a group.

In a productive school, the structures operating for administration of the school

is done appropriately. The school has clearly defined systems and structures are

operating for administration of the school. It practices effective management of

budget process and record keeping. Thus, if the school has a systematic process, all

employeesare engaged in the development of campus improvement plans that result

in improved student learning. Moreover, when all teachers are engaged in the

assessment of school programs and needs, they were more likely feel involved and

responsible in their duties and responsibilities as a catalyst of change (Yukl, 2006).

The fifth indicator is leadership.Leadership is a process by which one person

influences the thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors of others. Leaders set a direction for

their people and help them see what lies ahead (EarleyandBubb, 2005; Gray

andDensten, 2007; Hopkins, 2007; Marti et al, 2009). Leadership helps to point the
 18

team in the same direction and harness their efforts jointly (Koester, 2010).Runhaar,

Sanders and Yang (2010) cited that school heads should manage moral/ethical

dilemmas. Moreover, a good leader effectively balances time between administrative

tasks and instructional matters. As a leader, the school head supports and provides

ongoing effective professional development on planning and implementing and

focuses on needs.

The literature about leadership frequently distinguishes between managers

and leaders by stating that a manager does things right and a leader does the right

things (Dhiman, 2007; Labby, 2010; Yukl, 2006; Zaccaro, 2007). Additionally, a

leader is characterized as the vision holder, the keeper of the dream, or the person

who has a vision of the purpose of the organization (Ladd and Zelli, 2005; Marley,

2009). Bennis (2007) believes that leaders are the ones who manage the dream.

Leaders have not only a vision but the skills to communicate that vision to others and

to develop a shared covenant (Marques, 2006).

School leadership is important in improving outcomes for a school and its

students. It is important to keep in mind that while school leadership is essential and

consistent, strong leadership at the district level must not be overlooked. While

principals create conditions that encourage great teaching, superintendents can

create conditions that allow principals to become even better leaders (Louis and

Wahlstrom, 2011; Minner, 2015; Singh, 2015).

Likewise, school leaders invite and encourage others to participate in

determining and developing the vision of the school. They engage teachers, parents,

students and others to share in creating the vision. They encourage them to join in
 19

the efforts to make that vision a reality. They keep the vision in the forefront by

supporting teachers' instructional efforts and by guiding the use of data to evaluate

the progress of the school. Thus, leadership is a significant factor in facilitating

(Hopkins, 2007), improving, and promoting the academic progress of students

(Labby, 2010; Marti et al, 2009).

Accountability Climate

The term accountability is often used to describe the process of proving that

something has been done or achieved (Fullan, 2010; Hopkins, 2007; Ladd and Zelli,

2005; PerryandMcWilliam, 2007). However, this is not the entire picture and that

accountability is also a process to improve quality or performance (Barber, 2009;

Herrera 2010; Marley, 2009). Earley and Bubb (2005) highlighted five different types

namely: accountability to pupils: moral accountability, accountability to colleagues;

professional accountability, accountability to employers or political masters;

contractual accountability, accountability to the market or market accountability; and

accountability to the education system as a whole or system accountability. These

five facets of accountability can underpin an analysis of how all-through academies

effect improvement within a climate of accountability, which is the purpose of this

study.

Accountability climate in schools is not new (Fry and Matherly, 2015; Goker,

2006; Tehubijuluw, 2014). School heads have long been accountablefor following

the prescribed curriculum, for maintaining good order in theirclassroom (Chenowith,

2007;Gray and Densten, 2007; Labby, 2010; Liu, 2008; Rojas, 2012; Teegarden,
 20

2006), and for carrying out various duties that include but extend beyondclassroom

teaching (Halverson, 2005; Macaulay, 2008). Until quite recent times, teachers were

also accountable for theirpersonal presentation and behavior to a degree that was

arguably far more rigid than the variousdress and ethical behavior codes that exist

today (Gonzales and Firestone, 2013; Halverson, 2005; Hogdson, 2010; Samuels,

2008; Williams, 2008).

Consequently, Sun (2011) noted that accountability has become a

cornerstone of public sector reformin many countries. O’Donnell and White

(2005)stated that producers should be held accountable for the outcomes

theygenerate. Thus, teachers and schools that are trusted with the imperative task of

teachingand instructing children should be held accountable for students’ outcomes

and holdingteachers and schools responsible for results intends to improve

performance and identifyunderperforming schools for remediation (Cooley, 2003;

Halverson, 2005; Hogdson, 2010; Hogdson, 2011; Hurt, 2008).

Accountability is concerned withresponsibility and acknowledging the

responsibility in some public form by demonstratingsuccess or acknowledges failure

in some way which is publicly meaningful (Koester, 2010). Accountability is, thus, a

demand for efficiency, effectiveness and being held responsible for failure to meet

theexpectations of those who entrusted duties to you. Through its curriculum, the

school has anobligation to educate the people of the society to cultivate in the

learners certainknowledge, skills, potentials and attitudes which will enable them to

confer the expectedbenefits to society (Halverson, 2005; Hogdson, 2010; Macaulay,

2008). The school therefore should be answerable tothe community for performing
 21

duties as expected and be held responsible for failure to meetthe expectations

(Rechebei, 2010).

Moreover, school principals are now under constant pressure toprovide an

account of all school policies and practices to anyone and everyone:governments,

boards, staff, parents current and potential, student guilds, communitygroups and the

like (Barber, 2009; Herrera, 2010; Perry andMcWilliam, 2007; Sun, 2011). It requires

a whole new managerial style from principals, a newattentional economy (Valenti,

2010) in which schools must be seen to perform ways that are measurable and thus

are rendered visible to all (Tehubijuluw, 2014). The so-called accountability climate of

schoolprincipals which are derived from pre-determined outcomes often set by

externalagencies such as governments.Strathern (2009) noted that it is our

contention thatresponsibility includes the idea of accountability but also transcends it.

Furthermore, schools are complex organizations that require leaders to make

choices andselections from many possible representations. These choices are made

within theconstraints and possibilities of the political and social environment in which

theschool operates. They are informed by the priorities, constraints and climate set

bythe policy environment (Williams, 2008) both internal and external to the school

(Macaulay, 2008).

In addition, school leaders have responsibilities that go beyond formal

accountability climate. Suchresponsibilities include ensuring that the values,

philosophies and principles articulated in mission statements, strategic plans, and

curriculum and pedagogyframeworks are enacted in the day-to-day reality of

schooling practices.As school leaders are required to become more risk-conscious

 22

and moreperformance-driven, opportunities for engagement with principles and

values suchas social justice and equity are diminished (Hodgson, 2010; Hodgson,

2011; Jue, 2004; Liu, 2008).

Correlation between Variables

Transcendental leadership is a powerful predictor of school productivity. Leader

character and integrity provide a foundation of personal characteristics that guide a

leader’s beliefs, decisions and actions (Bolam et al, 2005; Jue, 2004; Teegarden,

2006). Effective leadership builds and sustains an organizational culture that focuses

on continual improvement of educational programs, teachers’ capabilities and skills,

and student learning (Gehrke, 2008; Marti et al, 2009; Yukl, 2006). The head’s vision,

inspiration, initiative and management expressed in the content of the ethos and

philosophy of the school will create a climate which enables each and every member

of the school community to flourish (Dotlich, 2006;Hadderman, 2015; Lowder, 2011).

Consequently, leaders make cultures and their fundamental role in affecting

others. In other words, transcendental leaders try to make changes that increase

organizational efficiency and performance.School leaders matter for school success.

A large number of studies spanning the past three decades link high-quality

management skills with positive school outcomes, including student achievement

(Marques, 2006; Perry andMcWilliam, 2007).

All members of the learning-centered community are to be provided with

opportunities for professional development (Gray and Densten, 2007; Hopkins, 2007;

Marshall, 2012). The extensive nature of addressing individual, campus wide and
 23

overall institutional needs calls for accountability by all members of the community to

ensure effectiveness of service, programming and use of funds. Accountability must

be realized on all levels as follows: annual personal professional development goals

and objectives of individuals; campus-wide programs; college-wide programs

(Lowder, 2011; Marshall, 2012; Zaccaro, 2007).

Smith et al (2003) stated that principals have a fundamental responsibility to

ensure the overall achievement and motivation of the students, as well as the

satisfaction and productivity of their faculty. Principals are able to affect the climate

within their school through effective leadership and the modeling of values and

beliefs important to education.

In addition, the primary reason for cultivating a positive school improvement is

to enhance student learning and the overall increase of teachers’ satisfaction. To

achieve these goals, it is necessary for the principal to possess understanding of

both the culture and climate of this school, to be a visionary leader, and to

demonstrate spiritual, moral and ethical qualities in his daily responsibilities (Harung,

et al, 2009; Hopkins, 2007; O’Donnell and White, 2005).

The manager in the school context has certain clear responsibilities such as

being accountable for resource allocation and the use of resources, promoting

effective teaching and learning and encouraging the search for continual

improvement (Drucker, 1967; Fullan, 2009; Teegarden, 2006).Related to this concept

of accountability within the professional learning community, teacher researchers

have proposed that monitoring and evaluating student achievement and teaching
 24

behaviors are essential components of school leadership (Jones et al, 2008; Yukl,

2006;Zaccaro, 2007).

In this era of increased accountability and high-stakes testing, school district

administrators continue to search for ways to meet expectations and ensure students

have the skills they will need to be successful. For principals to accomplish the

complex tasks for which they are expected to execute on a daily basis, they need to

be provided with the opportunity to continually learn and grow. This includes

developing familiarity with the latest tools, resources, and best practices associated

with curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Hodgson, 2011).

Accountability can lead to the innovation necessary for greater school

improvement if used intelligently (Fullan, 2009).Heads are accountable annually for

their performance and the achievement of their personal targets to the governing

body through an external adviser. This is an improvement on previous arrangements

for the appraisal of head teachers. Moreover, school governing bodies are directly

accountable to parents annually for their performance through the requirements to

hold an annual meeting for parents and to write annual report, with an obligation to

report on certain areas of the school’s performance (Louis et al, 2010).

The above related literature pertains to the variables of the study which are

the transcendental leadership, institutional productivity and accountability climate.

The findings, readings and studies included are very much related to the study.

According to the statements, transcendental leadership encompass wisdom,

humanity, courage and resilience while institutional productivity includes instructional

program, learning community, learning climate, organizational structure and

 25

leadership. To sum it up, the cited works were in excessive help to unveil possible

ways in which transcendental leadership, institutional productivity and accountability

climate were related with one another. These would also serve as a support to the

presentation, results and findings of the study.

Theoretical Framework

This study is anchored on the proposition of Smith et al (2003) that given a

climate of accountability and potential for sanction created by current national

education policy, principals’ leadership behaviors have become central to the

creation and facilitation of effective teaching and learning environments within their

schools.

To support the above proposition the following views are cited:

PerryandMcWilliam (2007) proposed that school principals provide an account

of all school policies and practices to anyone and everyone whom schools must be

seen to perform in ways that are measurable and thus, are rendered visible to all.

Moreover, principals’ ability to lead schools towards success may serve to support

the global educational platform in identifying effective strategies to address school

reform and accountability measures. The principal holds a critical role in shaping the

school culture necessary for its success (Santamaria, 2014). In like manner, Rebore

(2011) cited that with a sense of transcendence, administrators may concentrate on

carrying out the tasks and responsibilities of their leadership positions within a given

school and reflect on their overall reasons for being educational leaders.

Conceptual Framework
 26

Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework showing the variables of the

study. The independent variable of this researchfocuses on the Transcendental

Leadershipwhich is depicted by the indicators namely: wisdom, humanity,

courageand resilience. Wisdom refers to a clear clarity of priorities and application of

the same under any circumstances; Humanity refers to the complete lack of ego in

pursuing common goals and the ability to put others’ interest over one’s; Courage

refers to the ability to take accountability and action for all credits and debits; and

Resilience refers to the ability to adapt and act in response to a dynamic environment

(Kishore and Nair, 2013).

The dependent variable of the study is Institutional Productivity which is

measured in terms of instructional program, learning community, learning climate,

organizational structure and leadership. Instructional Program refers to the curricular

standards/objectives;Learning Community refers to the mission and goals of the

strategic plan which are understood and practiced; Learning Climate refers to the

existence and use of programs/structures to meet basic needs, support and trust

among members of the school community; Organizational Structure refers to the

structures operating for administration of the school; and Leadership refers to the

establishment of positive climate or atmosphere through which the school head

maintains focus on quality of educational program (Salisbury, 2000).

The mediating variable is Accountability Climate. It refers to the act of

compliance with the rules and regulations of school governance reporting to those

with oversight authority over the school and linking rewards and sanctions to
 27

Figure 1.Conceptual Framework Showing the Variables

 28

expected results (Rechebei, 2010).A mediating variable is one that lies intermediate

between causal factors and a final outcome. It further aims to estimate the way a

variable affects the impact of X on Y. A mediator is presumed to cause the outcome

and not vice versa. One reason for testing mediation is trying to understand the

mechanism through which the initial variable affects the outcome (Baron and Kenny,

1986). Accountability climate may function as a mediator when variations in the

perceived transcendental leadership of school heads and institutional productivity

account for the variations in accountability climate; variations in accountability climate

significantly account for the variations in institutional productivity and the direct link

between transcendental leadership and thatof institutional productivity are no longer

significant.

Furthermore, a variable may function as a full mediator when it meets the

following conditions: variations in the levels of the independent variable significantly

account for the variations in the presumed mediator; variations in the mediator

significantly account for the variations of dependent variable; and when both

independent variable and mediating variable appear in the model, a previously

significant relationship between the independent and dependent variables is no

longer significant and when the direct path is zero (Baron and Kenny, 1986).

Significance of the Study

Valuable and relevant information obtained from the study will become

beneficial to education. This will enable leadersto become capable of transforming a

school environment so that its students and teachers can flourish. It will provide
 29

understanding how leaders can lay the groundwork successfully by setting a clear

direction and tone, investing in professional development, setting-up mentors, giving

persons in authority to make key decisions and elevating the importance of academic

achievement.

The outcome of this study will serve as a guide on benchmarking about the

school programs, needs, and problems regarding the quality of school performance

from different public elementary schools in the region.The results of the study will

provide some insights and information in the course of carrying out functions of

leaders as key players in the operation of the school. It would help them understand

the impact of transcendental leadership and accountability climate to make the

institution productive.

The data gathered in this study may serve as a basis in understanding the

quality of school head. The findings of the studycan help motivate and challenge

teachers as medium to deliver classrooms instruction that facilitates collaborative and

interactive learning process of the learnersto achieve high quality performance. In

addition, facts that would derive from this study will be useful for the students since

they are the ultimate recipients of any educational endeavor and the center of

educational changes.They will directly benefit to the leadership skills and quality of

school authoritiesas tools for learning and improving their academic achievement.

Moreover, the findings of the study are beneficial because it would strengthen

the relationship between the schools and the community, where the community

supports the challenges of the schools. This will motivate everyone to participate

actively in the efforts of giving high morale for an institutional productivity.Finally, the
 30

outcome of this study may serve as reference for deeper and wider research to

explore variables not included in this study.

Definition of Terms

In order for the reader to thoroughly discern this dissertation research, some

key terms are herein defined:

Transcendental Leadership. In this study, it refers to the leadership style in

terms of wisdom, humanity, courage and resilience of school heads.

Institutional Productivity.In this study, it refers to the qualityperformance of

the school in terms of instructional program, learning community, learning climate,

organizational structure, and leadership.

Accountability Climate. In this study, it refers to the act of compliance with

the rules and regulations of school governance reporting to those with oversight

authority over the school and linking rewards and sanctions to expected results.
 31

Chapter 2

METHOD

This chapter depicts the various methods of the study including research

design, research locale, population and sample, research instruments used to

measure constructs of interest, data collection procedures, and statistical tools.

Research Design

This study employed non-experimental quantitative design utilizing the

descriptive correlation technique of research which is designed to gather data, ideas,

facts and information related to the study. In non-experimental research, researchers

collect data without making changes or introducing treatments (Gehle, 2013). In this

study the variables were not manipulated and the setting was not controlled.

Descriptive-correlation research design describes and interprets what is, and reveals

conditions and relationships that exist and do not exist (Calderon, 2006; Calmorin,

2007). Further it is a fact finding study that allowed the researcher to examine

characteristics, behaviors, and experiences of study participants (Calmorin, 2007).

The study is descriptive in nature since it assessed the levels of

transcendental leadership and accountability climate of school heads, and

institutional productivity of public elementary schools in Region XI .This is

correlational since it investigated the relationship between variables such as

transcendental leadership, institutional productivity and accountability climate, with

the use of the survey questionnaire as a tool in gathering the primary data. The
 32

interest of the study is to investigate the relationship between transcendental

leadership and institutional productivity; the relationship between transcendental

leadership and accountability climate; the relationship between accountability climate

and institutional productivity; and the mediating effect of accountability climate on the

relationship between transcendental leadership of school heads and institutional

productivity of public elementary schools in Davao Region. Medgraph was employed

in determining the mediation.

Research Locale

This study was conducted in public elementary schools in Davao Region

formerly called Southern Mindanao. It is one of the regions of the Philippines

designated as Region XI. As shown in Figure 2,it is located on the southeastern

portion of Mindanao, and consists of five provinces, namely: Compostela Valley,

Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, and the newly created, Davao

Occidental. The region encloses the Davao Gulf and its regional center is Davao

City.

Davao Region is the most populous region in Mindanao and the 11th most

populous in the country, with a total of 4,468,563 inhabitants in 2010. Davao City, its

regional capital, is also the largest city in Mindanao, with an area of 2444 km 2, the

largest in the country and one of the largest in the world, and has 1,449,296

inhabitants in 2010, making it the fourth most populous city in the country and the

most populous city proper in the entire Visayas-Mindanao region.

While the region’s economy is predominantly agri-based, it is now developing

 33

Figure 2.Map of the Philippines

 34

into a center for agri-industrial business, trade and tourism. Its competitive advantage

is in agri-industry as its products, papayas, mangoes, bananas, pineapple, fresh

asparagus, flowers and fish products are exported internationally. The region can be

a vital link to markets in other parts of Mindanao, Brunei Darussalam and parts of

Malaysia and Indonesia. There is also a growing call center sector in the region,

mostly centered in Davao City.

Davao Region covered ten school divisions which include Davao Oriental, Mati

City, Davao del Norte, Compostela Valley Province, Tagum City, Panabo City, Davao

City, Davao del Sur, Digos City and Island Garden City of Samal wherein the study

was conducted. The schools that participated included a mix of urban, sub-urban and

rural school from diverse geographic areas of the region and were fairly represented

by public elementary schools in terms of central and non-central type of school.

Population and Sample

The respondents of the study were the public elementary school teachers

of Region XI. In a desire to give everyone a chance to be included in the study,

stratified random sampling procedure with proportional allocation were used to obtain

a sampling frame as shown in the summary of distribution of respondents. There

were 17, 324 total number of public elementary school teachers in Region XI. The

Slovin’s Formula was used to determine the appropriate number of samples selected

at random. The area covered in this study was the whole school divisions of Davao

Region. Particularly, the number of teachers selected per division is as follows:

Davao Oriental, 24 teachers (6.14 percent), Mati City, 38 teachers (9.72 percent),

Compostela Valley, 61 teachers (15.60 percent), Davao del Norte, 37 teachers

 35

(9.46percent), Tagum City, 17 teachers (4.35percent), Panabo City, 14 teachers

(3.58percent), Davao del Sur, 75 teachers (19.18percent), Digos City, 14 teachers

(3.58percent), Davao City, 102 teachers (2.30percent), and Island Garden City of

Samal, 9 teachers (2.30percent). The breakdown is shown below:

Division Population of Percentage Sample

Teachers

Davao Oriental 1,083 6.14% 24

Mati City 1,682 9.72% 38

Compostela Valley Province 2,711 15.60% 61

Davao del Norte 1,643 9.46% 37

Tagum City 748 4.35% 17

Panabo City 600 3.58% 14

Davao del Sur 3,302 19.18% 75

Digos City 622 3.58% 14

Davao City 4531 26.09% 102

Island Garden City of Samal 402 2.30% 9

100% 391
TOTAL 17,324
Research Instrument

There are three sets of questionnaires adopted from different authors, which

were validated by experts on questionnaire construction. The comments of the

experts were properly taken and incorporated in the finalization of the said instrument

and the overall mean validation of experts is 3.97 and described as very good .The

adopted standardized questionnaire is valid in contents for they were already tested

and proven by the author as it underwent modification to classify the questions. The

questionnaire was designed in a very comprehensive form with the help of the expert

validators to provide the respondents with ease and comfort in answering each

question and in understanding the objective of the study.

 36

The first part of the questionnaire deals with transcendental leadership of

school heads with indicators such as wisdom, humanity, courage and resilience. The

instrument adapted and modified was taken from the study of Boney (2009). This

part has ten items per indicator.

The second set of instrument employed is to measure institutional productivity.

The instrument was adapted and modified from the study of Salisbury (2000). There

were five indicators on this variable wherein each indicator is composed of five items.

The third set of the questionnaire was adapted and modified from the study of Levitt,

Janta and Wegrich (2000) consisting of ten items.

The five-point Likert scale was used for the research variables. According to

Santos (2007), the Likert Scale requires individuals to tick on a box/blank in response

to a large number of items concerning an attitude, object and stimulus. It is common

to treat the number obtained from a rating scale directly as measurements by

calculating averages or more generally any arithmetic operations.

The five orderable gradations of transcendental leadership with their

respective range of means and descriptions are as follows:

Range of Means Descriptive Level Interpretation

4.20 – 5.00 Very High This means that transcendental

leadership is manifested at all times.

3.40 – 4.19 High This means that transcendental

leadership is manifested most of the
time.

2.60 – 3.39 Moderate This means that transcendental

leadership is manifested occasionally.
 37

1.80 – 2.59 Low Thismeans that transcendental

leadership is manifested in few
instances.

1.00 – 1.79 Very Low This means that transcendental

leadership is not manifested at all.

In evaluating the level of Institutional Productivity, the following scale was

used.

Range of Means Descriptive Level Interpretation

4.20 – 5.00 Very High This means that institutional

productivity is evident at all times.

3.40 – 4.19 High This means that institutional

productivity is evident most of the
time.
2.60 – 3.39 Moderate This means that institutional
productivity is evident occasionally.

1.80 – 2.59 Low This means that institutional

productivity is evident in few
instances.

1.00 – 1.79 Very Low This means that institutional

productivity is not evident at all.
In determining the level of accountability climate, the means were interpreted

using the scale below.

Range of Means Descriptive Level Interpretation

4.20 – 5.00 Very High Thismeans that accountability climate

is manifested or felt at all times.

3.40 – 4.19 High This means that accountability

climate is manifested or felt most of
the time.

2.60 – 3.39 Moderate This means that accountability

climate is manifested or felt
occasionally.
 38

1.80 – 2.59 Low This means that accountability

climate is manifested or felt on few
occasions.

1.00 – 1.79 Very Low This means that accountability

climate is not manifested or felt at all.

Data Collection

The necessary data were gathered in a systematic procedure. Firstly, the

researcher sent a letter of permission to conduct the study to the Department of

Education Regional Director of Region XI, Atty. Alberto T. Escobarte, CESO IV.

Moreover, the researcher made another letter addressed to the ten division

superintendents of the different divisions covered in this study to allow the researcher

to conduct the study to the teachers in their respective divisions.Upon approval,

survey questionnaires were administered to the public elementary school teachers in

Region XI on January, 2015. The researcher went personally to the different public

elementary schools to distribute questionnaires to the respondents.

The researcher personally gathered the questionnaires one week after the

distribution so the respondents would have enough time to answer the questions.

One hundred percent of the distributed questionnaires were retrieved successfully.

The accomplished results were then checked and tallied. Finally, after all the results

were tallied, these were analyzed and interpreted based on the purpose of the study.

Statistical Tools

For more comprehensive interpretation and analysis of the data, the following

statistical tools were utilized.

 39

Mean was used to determine the level of transcendental leadership of school

heads, level of accountability climate and level of institutional productivity to answer

problems 1, 2 and 3.

Pearson rwas utilized to determine if the relationship between transcendental

leadership of school heads and institutional productivity is really significant.

Medgraph using Sobel z-test was employed to prove the mediation and to

strengthen the obtained result.

Chapter 3

RESULTS
 40

The data obtained from the respondents on transcendental leadership of

school heads, institutional productivity and accountability climate are presented,

analyzed and interpreted in this section based on the research objectives previously

stated. The order of discussions on the mentioned topic is as follows: level of

transcendental leadership of school heads in Davao Region; level of institutional

productivity of public elementary schools; level of accountability climate; correlations

between transcendental leadership and institutional productivity; correlations

between transcendental leadership and accountability climate; and correlation

between accountability climate and institutional productivity.

Level of Transcendental Leadership

of School Heads

Shown in Table 1 is the level of Transcendental Leadership of School

Heads.The standard deviation was less than 1.00 which indicated consistency of

responses. The overall mean score was 3.35 labeled as moderate. Distinctively, the

level of transcendental leadership of school heads on the following indicators were as

follows: courage has a mean of 3.45 described as high, wisdom has a mean of 3.38

with a descriptive level of moderate, resilience has a mean of 3.32 characterized as

moderate and humanity has a mean of 3.26 labeled as moderate.

Table 1
Level of Transcendental Leadership of School Heads

Indicators SD Mean Descriptive

 41

Level
Wisdom 0.84 3.38 Moderate
Humanity 0.76 3.26 Moderate
Courage 0.69 3.45 High
Resilience 0.75 3.32 Moderate

0.75 3.35 Moderate

Overall

Data revealed that the school heads had manifested very good command of

transcendental leadership in terms of courage. This is an indicative of their high

capability to take accountability and action for all credits and debits. However, the

level of transcendental leadership of school heads in terms of wisdomwas moderate,

 42

indicating that leadership skill in setting clear clarity of priorities and application of the

same under any circumstances is sometimes manifested.The data reflected that

transcendental leadership of school heads in terms of resilience is manifested

occasionally which is an indicative of the moderate ability to adapt and act in

response to a dynamic environment. Lastly, the moderate level of humanity indicated

that school heads pursuetheir common goals by putting others’ interest over one’s

occasionally.

Level of Institutional Productivity

Shown in Table 2 is the Level of Institutional Productivity of public elementary

schools in Davao Region. The overall mean score was 3.40 labeled as high.

Particularly, the level of institutional productivity on the following indicators were as

follows: instructional program has a mean of 3.46 with an interpretation of high,

organizational structure has a mean of 3.40 labeled as high, leadership has a mean

of 3.39 characterized as moderate, learning community has a mean of 3.38

described as moderate, and learning climate has a mean of 3.37 considered as

moderate.

Data reflects the high level of institutional productivity in terms of instructional

Table 2
Level of Institutional Productivity

Descriptive
Indicators SD Mean
Level
Instructional Program 0.66 3.46 High
 43

Learning Community 0.65 3.38 Moderate

Learning Climate 0.67 3.37 Moderate
Organizational Structure 0.65 3.40 High
Leadership 0.64 3.39 Moderate

0.64 3.40 High

Overall

program which means that the institution has implemented curricular

standards/objectives as set most of the time. Furthermore, it was observed

thatorganizational structure was observed as high which is an indicative of

systematic structures operating for administration of the school.

However, the level of institutional productivity in terms of leadership was

moderate, indicating that positive climate or atmosphere through which the school
 44

head maintains focus on quality of educational program is sometimes

evident.Moreover, the moderate level for learning community indicated that the

school’s mission and goals of the strategic plan are understood and practiced

occasionally.Lastly, the data revealed that the school’s level of instructional

productivity in terms of learning climate was moderate. It showed good existence and

use of programs/structures to meet basic needs, support and trust among members

of the school community.

Level of Accountability Climate

Shown in Table 3 is the Level of Accountability Climate of school heads in

Davao Region. The overall mean score was 3.43 described as high. This implies that

the accountability climate is manifested or felt most of the time. Particularly, it can be

inferred that in school management, acceptance of responsibility and being

answerable of one’s actions is observed in school heads who have been accountable

for following the prescribed curriculum, for maintaining good order in the school, and

for carrying out various dutiesand responsibilities.Moreover, it can be gleaned that

Table 3
Level of Accountability Climate

Descriptive
Items SD Mean
Level

1. Supervising all activities and programs conducted

0.85 3.30 Moderate
at the beginning level.
2. Building an action plan with time lines to assigned 0.76 3.43 High
 45

responsibilities to enable school vision to be

accomplished.
3. Presenting financial, organizational and program
0.73 3.46 High
reports completely and accurately to stakeholders.
4. Offering stakeholders an active role in decision-
0.67 3.46 High
making about matters that affect them.
5. Making sound decisions and able to explain them
0.72 3.42 High
based on professional, ethical and legal principles.
6. Being responsible for the implementation of the
principles and current trends in curriculum, staff
0.67 3.49 High
development, essential elements of instruction and
supervision.
7. Using appropriate review, monitoring and
0.76 3.39 Moderate
evaluation processes.
8. Recognizing his/her personal impact on group
0.67 3.49 High
dynamics.
9. Establishing effective working relationships with
other school heads, teachers, parents and members 0.80 3.35 Moderate
of the community.
10. Managing basic day to day school affairs, an
overall ethos conducive to the formation of trust and 0.67 3.49 High
confidence to school stakeholders.
Overall 0.71 3.43 High

the school heads make sound decisions and are able to explain them based on

professional, ethical and legal principles. Respondents believed that school leaders

manage day to day activities conducive to the formation of trust and confidence to

school stakeholders.

Furthermore, it can be inferred that appropriate review, monitoring and

evaluation processes is evident most of the time. The school heads are able to
 46

recognize their personal impact on group dynamics thus, establishing effective

working relationships with other school heads, teachers, parents and members of the

community.

Correlations between Transcendental Leadership

and Institutional Productivity

Displayed in Table 4 were the results of the test of relationship between

transcendental leadership and institutional productivity. Reflected in the hypothesis,

the relationship was tested at 0.05 level of significance. The overall r-value of .952

with a p-value of <0.01 signified the rejection of the null hypothesis. It means that

there is a significant relationship between transcendental leadership and institutional

productivity. This implies that the school heads’ transcendental leadership is

correlated with institutional productivity.

Distinctively, result reveals that all indicators of transcendental leadership are

positively correlated on institutional productivity, since the p-value is <0.01 and the

overall r-value is .875 on instructional program, .948 on learning community, .936 on

learning climate, .955 on organizational structure and .968 on leadership. Data show

the positive association of the two variables.

Table 4
Correlations Between Transcendental Leadership and Institutional Productivity
 47

Transcendental Leadership
Institutional
Productivity
Wisdom Humanity Courage Resilience Overall

Instructional .859* .863* .803* .914* .875*

Program (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)
Learning .918* .943* .902* .967* .948*
Community (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)
.912* .931* .881* .959* .936*
Learning Climate
(.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)
Organizational .928* .954* .903* .969* .955*
Structure (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)
.933* .964* .948* .967* .968*
Leadership
F u r (.000) t (.000)
h (.000)
e (.000)
r m(.000) o r
.925* .946* .902* .971* .952*
Overall
(.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)

correlated on transcendental leadership, since the p-value is <0.01 and the overall r-

value is .925 on wisdom, .946 on humanity, .902 on courage, and .971 on resilience.

Hence the two variables are positively associated.

Correlations between Transcendental Leadership

and Accountability Climate

Shown in Table 5 were the results of the test of relationship between

transcendental leadership and accountability climate. Reflected in the hypothesis, the

relationship was tested at 0.05 level of significance. In the indicator, wisdom, data

show that it is positively correlated with accountability climate. The r-value is .960

with a p-value of <0.01. This shows that wisdom is indeed a large part of the

accountability climate. Being accountable requires wisdom to experience for climate

of accountability. Likewise the other indicator which is humanity has the r-value of .
 48

940 with a p-value of <0.01. This shows that humanity is positively associated with

accountability climate. Humanity plays a big part to achieve climate of accountability.

Likewise in this indicator, courage reveals the r-value of .879 with a p-value of

<0.01. Still, the result is positively correlated to accountability climate. It seems safe

to assume that courage has a great impact on the climate of accountability. Lastly,

the indicator, which is resilience, is also positively correlated to accountability climate

with the r-value of .957 with a p-value of <0.01. This further means that resilience

showed higher relation with accountability climate.

The overall results reflect that transcendental leadership is positively

correlated to accountability climate since the overall r-value is .951 with a p-value of

Table 5
Correlations Between Transcendental Leadership and Accountability Climate

Transcendental Leadership

Wisdom Humanity Courage Resilience Overall

Accountability .960* .940* .879* .957* .951*

Climate (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000)
 49

<0.01. Hence, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant relationship

between transcendental leadership and accountability climate is rejected.

Correlations between Accountability Climate

and Institutional Productivity

Reflected in Table 6 were the results of the test of relationship between

institutional productivity and accountability climate. As indicated in the table, the

indicators of institutional productivity are positively correlated to accountability climate

with the overall r-value of .964 with a p-value of <0.01, thus, signified the rejection of

the null hypothesis. It means that there is a significant relationship between

accountability climate and institutional productivity.

Distinctively, in the indicator, instructional program, data show that it is

positively correlated with accountability climate. The r-value is .924 with a p-value of

<0.01. This shows that accountability climate supports to the development of

instructional program. Planning and organization of instructional program somehow

 50

needs the climate of accountability. Likewise the other indicator which is learning

community has the r-value of .959 with a p-value of <0.01. This shows that learning

communityis positively associated with accountability climate.

Likewise result reflectslearning climate to be positively correlated to

accountability climate. The r-valueis .956 with a p-value of <0.01. The indicator which

is organizational structure has the r-value of .961 with a p-value of <0.01. Still, the

result is positively correlated to accountability climate. This implies that accountability

climate has something in effect to the organizational structure. Lastly, the indicator,

which is leadership, is also positively correlated to accountability

Table 6

Correlation between Institutional Productivity and Accountability Climate

Institutional Productivity Accountability Climate

.924*
Instructional Program
(.000)
.959*
Learning Community
(.000)
.956*
Learning Climate
(.000)
.961*
Organizational Structure
(.000)
.939*
Leadership
(.000)
.964*
Overall
(.000)
 51

climate with the r-value of .939 with a p-value of <0.01. This further means that

leadership matters in the development of the climate of accountability.

On the Mediating Effect of Accountability Climate

Shown in Table 7 is the regression analysis on the mediating effect of

accountability climate on the relationship between transcendental leadership and

institutional productivity. The data in this table were used as input to the medgraph.

There are three steps to be met for a third variable to be acting as mediator (Baron

and Kenny, 1986). In Table 7 these are categorized as Steps 1 to 3. Step 4 is the

final step. In Step 1 (Path c) transcendental leadership as the independent variable

(IV) significantly predicts institutional productivity, the dependent variable (DV). In

step 2 (Path a) transcendental leadership (IV) significantly predicts accountability

climate, the mediator (MV). In step 3 accountability climate (MV) significantly predicts

institutional productivity. In step 4 the combined effect of transcendental leadership

and accountability climate on institutional productivity is significant.

 52

As a matter of triangulation, further mediation analysis through medgraph

(Jose, 2003) is warranted, involving the Sobel Test to assess the significance of

mediation effect. If the effect of the IV on the DV becomes non-significant at the final

step in the analysis, full mediation will be achieved. It means all of the effects are

mediated by the mediating variable. If the regression coefficient is substantially

reduced at the final step but remains significant, only partial mediation is obtained. It

means part of the IV is mediated by the MV but other parts are either direct or

mediated by other variables not included in the model. In this particular case, the

Table 7

Data Entry for the Different Paths

Independent Variable (IV) Transcendental Leadership

Dependent Variable (DV) Institutional Productivity
Mediating Variable (MV) Accountability Climate

STEPS
1. Path C (IV and DV)
Institutional Productivity Regressed on Transcendental
Leadership
B (Unstandardized regression coefficient .817
e (Standard error) .013
Significance .000

2. Path B (MV and DV)

Institutional Productivity Regressed on Accountability
Climate
B (Unstandardized regression coefficient .876
e (Standard Error) .012
Significance .000

3. Path A (IV and MV)

Accountability Climate Regressed on Transcendental
Leadership
B (Unstandardized regression coefficient .897
e (Standard Error) .015
 53

Significance .000

4. Combined Influence of MV and IV on DV

Institutional Productivity Regressed on Accountability
Climate and Transcendental Leadership
Accountability Climate:
B (Unstandardized regression coefficient) .555
SE (Standard Error) .036
Beta (Standardized regression coefficient) .611
Part Correlation .188
Transcendental Leadership:
Beta (Standardized regression coefficient) .371
Part Correlation .115

Total R Square .942

Results:

Significance of Mediation Significant

Sobel z-value 14.92855 p = < 0.000001
95% Symmetrical Confidence Interval
Lower .43247
Upper .56320
Unstandardized indirect effect
a*b .49784
Se .03335
Effect Size Measures
Standardized Coefficients
Total: .952
Direct: .371
Indirect: .581
Indirect to Total Ratio: .610
 54

effect of the IV (transcendental leadership) on DV (institutional productivity) is

significantly lessened after controlling MV (accountability climate). Therefore, only

partial mediation took place since the effect is still significant.

The Sobel z-value of 14.92855 yielded a p-value less than 0.001, hence

significant partial mediation occurred. The association between transcendental

leadership (IV) and institutional productivity (DV) has been significantly reduced by

the inclusion of the mediating variable which is accountability climate. It could be

seen in the graph that .952 is reduced to .371 in the subsequent regression. The

95% confidence interval conclusively tells that significant mediation has occurred. It

yielded a small standard error (se) of .03335 obtained by subtracting lower limit

(.43247) from the upper limit (.56320) and dividing the difference with 3.92

(constant). The small se measures the precision of the estimate of the coefficient.

The smaller the standard error, the more precise the estimate.

The effect size (.610) measures how much of the effect of transcendental

leadership (IV) on institutional productivity (DV) can be attributed to the indirect path

(IV to MV to DV). The total effect (.952) is the raw correlation between transcendental
 55

leadership (IV) and institutional productivity (DV). The direct effect (.371) is the size

of the correlation between transcendental leadership (IV) and institutional productivity

(DV) with accountability climate (MV) included in the regression. The indirect effect is

the amount of the original correlation between the IV and the DV that now goes

through the mediator to the DV (a*b) where “a” refers to the path between IV and MV

and “b” refers to the path between MV and DV. The ratio index is computed by

dividing the indirect effect by the total effect, in this case. 581 by.952=61%. It seems

that about 61% of the total effect of the IV on the DV goes through the MV, and about

39% of the total effect is either direct or mediated by other variables not included in

the model.

With the use of Baron and Kenny’s steps in testing mediation of accountability

climate, the researcher proved that mediation is significant and there is partial

mediation. First regression, the independent variable (transcendental leadership)

affects the mediator (accountability climate) at beta coefficient of 0.897 and the

relationship is significant at p-value equal to 0. Second regression, the independent

variable (transcendental leadership) affects the dependent variable (institutional

productivity) at beta coefficient of 0.817 and the relationship is significant at p-value

equal to 0. Third regression, for the mediation to hold, the mediator (accountability

climate) affects the dependent variable (institutional productivity) at beta coefficient

value of 0.876 and the relationship is significant at p-value equal to 0. Lastly, the

dependent variable (institutional productivity) is regressed on both independent

variable (transcendental leadership) and the mediator (accountability climate). Since

the coefficient of the transcendental leadership has been reduced from .817 to 0.555,
 56

but still significant, partial mediation of accountability climate on the relationship

between transcendental leadership and institutional productivity is realized.

The Sobel’s z value of 14.92855 has a probability value of 0.01 significance

level which is lower than 0.05 level of significance. Hence, significant mediation is

determined and hypothesis 1 is rejected. There is a significant mediation of

accountability climate on the relationship between transcendental leadership and

institutional productivity in Davao Region.

After the enclosure of accountability climate as mediating variable in the

multiple regressions, the direct association between transcendental leadership and

institutional productivity has been reduced from .952 to .371. Because of this, only

partial mediation is attained, considering that the association between transcendental

leadership and institutional productivity is still significant at p<0.01, though it has

been reduced from its original value of .952. However, if the association of the two

variables (transcendental leadership and institutional productivity) is not significant or

has dropped to zero, then full mediation has been achieved.

The total effect of (.952) is the raw correlation between transcendental

leadership and institutional productivity. The direct effect of (.371) is the size of the

correlation between transcendental leadership and institutional productivity with

accountability climate included in the regression. The indirect effect of (.581) is

utilized to compute the ratio index by dividing .581 by the total effect of .952 which

yields .61 or 61%. This means that 61% of the total effect of transcendental

leadership on institutional productivity goes through accountability climate and about

39% is direct effect.

 57

Since it is only partial mediation, it could not be claimed that accountability

climate is the very reason how transcendental leadership can influence institutional

productivity. This indicates that accountability climate is only one of the reasons how

transcendental leadership can influence institutional productivity.

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the discussion of the data on transcendental leadership

of school heads, institutional productivity and accountability climate.

Level of Transcendental Leadership

The level of transcendental leadership of school heads is moderate, derived

from the responses which are both high and moderate levels. The indicator with high

level is courage. The other indicators wisdom, humanity and resilience have

moderate ratings. The followingindicators are presented from indicators with highest

to the lowest level.

The high level result of courage is indicative of the school heads’ very good

command in taking accountability and action for all credits and debits. This

assumption is parallel with the study of Burke and Cooper (2009) who stated that the

school head must take action quickly in matters of importance and is firm with regard
 58

to taking action. His study observed that school heads have demonstrated the ability

to make the tough decisions to advance objectives. In short there is a strong

indication that respondents have believed that their leaders are persistent in the

pursuit of stated objectives and shows equitable regard for circumstantial evidence.

Consequently, it makes them believe that their school heads make morally sound

decisions and serve as respectable example.

The moderate level result of wisdom indicates that school heads’ occasionally

complete work efficiently in carrying out responsibilities such as being sensible in the

allocation of resources, when to take actions appropriately and when to respond

instead of reacting. School heads believe that in reaching conclusions, a leader must

be obtained from factual analysis as presented by Dotlich (2006). The moderate level

of the said dimension also makes them think that school head should always display

a calm disposition under stress to appropriately solve problems about the

organization and deem that they apply appropriate rationale to make decisions.

Consequently, it makes them believe that their school heads who display good

judgment in analyzing the facts can create good relationship with the teachers. The

finding of the study is an articulation of the assertion of Dhiman(2007) who found out

that the belief about the transcendental leadership of school head was related to a

measure of institutional productivity. Thus, believing transcendental leadership as a

spiritual leadership that is more important to consider in carrying responsibilities of a

leader. Hence, Perry and McWilliam(2007) found out that effective school leaders are

those who have clear clarity of priorities and application of the same under any

circumstances.
 59

Resilience gives moderate level of transcendental leadership of school heads

with scores indicating that the respondents can only sometimes find their school

head to have the ability to adapt and act in response to a dynamic environment such

as being receptive to all points of view and inquisitive about learning new things.

School heads believe that a leader must adapt quickly to change as presented by

Kishore and Nair (2013). The moderate level of the said dimension also makes them

think that their school heads are sometimes quickly insightful without obvious factual

support. Consequently, it makes them believe that their school heads who display

commitment to selfless ideals are likely to succeed as a leader. Thus.believing

transcendental leadership as a spiritual leadership that is more important to consider

in carrying responsibilities of a leader who can motivate others to support his/her

vision. In addition, Nielsen et al (2008) stated that courage must be possessed by a

school head to plan for the future with foresight. Further, school heads who cannot

express belief in what is possible do not tend to pioneer new ideas for positive

solutions. Hence, Marques (2006) found out that effective school leaders are those

who find alternatives to optimize outcomes.

Lastly, humanity gives moderate level of transcendental leadership of school

heads with scores indicating that the respondents can only sometimes find their

school head to have lack of ego in pursuing common goals and the ability to put

others’ interest over one’s. Likewise the respondents can only sometimes believe

that their school heads display a modest assessment of own importance. They

sometimes believe that their leader is genuine who he/she claims to be. This result

has been linked to the proposition of Rubin et al (2005) that a transcendent leader
 60

sees others as legitimately valuable despite differences and behaves appropriately to

the situation. Moreover, Dhiman(2011) found that school heads should know how to

consider feelings of their subordinates. This implies that a transcendent leader shows

consideration toward others consistently, displays sincere concern for the feelings of

others, expresses thanks for the efforts of others and demonstrates a spirit of

benevolence toward others.

Level of Institutional Productivity

The other variable considered in this study is institutional productivity which is

described as high. The high level of institutional productivity shows very good

command of quality performance of school. High level is derived from the responses

which are both high and moderate levels. The indicators with high levels are

instructional program and organizational structure. The other indicators which are

leadership, learning community and learning climate have moderate ratings. A

number of authors (Fry and Matherly, 2015; Goker, 2006; Tehubijuluw, 2014) defined

institutional productivity as quality performance of the school in terms of instructional

program, learning community, learning climate, organizational structure, and

leadership.Therefore, most of the researchers assert that institutional productivity is

very much affected by the unstable governance (Halverson, 2005; Timperley, 2008),

lack of incentives to leverage productivity improvement (Marzano, 2009; Pfefferand

Sutton, 2006), structures favoring continuity over continuous improvement and

inadequate quality controls on innovations and proper use of students’ time (Barber

and Mourshed, 2009). It goes beyond the inclusion of leadership skills (Yukl, 2006)
 61

and principals’ sense of efficacy; societal change has stimulated new pressures on

schools and those who lead them (Barber and Mourshed, 2009).

The high level result of instructional program entails that curricular

standards/objectives of the school are met. The respondents strongly believe that in

their schools, teachers plan and organize learning objectives and learning targets

with appropriate standards. In the study of Teegarden(2006) a school that is

productive maintained that children are encouraged to achieve objectives and reach

standards that have been established for them. This implies that teachers should

align instruction and assessment depending upon individual needs. Moreover,

teachers adjust instruction based on assessment data/results. They should also be

provided with trainings and workshops towards instructional improvement. Hence,

school heads must be responsible enough in developing and enhancing the

instructional program of the school.

Another contributory factor to high level of institutional productivity is

organizational structure with scores indicating that the respondents can most of the

time believe that the structures operating for administration of the school is done

appropriately. They strongly believe that in their school, clearly defined systems and

structures are operating for administration of the school. This finding is in

consonance with the idea of Yukl(2006) who found out that a productive school

practices effective management of budget process and record keeping. Thus, if the

school has a systematic process, all employees are engaged in the development of

campus improvement plans that result in improved student learning. Moreover, when

all teachers are engaged in the assessment of school programs and needs, they
 62

were more likely feel involved and responsible in their duties and responsibilities as a

catalyst of change. This implies that a productive school maintains an organizational

structure that is functional.

Leadership gives moderate level of institutional productivity with scores

indicating that the respondents can only sometimes believe that their school heads

establish a positive climate or atmosphere that maintains focus on quality educational

program. Likewise, the respondents believe that the school heads maintain equity

and serve as catalyst of change. This assumption is parallel with the study of

Runhaar, Sanders and Yang (2010) that school heads should manage moral/ethical

dilemmas. Moreover, a good leader effectively balances time between administrative

tasks and instructional matters. As a leader, the school head supports and provides

ongoing effective professional development on planning and implementing and

focuses on needs.

The other indicator described as moderate level of institutional productivity is

learning community which entails that the mission and goals of the strategic plan are

understood and practiced. The respondents believe occasionally that information

about the school’s policies, practices and development are clearly provided.

Moreover, annual reports, building and district evaluations are presented completely

and accurately to stakeholders. Also, shared decision-making is practiced among

students, teachers and members of the community. This implies that school head,

teachers and community stakeholders accept shared responsibility for implementing

decisions.
 63

Lastly, learning climate which is one of the dimensions of institutional

productivity has moderate level indicating that the existence and use of

programs/structures to meet basic needs, support and trust among members of the

school community was observed occasionally. They believe that a positive learning

climate maintains a positive relationship among stakeholders. This belief has been

linked to Marti et al (2009) that teaming and collaboration among stakeholders are

established to ensure school’s success. Moreover, Weisberg et al(2009) opine that

positive working relationships are developed and maintained when there is full

respect among teachers, students and community stakeholders regardless of

differences. This implies that community outreach programs exist and issues of trust,

respect, empowerment and role blending are focused with evident open discussions.

Level of Accountability Climate

Another variable considered in this study is accountability climate described as

high. The high level of accountability climate shows very good command to the act of

compliance with the rules and regulations of school governance. Moreover, school

head supervises all activities and programs conducted at the beginning level most of

the time. This assumption is parallel with Halverson (2005) who pointed out that a

good school leader manages basic day to day school affairs, an overall ethos

conducive to the formation of trust and confidence to school stakeholders. School

heads build an action plan with time lines to assigned responsibilities to enable

school vision to be accomplished. In short, there is a responsible implementation of

 64

the principles and current trends in curriculum, staff development, essential elements

of instruction and supervision.

Consequently, Strathern (2009) noted that schools are complex organizations

that require leaders to make choices and selections from many possible

representations. These choices are made within the constraints and possibilities of

the political and social environment in which the school operates. They are informed

by the priorities, constraints and climate set by the policy environment both internal

and external to the school.

Correlation between Transcendental Leadership

and Institutional Productivity

The test of relationship between variables reveals that there is a significant

relationship between transcendental leadership of school heads and institutional

productivity. This implies that the quality performance of school associates to the

nature of transcendental leadership of school heads. The finding of this study asserts

the study of various authors (Avolio et al, 2009; Bolam et al, 2005; Jue, 2004;

Teegarden, 2006) who stated that transcendental leadership and institutional

productivity leaders’ quality is a powerful predictor of school productivity.

Moreover, effective leadership builds and sustains an organizational culture

that focuses on continual improvement of educational programs, teachers’

capabilities and skills and student learning (Cossin and Caballero, 2013; Tshachenn-

Moran and Mcmaster, 2009; Yukl, 2006). Consequently, transcendental leaders try to

make changes that increase organizational efficiency and performance. School

 65

leaders matter for school success. (Avolio, 2005; Jones et al, 2008; Jue, 2004; Rubin

et al, 2005; Weisberg et al, 2009).

Correlation between Transcendental Leadership

and Accountability Climate

The test of relationship between variables reveals that there is a significant

relationship between transcendental leadership of school heads and accountability

climate. This implies that level of accountability climate associates to the nature of

transcendental leadership of school heads. It agrees the study of various authors

(Lowder, 2011; Marshall, 2015; Zaccaro, 2007) who proposed that the extensive

nature of addressing individual, campus wide and overall institutional needs call for

accountability of school heads to ensure effectiveness of service, programming and

use of funds.

In addition, B.M. Bass and R. Bass (2008) stated that principals have a

fundamental responsibility to ensure the overall achievement and motivation of the

students, as well as the satisfaction and productivity of their faculty. Principals are

able to affect the climate within their school through effective leadership and the

modeling of values and beliefs important to education.

The manager in the school context has certain clear responsibilities such as

being accountable for resource allocation and the use of resources, promoting

effective teaching and learning and encouraging the search for continual

improvement (Drucker, 1967;Fullan, 2010; Teegarden, 2006).Related to this concept

of accountability within the professional learning community, teacher researchers

have proposed that monitoring and evaluating student achievement and teaching
 66

behaviors are essential components of school leadership (Bolam et al, 2005;

Marques, 2006, Jones et al, 2008).

Correlation between Accountability Climate

andInstitutional Productivity

The test of relationship between variables reveals that there is a significant

relationship between accountability climate and institutional productivity. This implies

that level of accountability climate associates to the nature of institutional

productivity. The finding supports the study of Fullan (2009) that accountability can

lead to the innovation necessary for greater school improvement if used intelligently.

Heads are accountable annually for their performance and the achievement of their

personal targets to the governing body. This is an improvement on previous

arrangements for the appraisal of head teachers.

Mediating Effect of Accountability Climateon

the Relationshipbetween Transcendental
Leadership and Institutional Productivity

The aim of this study was to contribute to the literature regarding potential

indirect, mediating variable for the relationship between transcendental leadership

and institutional productivity. In particular, accountability climate was investigated as

a potential mediating construct to explain the manner in which transcendental

leadership affects institutional productivity. While full mediation was not found in this

study, significant and important direct effects were shown that may be of help in the

enhancement of the existing researches (Goker, 2006; Runhaaret al, 2010;

Tschannen-Moran and Mcmaster, 2009) on transcendental leadership and

 67

institutional productivity. Importantly, the studies of these authors on the relationship

between transcendental leadership and institutional productivity find relevance to the

study of Smith et al(2003) who declared that accountability climate can be utilized as

a mediator to enhance leadership skills that have became central to the creation and

facilitation of effective teaching and learning environments towards productive

institution. Specifically, the current study has found that accountability climate is a

positive and significant partial mediator of transcendental leadership and institutional

productivity and met Baron and Kenny’s (1986) mediation guidelines.

The mediation analysis involved the path between transcendental leadership

and accountability climate and the path between accountability climate and

institutional productivity. The findings confirmed the significant relationship between

transcendental leadership and accountability climate, lending support to one of the

framework accounts of this study that of Santamaria (2014) who maintained that

principals’ ability to lead schools towards success may serve to support the global

educational platform in identifying effective strategies to address school reform and

accountability measures. The principal holds a critical role in shaping the school

culture necessary for its success.

Conclusion

With considerations on the findings of the study, conclusions are drawn in this

section. The findings of this study unambiguously confirm the assumptions about the

mediating effect of accountability climate on the relationship between transcendental

leadership of school heads and institutional productivity as pointed out by Smith et al

 68

(2003). The findings are interpreted as a general acceptance of this assumption.

Hence, the findings provide evidence that the consideration of transcendental

leadership of school head is relevant for research on institutional productivity,

transcendental leadership and accountability climate and accountability climate and

institutional productivity. The respondents are agreeable with the idea that

transcendental leadership is important on institutional productivity. In effect, the

respondents exhibit a moderate level of transcendental leadership, high level on

institutional productivity and high level on accountability climate. It generally indicates

that there was a significant relationship between transcendental leadership of school

heads and institutional productivity. There was also a significant relationship between

transcendental leadership and accountability climate. There was a partial mediation

on the effect of accountability climate on the relationship between transcendental

leadership and institutional productivity.

Recommendation

Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, a number of

recommendations are offered. The moderate level of transcendental leadership of

school heads, high level on institutional productivity and high level on accountability

climate suggested that school heads must developed and enhanced their

transcendental leadership and accountability climate for institutional productivity. To

improve the moderate level of transcendental leadership, the school heads must be

provided with opportunities by designing mechanisms that will involve all school
 69

heads to trainings and seminars that will enhance their leadership skills and learn the

value of being responsible towards quality performance of school.

High level of institutional productivity means that school shows a quality

performance which means that students can already profit from quality education

though they still need continuous improvement to support learning process. The

teachers must encourage parents to play an active role in their child’s education.

Wittreich, Jacobi and Hogue (2013) remarked that, when parents and teachers

become partners, the connection between home and school strengthens. School

educators, administrators, parents and students need to work collaboratively since

their relationships are building blocks of effective teaching and student success

(Witmer, 2005). The teachers should be exposed to trainings thatcan help them

motivate and challenge as medium to deliver classrooms instruction that facilitates

collaborative and interactive learning process of the learners to achieve high quality

performance. High level of accountability climate means that school headcarry out

their functions as key players in the operation of the school. It suggests that DepEd

officials, teachers, students, parents and community stakeholdersmay work hand in

hand and must acknowledge their respective roles in achieving quality education with

a focus on promoting leadership and accountability that make the school productive.

The partial mediation of accountability climate on the relationship between

transcendental leadership and institutional productivity suggests that school heads

must strengthen their administrative and supervisory functions giving emphasis on

the productivity of schools. Finally, future studies toward examining other variables
 70

that can possibly mediate on the relationship between the variables will be of utmost

importance to the research community.

REFERENCES

Ali, Z. (2012). Attempted to situate marx’s critique of capitalism: Immanent,

transcendental, minimalist or diagnostic? Journal of European Studies, 28(2),
123-139. Retrieved from http://www.asce-ku.com.pk/journals/2012_2/9_Zulfika
qar_Ali.pdf

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M.& Lovett, M.C. (2010).How learning
works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey Bass

Anderson, L.M.& Turnbull, B.J. (2016).Building a stronger principalship:Evaluating

and supporting principals. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/
knowledge-center/Pages/Building-aStronger-Principalship-Vol-4-Evaluatingan
d-Supporting-Principals.aspx

Avolio, B. J. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive

forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 339.Retrieved from
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/17426676/authentic-leadership-dev
elopment-getting-root-positive-forms-leadership

Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. & Weber, T.J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,
research and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421‐449.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621
 71

Baguio, N. H. (2012). Transcendental leadership style among secondary school

administrators as determinant of teachers' performance.IAMURE International
Journal of Business and Management,2(1), 75-86. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1520794021/22D8C1C62624CBEPQ/2?a
ccountid=31259

Barber, M. (2009). The virtue of accountability: system redesign, inspection and

incentives in the era of informed professionalism. Journal of Education,185(1),
7-38. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/journalofeducation/files/2011/06/
BUJOE-185.1Barber.pdf

Barber, M.&Mourshed, M. (2009). Shaping the future: How good education

systems can become great in the decade ahead. Retrieved from
http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/southeastasia/knowledge/Education_Ro
undtable.pdf.

Barbuto, J. E. J.& Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct

clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3),
300‐326.doi: 10.1177/1059601106287091

Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in so
cial psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-
1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bass, B. M.& Bass, R. (2008).The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research,

and managerial applications, (4thed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Bennis, W. (2007).The challenges of leadership in the modern world.American

Psychologist, 62(1), 2-5. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.2

Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S.& Wallace, M. (with Greenwood, A.).
(2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities
(Research Report RR637). Retrieved from http://www.education
scotland.gov.uk/Images/Creating%20and%20Sustainin%20PLCs_tcm463104.
Pdf

Boney, P. (2009). Building a stronger principalship:Evaluating and supporting

principals.Policy Studies Associates, Inc.6(1) 30-45.

Bryk, A., Sebring, P., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S.& Easton, J.

(2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from chicago.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Burke, R. J.& Cooper, C. (2009).Leading in turbulent times. Oxford: Blackwell.

 72

Bush, (2013).Transformational leadership. Retrieved March 2, 2015 from http://scho

lar.google.com.ph/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=esy1SzEAAA
AJ&citation_for_view=esy1SzEAAAAJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C

Calderon, C. (2006). Methods: A descriptive correlational, comparative design.

Retrieved from http://www.iste.org lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:11051962.

Calmorin, L. (2007). Research methods and thesis writing. Manila: Rex Bookstore.

Cardona, P. (2000). Transcendental leadership.Leadership & Organization

Development Journal,21 (4), 201-206. Retrieved from http://search.proquest
proquest.com/docview/226921496/22D8C1C62624CBEPQ/4?accountid=3125
9

Carroll, T., Fulton, K.&Doerr, H. (2010). Team up for 21st century teaching and
learning: What research and practice reveal about professional learning.
Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.

Carton, A. M. (2008).Enhancing leadership theories with goal structure.Academy of

Management Proceedings, 1-6. Abstract retrieved fromhttp://proceedings.aom
.org/content/2008/1/1.69.abstract
Chenowith, A.M. (2007). Enhancing leadership theories with goal structure.Academy
of Management Proceedings, 1(4)1-6. Retrieved from http://www.irmbrjournal.
.com/papers/1371451049.pdf

Cooley, V. E. (2003).School accountability and professional job responsibilities: A

perspective from secondary principalsshen, jianping. national association of
secondary school principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634), 10-25. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/216049947/3E49AAB40ED04A58PQ/5?a
ccountid=31259

Corcoran, A., Casserly, M..Price-Baugh, R., Walston, D., Hall, R. & Simon, C.
(2013). Rethinking leadership: The changing role of principal supervisors.
Retrieved from http://www.wallace foundation.org/knowledge-centerDocument
s/Rethinking-Leadership-The-Changing-Role-of-Principal Supervisors.pdf

Cossin, D. & Caballero, J. (2013).Transformational Leadership Background

Literature Review. Retrieved from https://www.imd.org/uupload/IMD.WebSite/
BoardCenter/Web/213/Literature%20Review_Transformational%20Leadership
.pdf

Dhiman, S. (2007). Personal mastery: Our quest for self-actualization, meaning, and
highest purpose. Interbeing 1(1), 25. Retrieved from http://connection.ebscoho
st.com/c/articles/28320582/personal-mastery-our-quest-self-actualization-mea
ning-highest-purpose
 73

Dhiman, S. (2011).Personal Mastery and Authentic Leadership.Organization

Development Journal, 29 (2), 69.Retrieved from http://connection.ebscohost.
com/c/articles/73348233/personal-masteryauthentic-leadership

Dotlich, D. (2006). Head, heart and guts: How the world’s best companies develop
complete leader. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Drucker, P.F. (1967). The Effective Executive. New York: Harper & Row.

Duffett, A., Farkas, S., Rotherham, A. J.& Silva, E. (2008). Waiting to be won

over: Teachers speak on the profession, unions, and reform (Education
Sector Reports). Retrieved from http://educationpolicy.air.org/sites/default/fil
es/publications/WaitingToBeWonOver_0.pdf

DuFour, R.&Fullan, M. (2013). Cultures built to last: Making PLCs systemic.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R.&Marzano, R. (2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and

classroom leaders improve student achievement. Retrieved from
http://soltreemrls3.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/solution-tree.com/
media/pdf/study_guides/LOL_Study_Guide.pdf

Earley, P.&Bubb, S. (2005). Leading and Managing Continuing Professional

Development: Developing People, Developing Schools. London: Sage.

Flores, O.P.& Santa Cruz, I. ( 2010). Efficiency and equity in learning communities
and schools. Psychology, Society, & Education 2(1), 13-23. Retrieved from
http://www.psye.org/articulos/Prieto%20Flores%20and%20Santa%20Cruz.pdf

Fry, L.W.&Matherly, L.L. (2015).Spiritual leadership and organizational

performance:An exploratory study. Retrieved from http://precisionmi.org/
Material/LeadershipMat/Spiritual%20Leadership%20and%20Organizational%
20Performance%20-%20An%20Exploratory%20Study.pdf

Fryer, R. G. (2011). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from

New York City Public Schools. Retrieved from http://scholar.harvard.
edu/files/fryer/files/teacher_incentives_and_student_achievement_evidence
_from_new_york_city_public_schools.pdf

Fullan, M. (2009).The Challenge of Change: start school improvement now.

Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.

Fullan, M. (2010). The moral imperative realized. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Gabriel, J. O. & George, M.B. (2015).Perceived organizational justice as mediator

in the association of leader spiritual intelligence and subordinate work attitude
 74

in Nigeria.The International Journal of Business & Management, 3 (12), 41-

52. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/7.-BM1512-022.pdf

Gandz, J., Crossan, M., Seijts, G.& Stephenson, C. (2010).Leadership on trial: A

manifesto for leadership development. London, ON: Richard Ivey School of
Business.

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R.&Walumbwa, F. (2005). Can
you see the real me? A self‐based model of authentic leader and follower
development.The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343‐372. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.
2005.03.003

Gehle, T. (2013). Core research designs part 3: Non-experimental designs. Retrieved

September 28, 2014, from Center for Innovation in Research and Teaching
file://C:/Users/User/Documents/thesis2/Core%20Research%20Designs%20Pa
rt%203%20%Nonexperimental%20Designs%20%20Center%20for%20Innovat
ion%20in%20Research%20and%20Teaching.htm.

Gehrke, S. J. (2008). Leadership through meaning-making: An empirical exploration

of spirituality and leadership in college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 49 (4), 351-359. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/doc
view/195181466/22D8C1C62624CBEPQ/18?accountid=31259

Gempes, G.P., Bontao, E.P., Prado, N.I.&Penaso, A.M. (2011).A Model of

Institutional Leadership in the Context of Change.UM Research Journal, 3(1).

Goker, S.D. (2006). Impact of peer coaching on self-efficacy and instructional

skills in TEFL teacher education.System, 34(2), 239-254.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2005.12.002

Gonzalez, R. A.& Firestone, W. A. (2013). Educational tug-of-war: internal and

external accountability of principals in varied contexts. Journal of Educational
Administration, 51(3), 383-406. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/doc
view/1355279431/3E49AAB40ED04A58PQ/12?accountid=31259

Gray, J. H.&Densten, I. L. (2007). How leaders woo followers in the romance of lead
ership. Applied Psychology, 56 (4), 558-581.doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00
304.x

Gregory, G.H.& Chapman, C. (2015).Creating a climate for learning.Retrieved

April, 2015 from http://www3.hants.gov.uk/pdf.
 75

Hadderman, M.  (2015) School productivity.Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.

org/1999-1/school.html

Halverson, R. (2005), How leaders use artefacts to structure professional community

in schools. Retrieved fromhttp://www.studentachievement.org/wp-content/uplo
ads/Distributed_Leadership_Halverson_2005.pdf

Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. Retrieved

from https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=nekXR2ONXwC&oi=fn
d&pg=PA181&dq=Hargreaves,+A,+(2007),+Sustainable+professional+learnin
g+communities&ots=YCt_gqH_fM&sig=RzGt052XgnF3r3SKAn9t0cqUJhc&red
ir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Hargreaves%2C%20A%2C%20(2007)%2C%20Sust
ainable%20professional%20learning%20communities&f=false

Harris, A. (2014). Distributed leadership matters perspectives, practicalities, and

potential. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=S45
2AwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Harris,+A.+(2014).+Distributed+leadership
+matters+perspectives,+practicalities,+and+potential&ots=TBLGxksQLH&sig=
KkcfeW2gNMMKTn834yfsaN9QuPE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Harris%2C
%20A.%20(2014).%20Distributed%20leadership%20matters%20perspectives
%2C%20practicalities%2C%20and%20potential&f=false

Harung, H., Travis, F., Blank, W.& Heaton, D. (2009). Higher development, brain
integration, and excellence in leadership.Management Decision, 47(6), 872-
894. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/212104016/22D8C1C
62624CBEPQ/12?accountid=31259

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating

to student achievement. New York: Routledge.

Heath, C.& Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is hard.
New York: Crown Publishing.

Heaton, D.& Schmidt-Wilk, J. (2008). Awakening the leader within: behavior depend
s on consciousness, in Biberman, G. and Tischler, L. (Eds), Spirituality in Busi
ness: Current Theory and Practice and Future Directions. Retrieved from http://
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057%2F9780230611887_8#page-1
 76

Herrera, R. (2010). Principal leadership and school effectiveness: Perspectives from

principals and teachers (Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University).
Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/503232723/3E49AAB40ED
04A58PQ/19?accountid=31259

Hirschy, A.S. & Braxton, J.M. (2006).Effects of student classroom incivilities on

students. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=YblRCgAAQ
BAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=Hirschy,+A.S.+%26+Braxton,+J.M.+(2006).+Ef
fects+of+student+classroom+incivilities+on+
%09students&source=bl&ots=Xde
SsrM09o&sig=72XV1Or4IsncSl4bmqpBIcp1yU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi
LiMj4zvvMAhUPtJQKHTK\A1cQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=Hirschy%2C%20A.
S.%20%26%20Braxton%2C%20J.M.%20(2006).%20Effects%20of%20student
%20classroom%20inciviliti es%20on%20%09students&f=false

Hirsh, S.&Hord, S.M. (2008).Leader and learner: Principal leadership. Retrieved

fromhttps://books.google.com.ph/books?id=Huh0AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT79&dq=
Hirsh,+S.%26+Hord,+S.M.+(2008).+Leader+and+learner:Principal+leadership
&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_9Iz_z_vMAhWFspQKHQtMBdgQ6AEIIzAB#v
=onepage&q=Hirsh%2C%20S.%26%20Hord%2C%20S.M.%20(2008).%20Le
ader%20and%20learner%3APrincipal%20leadership&f=false

Hodgson, G. K. (2010). Securing improvement through intelligent accountability:

views of senior leaders in allthrough academies (Unpublished MBA
dissertation). London, Institute of Education

Hodgson, G. (2011).Creating a climate of intelligent accountability in all-throughaca

demies.Retrived from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/10020/1/download%3Fid%3D1519
7%26filename%3Dcreating-a-climate-accountability-full.pdf

Holland, H. (2005). Teaching teachers: Professional development to improve

student achievement. Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.

Hopkins, D. (2007). Every school a great school: realising the potential of system
leadership. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Hoxby, C.M. (2003). School choice and school productivity: Could school choice be a
tide that lifts all boats?.Retrieved February 14, 2015 from http://www.nber.org/
 77

books/hox03-1

Hurt, J.C. (2008). Principals and teacher leaders co-constructing theories in practice:
Empowerment and accountability exchanged through school leadership
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville). Retrieved from http://searc
h.proquest.com/docview/304554689/3DA0EA34C4B74C67PQ/5?accountid=3
1259

Ilies, R., Judge, T.& Wagner, D. (2006).Making sense of motivational leadership: The
trail from transformational leaders to motivated followers.Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 13(1), 1-22.doi:10.1177/1071791907 0130010301

Jandaghi, G., Matin, H.Z.&Farjami, A. (2009). Comparing transformational

leadership in successful and unsuccessful companies. African Journal of
Business Management3 (7), 272-280. Retrieved from file:///C:Users/User/Dow
nloads/09e41505a09a3b7eb1000000.pdf

Johnson, S. M.&Kardos, S. (2007). Professional culture and the promise of

colleagues. In S. M. Johnson, Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers
survive and thrive in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, B., Harris, M. E. & Santana, M. (2008).Mastering developing new leadership

for transformative change.Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, 8
(2), 66-74. Retrieved from http://heartlandcircle.com/TLC/Capella_Study/
Article%207.pdf

Jose, P.E. (2003).MedGraph-I:Aprogramme to graphically depict mediation among

three variables. The internet version, version, 2, 2008.

Jue, A. L. (2004).Towards a taxonomy of spirit-centered leadership as reflected in

phenomenological experiences of entrepreneurial leaders (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Phoenix). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com/docview/305047359/22D8C1C62624CBEPQ/11?accountid=31259

Kishore, K.& Nair, A. (2013). Transcendental leaders are the moral fiber of an
organization. Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences Research
(JBM&SSR),2(7), 57-62. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/253-
2908-1-PB.pdf

Koester, E. L. (2010). The relationship between self-perceptions of accountability by

high school principals and student test scores (Doctoral dissertation, Walden
University). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305221162/3
E49AAB40ED04A58PQ/6?accountid=31259
 78

Kumar, T.&Pragadeeswaran, S. (2012). Relationship between emotional

intelligence and spiritual quotient of executives.Research Journal of Social
Science and Management, 1(9), 32-42. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/User/
Downloads/341-1519-1-PB%20(2).pdf

Labby, S. A. (2010).The relationship among principals' emotional intelligence skills

with respect to school accountability ratings and selected demographic factors
(Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/851505723/3E49AAB40ED04A58PQ/3?a
ccountid=31259

Ladd, H. F.&Zelli, A. (2005). School-based accountability in North Carolina: The

responses of school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly38(4),
494-529. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214370019/3E4
9AAB40ED04A58PQ/10?accountid=31259

Lapus, J. (2009). Public school students' NAT scores up. Retrieved March 10, 2015
from http://www.philstar.com/good-news/502468/public-school-students-nat-
scores

Leithwood, A.M.&Jantzi A.A, (2010).Testing a conception of how school leadership

influences student learning. Retrieved March 10, 2015 from http://eaq.sage
pub.com/content/46/5/671.abstract

Levitt, R., Janta, B.&Wegrich, K. (2000).Accountability of teachers. Retrieved

March 11, 2015 from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_re
ports/2009/RAND_TR606.pdf

Lieberman, A.& Miller, L. (Eds.) (2008).Teachers in professional communities:

Improving teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

Little, J. W. (2006). Professional community and professional development in the

learning-centered school. Retrieved from www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/mf_
pdreport.pdf

Liu, C.H. (2007). Transactional, transformational, transcendental leadership:

Motivation effectiveness and measurement of transcendental leadership.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California).Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.461.4126&rep=rep
1&type=pdf

Liu, H. (2008). Transcendental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior:

The mediating effect of spirituality in the workplace.(Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California).Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com/docview/304461636/22D8C1C62624CBEPQ/6?accountid=31259
 79

Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K.& Anderson, S. (2010). Learning from

leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. New York:
Wallace Foundation.

Louis, K.&Wahlstrom, K. (2011).Principals as cultural leaders. Phi Delta Kappan,

92(5), 52–56. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cehd.umn.edu/policy-breakfast/PD
K2011_principals-as-leaders.pdf

Lowder, T. (2011).Aligning spiritual intelligence, workplace spirituality, and

organizational culture: A new domain for superior organizational performance
[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.docslides.com/mitsue-
stanley/aligning-spiritual-intelligence-workplace-spirituality-an

Macaulay, H. (2008). Under the microscope: Leading in a climate of close public

scrutiny. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8205/1/under-the-microscope-
full-report.pdf

Marley, D. (2009). Leadership and the reform of education.Retrieved from

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=W16mAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT132&lpg=PT
132&dq=Marley,+D.+(2009)&source=bl&ots=mS2IwQvpk&sig=3TraVsh6B8hg
MG99vdZR7JnFdIk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOpJ_hwv7MAhXHHZQKHZ
AMDswQ6AEIMTAD#v=onepage&q=Marley%2C%20D.%20(2009)&f=false

Marques, J. (2006). Wakefulness: The decisive leadership skill. Management

Services, 50 (3), 5-6. Retrieved from https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-
1143272091.html

Marshall, E. K. (2012). A phenomenological inquiry into the perceptions of first level

supervisors on transformational leadership (Doctoral dissertation, Capella
University). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1019234358/
22D8C1C62624CBEPQ/16?accountid=31259

Marshall, M. (2015).Promoting learning. Retrieved from http://www.teachers.net/gaz

ette/DEC01/marshall.httpl.

Martí, M., Gil, F.&Barrasa, A. (2009). Organizational leadership: Motives and

behaviors of leaders in current organizations. The Spanish Journal of
Psychology, 12 (1), 267-274. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/doc
view/274713899/22D8C1C62624CBEPQ/17?accountid=31259

Marzano, R. (2009). Setting the record straight on "high-yield" strategies. Phi Delta

Kappan, 91(1), 30–37.Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/
curriculum/cali/setting_the_record_strai ght_on_hield_yield_strategies.pdf
 80

Marzano, R., Waters, T.& McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Mazutis, D., Morris, Z.& Olsen, K. (2011).Leadership at the graduate studies and
postdoctoral levels.Retrieved from http://www.vanier.gc.ca/en/pdf/leadership
_report_e.pdf

Minner, W. (2015).Leading global organizations.Journal of Management Policy

and Practice,16(2), 122-126. Retrieved from http://www.na-businesspress.com/JM
PP/MinnerW_Web16_2_.pdf

Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E.&Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional

program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement
policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297-321. Retrieved
from https://scholars.opb.msu.edu/en/publications/instructional-program-cohe
rence-what-it-is-and-why-it-should-guid-3

Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J.& Brenner, S. (2008). The effects of
transformational leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and
psychological wellbeing: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 22(1), 16-32.
Retrieved from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/15224/
3/Work_Stress_KNielsen_rev_final.pdf

Nordin, F. (2009). Transcendental marketing: A conceptual framework and empirical

examples. Management Decision, 47(10), 1652-1664. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/212073041/22D8C1C62624CBEPQ/7?ac
countid=31259

O'Donnell, R. J.& White, G. P. (2005). Within the accountability era: Principals'

instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement. National
Association of Secondary School Principals NASSP Bulletin89(645), 56-
71.Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/216022467/3E49AAB
40ED04A58PQ/13?accountid=31259

Perry, L.&McWilliam E. (2007).Accountability, responsibility and school leadership.

Journal of Educational Enquiry, 7,(1),32-43.Retrieved from http://www.cred.
unisa.edu.au/jee/Papers/JEEVol7No1/Perry.pdf

Peterson, C.& Seligman, M. E. P. (2014).Character strengths and virtues: A

handbook and classification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Pfeffer, J.& Sutton, R. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths and total

nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
 81

Pink, D. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York:
Riverhead.

Rebore, R.W. (2011).Human resources administration in education.A

Management Approach, ninth edition.

Rechebei, (2010).Accountability and reality:Who should do what? and who should

be accountable? research into practice series.Pacific Resources for
Education and Learning-Hawaii Department of Education.Honolulu, Hawaii.

Rojas, R. R. (2012). Management theory and spirituality: A framework and validation

of the independent spirituality assessment scale (Doctoral dissertation,
Argosy University). Retrieved from http://www.prismleadership.com/d.pdf

Rubin, R., Munz, D.&Bommer, W. (2005).Leading from within: the effects of

emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior.
Academy ofManagement Journal, 48(5), 845 – 858. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William_Bommer/publication/236891134_
Leading_from_within_The_effects_of_emotion_recognition_and_personality_o
n_transformational_leadership_behavior/links/0c96051a0d4f82fee4000000.pdf

Runhaar, P., Sanders, K.& Yang, H. (2010).Stimulating teachers’ reflection and

feeback asking: An interlpay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and
transformational leadership.Teaching and teacher education, 26(5), 1154-
1161.doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.011

Salisbury (2000). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader please
stand up? Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 441‐457.

Samuels, M. C. (2008). School-based reflection (SBR): Engaging external

accountability using critical reflection (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Illinois at Urbana- Champaign). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/304608173/3DA0EA34C4B74C67PQ/7?accountid=31259

Sanders, J. E., III, Hopkins, W. E.&Geroy, G. D. (2003). From transactional to

transcendental: Toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9 (4), 21. http://search.proquest.com/
docview/203138879/22D8C1C62624CBEPQ/3?accountid=31259

Santamaria, A.P. (2014). Principals’ Sense of Self-Efficacy in an Age of

Accountability.Running Head:California State University, 4(1) 760-458.
 82

Santos, R. (2007). Methods of research.Quezon City: R.P. Garcia Publishing

Company, Inc.

Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C.&Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by

focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective,
quasi-experimental study of title I schools. American Educational Research
Journal, 46(4), 1006–1033. doi: 10.3102/0002831209333185

Singh, K. (2015). A conceptual study on leadership theories and styles of managers

with the special emphasis on transformational leadership style.
International Journal of Advanced Research, 3(10), 748 – 756. Retrieved
from file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/869_IJAR-7391.pdf

Smith, W. (2003).Principal self-efficacy.Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies9 (4) 431.

Smith, W., Guarino, A., Strom, P., Reed, C. & Adams, O. (2003). Principal self-
efficacy and effective teaching and learning environments.Retrieved
from http://www2.education.uiowa.edu/archives/jrel/spring06/Strom_0510.
htm

Springer, M. G., Ballou, D., Hamilton, L., Le, V., Lockwood, J.R., McCaffrey, D. F. &
Stecher, B.M. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: Experimental
evidence from the project on incentives in teaching. Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reprints/2010/RAND_RP1416.p
df

Steiner, L. &Kowal, J. (2015).Principal as instructional leader: Designing a coaching

program that fits. Retrieved from http://www.readyrockets.org/article/principal-
instructional leader-designing-coachong-program-fits

Strathern, M. (2009) ‘Improving ratings’: audit in the British university system,

European Review, 5 (3), 305–321. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1234-981X(199707)5
:33.0.CO

Stronge, J.H., Richard, H.B. &Catano, N. (2016).Qualities of effective principal.

Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/108003/chapters/
Instructional- Leadership@Supporting-Best-Practices.aspx.

Sun, A. Q. (2011).Exploring the role of assistant principals in an accountability-

oriented environment in New York State public schools (Doctoral dissertation,
State University of New York at Buffalo).Retrieved from http://search.pro
quest.com/docview/879040731/3E49AAB40ED04A58PQ/8?accountid=31259

Teegarden, P.H. (2006). Shortage decade: where will the next generation of
nonprofit
 83

leaders come from. Retrieved fromhttp://www.youthcatalytics.org/wp-content/u

ploads/2012/07/GoodbyeHello.pdf

Tehubijuluw, F. K. (2014). The Role of Transcendental Leadership to Increase

Organization Performance through Workers Job Satisfaction.International
Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 5 (6), 511-515.Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1618937875/22D8C1C62624CBEPQ/1?a
ccountid=31259

Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development

(Educational Practices Series.Number 18).Retrieved from http://www.ibe.
unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Educational_Practices/EdPra
ctices_18.pdf

Tschannen-Moran, M.&Mcmaster, P. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: four

professional development formats and their relationship to sself-efficacy and
implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal,
110(2), 228-245. Retrieved from http://wmpeople.wm.edu/asset/index/
mxtsch/esj4

Tucker, M.S. (2011). Standing on the shoulders of giants: An American agenda for

educational reform. Washington, DC: National Center for Education and the
Economy. Retrieved from http://www.ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/
Standing-on-the-Shoulders-of-Giants-An-American-Agenda-for-Education-
Reform.pdf

Valenti, M. (2010).Leadership responsibilities associated with student academic

achievement: A study of the perspectives of national distinguished
elementary school principals in an era of high stakes accountability
(Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University). Retrieved from http://
search.proquest.com/docview/739098027/3E49AAB40ED04A58PQ/2?acco
untid=31259

Vescio, V., Ross, D.& Adams, A. (2008).A review of the research on the impact of
professional learning communities on teaching practice and student
learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. Retrieved from
http://www.k12.wa.us/Compensation/pubdocs/Vescio2008PLC-paper.pdf

Warren, L. (2015). Managing hot moments in the classroom. Retrieved from:

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/html/icb.topic58474/hotmoments.html

Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J.& Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our
national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED515656.pdf
 84

Williams, R. L. (2008). The relationship between principals' leadership self-efficacy,

student achievement and school performance (Doctoral dissertation, The
University of Southern Mississippi).Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com/docview/304477015/3E49AAB40ED04A58PQ/16?accountid=31259

Witmer, M.M. (2005). The fourth r in education-relationships. The Clearing House: A

Journal of Education Strategies Issues and Ideas, 78(5), 224-228.

Wittreich, Y., Jacobi, E. & Hogue, J. (2013).Getting parents involved: A handbook of

ideas for teachers, schools and communities. Norwood, MA: Christopher-
Gordon.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Zaccaro, S. J. (2007).Trait–based perspectives of leadership.American Psychologist.

62(1), 6-16. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6
 85

APPENDICES
 86

86

APPENDIX A

Specific Items per Indicator for Table 1

 87

Table 1.1

Level of Transcendental Leadership in terms of Wisdom

Descriptive
Items SD Mean
Level
1. Completing work efficiently. 0.91 3.56 High
2. Being organized in carrying out responsibilities. 0.96 3.41 High
3. Being concerned about doing things right. 0.86 3.38 Moderate
4. Being appropriately sensible in the allocation of
resources through School Improvement Plan (SIP). 1.02 3.13 Moderate

5. Waiting for the appropriate time to take action. 0.78 3.59 High
6. Displaying a calm disposition under stress. 1.14 3.17 Moderate
7. Taking a pause to think and respond instead of
reacting. 0.99 3.27 Moderate

8. Applying appropriate rationale to make decisions. 0.81 3.38 Moderate

9. Using factual analysis to reach conclusions. 0.87 3.41 High
10. Displaying good judgment in analyzing the facts. 0.74 3.52 High
 88

0.84 3.38 Moderate

Overall

Table 1.2

Level of Transcendental Leadership in terms of Humanity

Descriptive
Items SD Mean
Level
1. Displaying a modest assessment of own
importance. 0.73 3.37 Moderate

2. Keeping commitments regarding confidences. 0.97 3.09 Moderate

3. Being genuine who he/she claims to be. 0.97 3.09 Moderate
4. Showing consideration toward others consistently. 0.71 3.38 Moderate
5. Displaying sincere concern for the feelings of others. 1.03 2.98 Moderate
6. Seeing others as legitimately valuable despite
differences. 0.76 3.35 Moderate

7. Being able to let go of mistakes made by others. 1.01 3.08 Moderate

8. Behaving appropriately to the situation. 0.76 3.30 Moderate
9. Expressing thanks for the efforts of others. 0.62 3.48 High
10. Demonstrating a spirit of benevolence toward
others. 0.73 3.45 High

0.76 3.26 Moderate

Overall
 89

Table 1.3

Level of Transcendental Leadership in terms of Courage

Descriptive
Items SD Mean
Level
1. Displaying an appropriate amount of self-
confidence. 0.70 3.73 High

2. Taking action quickly in matters of importance. 0.96 3.31 Moderate

3. Being firm with regard to taking action. 0.68 3.52 High
4. Making the tough decisions to advance objectives. 0.74 3.45 High
5. Boldly exploring new territory to expand the mission. 0.68 3.49 High
6. Being persistent in the pursuit of stated objectives. 0.74 3.48 High
7. Being straightforward with the truth. 0.73 3.41 High
8. Showing equitable regard for circumstantial
evidence. 0.68 3.49 High

9. Making morally sound decisions. 0.68 3.51 High

10. Serving as a respectable example. 0.92 3.16 Moderate

0.69 3.45 High

Overall
 90

Table 1.4

Level of Transcendental Leadership in terms of Resilience

Descriptive
Items SD Mean
Level
1. Being receptive to all points of view. 0.82 3.42 High
2 .Being inquisitive about learning new things. 0.86 3.34 Moderate
3. Adapting quickly to change. 0.95 3.24 Moderate
4. Being quickly insightful without obvious factual
support. 1.06 2.98 Moderate

5. Showing commitment to selfless ideals. 0.81 3.34 Moderate

6. Motivating others to support his/her vision. 0.73 3.45 High
7. Expressing belief in what is possible. 0.71 3.38 Moderate
8. Planning for the future with foresight. 0.67 3.37 Moderate
9. Pioneering new ideas for positive solutions. 0.76 3.30 Moderate
10. Finding alternatives to optimize outcomes. 0.67 3.37 Moderate

0.75 3.32 Moderate

Overall

87
 91

APPENDIX B

Specific Items per Indicator for Table 2

Table 2.1
 92

Level of Institutional Productivity in terms of Instructional Program

Items Descriptive
SD Mean
Level
1. Teachers planning and organizing learning objectives
and learning targets with appropriate standards. 0.75 3.67 High

2. Children being encouraged to achieve objectives

and reach standards that have been established for 0.83 3.50 High
them.

3. Teachers aligning instruction and assessment

depending upon individual needs. 0.70 3.35 Moderate

4. Teachers adjusting instruction based on an

assessment data/results. 0.67 3.38 Moderate

5. Teachers being provided with trainings and

workshops towards instructional improvement. 0.71 3.39 Moderate

0.66 3.46 High

Overall

Table 2.2
 93

Level of Institutional Productivity in terms of Learning Community

Items Descriptive
SD Mean
Level
1. School Governing Council (SGC) demonstrating ability
to state and explain school mission/goals. 0.61 3.42 High

2. Annual reports, building and district evaluations being

presented completely and accurately to stakeholders. 0.74 3.31 Moderate

3. Shared decision making being practiced among

students, teachers and members of the community. 0.61 3.42 High

4. School head, teachers and community stakeholders

accepting shared responsibility for implementing 0.74 3.31 Moderate
decisions.

5. Information about the school’s policies, practices and

development being clearly provided. 0.61 3.46 High

0.65 3.38 Moderate

Overall

Table 2.3

Level of Institutional Productivity in terms of Learning Climate

 94

Items Descriptive
SD Mean
Level
1. Students’ needs being identified and addressed
individually with courtesy and respect. 0.67 3.42 High

2. Positive working relationships being developed and

maintained among teachers with full respect regardless of 0.61 3.42 High
differences.

3. Community outreach programs being existent. 0.74 3.31 Moderate

4. Evident open discussions being focused on issues of
trust, respect, empowerment and role blending. 0.74 3.31 Moderate

5. Teaming and collaboration among stakeholders being

established to ensure school’s success. 0.71 3.39 Moderate

0.67 3.37 Moderate

Overall

Table 2.4

Level of Institutional Productivity in terms of Organizational Structure

Items SD Mean Descriptive

 95

Level
1. Clearly defined systems and structures being operated
for administration of the school. 0.67 3.42 High

2. Effective management of budget process and

maintenance of record keeping being practiced. 0.61 3.42 High

3. Engagement of staff in the development of campus

improvement plans that result in improved student learning 0.71 3.39 Moderate
being practiced.

4. Systematic process for mentoring teachers in the school

being developed. 0.74 3.31 Moderate

5. All teachers being engaged in the assessment of school

programs and needs. 0.61 3.46 High

0.65 3.40 High

Overall

Table 2.5

Level of Institutional Productivity in terms of Leadership

Items SD Mean Descriptive

 96

Level
1. School head maintaining equity and serves as catalyst
for change. 0.75 3.35 Moderate

2. School head managing moral/ethical dilemmas (make

tough decisions). 0.61 3.42 High

3. School head effectively balancing time between

administrative tasks and instructional matters. 0.81 3.33 Moderate

4. School head supporting and providing ongoing effective

professional development on planning and implementing 0.66 3.38 Moderate
and focusing on needs.

5. School head ensuring that all students and teachers are

meaningfully included in school activities. 0.61 3.48 High

0.64 3.39 Moderate

Overall

88
 97

APPENDIX C

Research Instrument

UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO
Davao City

January, 2015
 98

Dear teacher:

The undersigned is conducting a study on “The Mediating Effect of

Accountability Climate on the Relationship Between Transcendental Leadership
of School Heads and Institutional Productivity”, as a dissertation requirement and
you are chosen as one of the respondents in this research.

In this connection, I have the honor to request your assistance by

accomplishing the questionnaire. Rest assured that all your responses will be treated
with utmost confidentiality. Your participation can also help the researcher in coming
up with concrete recommendations how to make the school productive.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

JUHAINALIZA S. JAWADIN
Researcher

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
(For Teachers Only)

I. Personal Profile

Name (Optional)____________________________Position ___________

 99

Division: ________________ Sex: Male Female

II. Transcendental Leadership

Directions: Please respond to the statements honestly by indicating the degree to which
each item describes the transcendental leadership of your school head. Check (√) the space
provided in each item which closely corresponds to what you think your school head is, in
general using the scale below. Please do not leave any question item unanswered.

Rating Scale Scale Interpretation

5 Strongly Agree It means that the item embodied is practiced, evident,

experienced or observed at all times.
4 Agree It means that the item embodied is practiced, evident,
experienced or observed most of the time.
3 Sometimes Agree It means that the item embodied is practiced, evident,
experienced or observed occasionally.
2 Disagree It means that the item embodied is practiced, evident,
experienced or observed on few occasions.
1 Strongly Disagree It means that the item embodied is not practiced,
evident, experienced or observed at all.

5 4 3 2 1
A. Wisdom Strongly Agree Sometimes Disagree Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
My school head…
1. completes work efficiently.
2. isorganized in carrying out responsibilities.
3.isconcerned about doing things right.
4. is appropriately sensible in the allocation of
resources through School Improvement Plan
(SIP).
5.waits for the appropriate time to take action.
6.displays a calm disposition under stress.
7.pauses to think and respond instead of
reacting.
8.applies appropriate rationale to make
decisions.
9.uses factual analysis to reach conclusions.
10.displays good judgment in analyzing the
facts.
5 4 3 2 1
B. Humanity Strongly Agree Sometimes Disagree Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
My school head…
1. displays a modest assessment of own
importance.
2.keeps commitments regarding confidences.
3. is genuine who he/she claims to be.
4.shows consideration toward others
 100

consistently.
5.displays sincere concern for the feelings of
others.
6.sees others as legitimately valuable despite
differences.
7.isable to let go of mistakes made by others.
8.behaves appropriately to the situation.
9.expresses thanks for the efforts of others.
10.demonstrates a spirit of benevolence toward
others.
5 4 3 2 1
C. Courage Strongly Agree Sometimes Disagree Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
My school head…
1. displays an appropriate amount of self-
confidence.
2. takes action quickly in matters of importance.
3. is firm with regard to taking action.
4. makes the tough decisions to advance
objectives.
5. boldly explores new territory to expand the
mission.
6. is persistent in the pursuit of stated
objectives.
7. is straightforward with the truth.
8. shows equitable regard for circumstantial
evidence.
9. makes morally sound decisions.
10. serves as a respectable example.
5 4 3 2 1
D. Resilience Strongly Agree Sometimes Disagree Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
My school head…
1. is receptive to all points of view.
2 .is inquisitive about learning new things.
3.adapts quickly to change.
4. is quickly insightful without obvious factual
support.
5. shows commitment to selfless ideals.
6. motivates others to support his/her vision.
7. expresses belief in what is possible.
8. plans for the future with foresight.
9. pioneers new ideas for positive solutions.
10. finds alternatives to optimize outcomes.
III. Institutional Productivity
Instruction: Respond to each item below by checking the item that best expresses the
accuracy of each statement as you rate your school using the scale below.

Rating Scale Scale Interpretation

 101

5 Strongly Agree It means that the item embodied is practiced, evident,

experienced or observed at all times.
4 Agree It means that the item embodied is practiced, evident,
experienced or observed most of the time.
3 Sometimes Agree It means that the item embodied is practiced, evident,
experienced or observed occasionally.
2 Disagree It means that the item embodied is practiced, evident,
experienced or observed on few occasions.
1 Strongly Disagree It means that the item embodied is not practiced,
evident, experienced or observed at all.
5 4 3 2 1
A. Instructional Program Strongly Agree Sometimes Disagree Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
In our school…
1. teachers plan and organize learning
objectives and learning targets with appropriate
standards.
2. children are encouraged to achieve
objectives and reach standards that have been
established for them.
3. teachers align instruction and assessment
depending upon individual needs.
4. teachers adjust instruction based on an
assessment data/results.
5. teachers are provided with trainings and
workshops towards instructional improvement.
5 4 3 2 1
B. Learning Community Strongly Agree Sometimes Disagree Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
In our school…
1. School Governing Council (SGC)
demonstrates ability to state and explain school
mission/goals.
2. annual reports, building and district
evaluations are presented completely and
accurately to stakeholders.
3. shared decision making is practiced among
students, teachers and members of the
community.
4. school head, teachers and community
stakeholders accept shared responsibility for
implementing decisions.
5. information about the school’s policies,
practices and development are clearly
provided.
5 4 3 2 1
C. Learning Climate Strongly Agree Sometimes Disagree Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
In our school…
1. students’ needs are identified and addressed
individually with courtesy and respect.
 102

2. positive working relationships are developed

and maintained among teachers with full
respect regardless of differences.
3. community outreach programs exist.
4. evident open discussions are focused on
issues of trust, respect, empowerment and role
blending.
5. teaming and collaboration among
stakeholders are established to ensure school’s
success.
D. Organizational Structure
In our school…
1. clearly defined systems and structures are
operating for administration of the school.
2. effective management of budget process and
maintenance of record keeping is practiced.
3. engagement of staff in the development of
campus improvement plans that result in
improved student learning is practiced.
4.systematic process for mentoring teachers in
the school is developed.
5.all teachers are engaged in the assessment
of school programs and needs.
5 4 3 2 1
E. Leadership Strongly Agree Sometimes Disagree Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
In our school…
1. the school head maintains equity and serves
as catalyst for change.
2. the school head manages moral/ethical
dilemmas (make tough decisions).
3. the school head effectively balances time
between administrative tasks and instructional
matters.
4. the school head supports and provides
ongoing effective professional development on
planning and implementing and focuses on
needs.
5.the school head ensures that all students and
teachers are meaningfully included in school
activities.

IV. Accountability Climate

Instruction: Respond to each item below by checking the item that best expresses the
accuracy of each statement as you rate your school head using the scale below.
Rating Scale Scale Interpretation

5 Strongly Agree It means that the item embodied is practiced, evident,

experienced or observed at all times.
 103

4 Agree It means that the item embodied is practiced, evident,

experienced or observed most of the time.
3 Sometimes Agree It means that the item embodied is practiced, evident,
experienced or observed occasionally.
2 Disagree It means that the item embodied is practiced, evident,
experienced or observed on few occasions.
1 Strongly Disagree It means that the item embodied is not practiced,
evident, experienced or observed at all.

5 4 3 2 1
Strongly Agree Sometimes Disagree Strongly
My school head… Agree Agree Disagree
1. supervises all activities and programs
conducted at the beginning level.
2. builds an action plan with time lines to assigned
responsibilities to enable school vision to be
accomplished.
3. presents financial, organizational and program
reports completely and accurately to stakeholders.
4. offers stakeholders an active role in decision
making about matters that affects them.
5. makes sound decisions and able to explain
them based on professional, ethical and legal
principles.
6. is responsible for the implementation of the
principles and current trends in curriculum, staff
development, essential elements of instruction
and supervision.
7. uses appropriate review, monitoring and
evaluation processes.
8.recognizes his/her personal impact on group
dynamics.
9. establishes effective working relationships with
other school heads, teachers, parents and
members of the community.
10. manages basic day to day school affairs, an
overall ethos conducive to the formation of trust
89
and confidence to school stakeholders.

Thank you very much for your valuable inputs.

The Researcher
 104

APPENDIX D

Letter to the Validators

105
106
107
 108

APPENDIX E

Validation Sheet for Research Instrument

 109

90
 110

APPENDIX E

Validation Sheet for Research Instrument

111
112
113
114
 91
115

APPENDIX F

Summary on the Ratings of Experts

as to the Validity of the Questionnaire
 116

Summary on the Ratings of Experts

as to Validity of the Questionnaires

Name of Evaluator Rating Equivalent

1. EUGENIO S. GUHAO, JR., D.M. 3.00 Good

2. EUNICE A. ATIENZAR, Ed.D. 4.00 Very Good

3. GRACE SANTA T. DACLAN, Ed.D. 4.00 Very Good

4. ESTER JEAN U. PELAYO, Ed.D 4.00 Very Good

5. NORMA D. ALONSO, Ed.D. 4.86 Very Good

OVERALL 3.97 Very Good

 92
117

APPENDIX G

Letter of Permission to Conduct the Study

118
 93
119

APPENDIX H

Certificate of Appearance
120
121
122
 94
123

APPENDIX I

Endorsement Letter
124
125
126
 95
127

APPENDIX J

Turnitin (Plagiarism Checker) Result

128
129
130
 96
131

APPENDIX K

Certificate of Publication
132
133
 97134

APPENDIX L

Certificate as Presenter
135
 98136

APPENDIX M

Editor’s Certification
137
 138

CURRICULUM VITAE
 139

CURRICULUM VITAE

JUHAINALIZA SAM JAWADIN

0830 Osmeña Street, Lupon, Davao Oriental
bluefairy_hainz1087@yahoo.com
ladyblue_1087@gmail.com
09058863691
ORCID 0000-0002-5067-2716

Birthday: March 10, 1987

Birthplace: Mahayag, Banaybanay, Davao Oriental
Age: 28

Father’s Name: RholandAnudinJawadin

Mother’s Name: Carmelita Sam Jawadin

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:

Elementary: Lupon Central Elementary School-I

Aguinaldo St., Lupon, Davao Oriental
Valedictorian

Secondary: Lupon National Comprehensive High School

Panuncialman St., Lupon, Davao Oriental
Salutatorian

Tertiary: Davao Oriental State College of Science and Technology

Bachelor of Elementary Education with concentration in
General Science
Cum Laude

Graduate Studies: University of Mindanao

Bolton, Davao City
Master of Arts in Education
major in Educational Management

Thesis Title: Basic Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

Literacy and Its Application in the Instructional Process of
Public Secondary School Teachers
 140

Post Graduate Studies: University of Mindanao

Matina, Davao City
Doctor of Education
major in Educational Management

Dissertation Title: The Mediating Effect of Accountability Climate on the

Relationship between Transcendental Leadership of
School Heads and Institutional Productivity

WORK EXPERIENCE:

Comara T. Manuel Central Elementary School II Teacher III

March 26, 2012-present

Comara T. Manuel Central Elementary School II Teacher I

July 21, 2009- March 25, 2012