Advanced Journal of STEM Education, Vol. 3 No. 1 (2025) https://doi.org/10.31098/ajosed.v3i1.3334
Research Paper

Bridging The Gap in School Leadership: Developing Management
Competence and Supervisory Strategies for Improved Teacher
Effectiveness
Adrian G. Refugio*1, Joseph G. Refugio2 , Sheila S. Dalumpines1
1 Department of Education, Philippines
2 St Vincent’s College Incorporated, Philippines

Received : January 15, 2025

Revised : May 19, 2025

Accepted : May 22, 2025

Online : May 31, 2025

Abstract
Inadequate leadership can impede teachers' effectiveness and diminish the quality of education. This study
delves into the influence of management competence and supervisory strategies on teachers' performance to
unlock their potential for delivering quality education. Using a descriptive-correlational research design and a
questionnaire checklist, we investigated the relationship between these variables across fourteen public schools
in Dipolog City. Our findings revealed that while most administrators were highly competent, factors such as
age, experience, and educational qualifications influenced performance in specific areas. Surprisingly, the
number of training sessions attended did not significantly impact competence. Administrators frequently
utilized classroom visitation and demonstration strategies, revealing a strong positive correlation between their
level of competence and the implementation of these supervisory approaches. However, no significant
relationship was found between administrators' competence and teacher performance, indicating the need for
further investigation into factors affecting teachers' effectiveness.
Keywords: Bridging The Gap, Management Competence, Supervisory Strategies. Teacher’s Effectiveness

INTRODUCTION
Effective school leadership requires a diverse set of competencies that enable them to foster
a positive school environment, improve teaching performance, and enhance student outcomes.
Harris and Jones (2023) assert that without a strong management foundation, school leaders
struggle to align their practices with the educational and administrative goals of the institution,
which may hinder progress and performance. This is a crucial attribute for school administrators
to effectively lead their school organizations and achieve the desired outcomes for students,
teachers, and the broader community.
A key responsibility of a school administrator is to set and uphold high standards and
expectations for both teachers and students. This includes setting clear expectations for academic
performance to achieve quality education. Additionally, school administrators are responsible
for managing, evaluating, and supervising various procedures and programs within the school to
align with the school's goals and objectives. Masaudling (2018) highlighted that specific leadership
competencies serve as critical mediators in ensuring that supervisory strategies effectively
translate into improved teacher job performance, underlining the necessity for administrators to
develop these core competencies.
Fritz and Miller (2013), as cited by Adanu et al. (2019), stated that the responsibility for
effective teaching and learning is realized when school administrators employ various supervisory
strategies to enhance teachers’ performance. Ahmad et al. (2013) suggest that supervision should
not focus on inspecting or assessing teachers’ performance but rather guide them towards a
Copyright Holder:
© Adrian, Joseph & Sheila. (2025)
Corresponding author’s email: adrian.refugio002@deped.gov.ph

This Article is Licensed Under:

Adv. J. STEM. Ed.
technical process aimed at their continuous development. Beyond monitoring instructional
practices and outcomes, school administrators should support teacher growth by advocating for
professional advancement through training, workshops, and collaborative professional learning
communities.
Caguite and Ching (2023) emphasize that school heads should continue employing strategies
such as observation, demonstration, visitation, workshops, seminars, conferences, teacher guides,
suggestions handbooks, professional journals, and in-service education. They also emphasize the
need to cultivate an environment of mutual trust, integrity, loyalty, freedom, goodwill,
responsibility, and self-direction within schools. In terms of fund allocation, the authors
recommended that school heads analyze institutional needs collaboratively with stakeholders to
ensure transparency, strategically distribute resources to enhance instructional effectiveness, and
develop programs to secure additional funding for school improvement.
Wenceslao et al. (2018) further found that strong leadership capabilities and management
competence among elementary administrators directly contribute to improved school
performance, reinforcing the importance of these strategies.
Mulyasa (2013), stressed the two key factors that enable a leader to improve the quality of
education. First, the leader satisfies the needs of his subordinates through the effectiveness of the
job. Second, leaders provide the training, guidance, and support their teachers need. They highlight
the importance of fostering a school environment grounded in mutual trust, integrity, loyalty,
freedom, goodwill, responsibility, and self-direction. Within a school, management competence is
necessary to enable every school administrator to guide their staff in the performance of their
duties and functions under the school’s mandate to obtain quality education.
School administrators are essential in enhancing educational quality and maintaining
accountability in the management of school operations. However, there are some challenges
encountered by the school administrator, such as a lack of managerial competence and supervisory
strategies, which can hinder their ability to effectively provide technical assistance to the teachers
in improving classroom instruction and learning outcomes. Villamor (2023) found that strong
leadership styles, practices, and characteristics significantly influence management innovations in
basic education settings, highlighting the importance of developing these competencies to address
operational challenges.
Nkwoh (2011) stated that the school administrators must have a wide range of competencies
to lead schools effectively towards the accomplishment of educational goals, which has led to
changing expectations of what leaders need to know and be able to do to improve school
performance. However, school principals encounter challenges in school management that serve
as obstacles to both school improvement and the enhancement of student outcomes.
Day and Sammons (2014) identify key school challenges: maintaining quality learning,
balancing the curriculum, managing staff and resources, and fostering community partnerships for
innovation. The study by De Ramos and Briones (2024) found that the service quality engagement
of the institution is at an acceptable level of functioning. However, there is still room for
improvement in all service quality dimensions, such as tangibility, assurance, responsiveness, and
empathy. Furthermore, the findings indicated that there were no statistically significant differences
between the evaluations of personnel and students regarding service quality. Ezeugbor and Emere
(2017) found that discrepancies in perceptions between school leaders and teachers signal the
need for enhanced managerial practices in supervision and service delivery. Consequently, it is
imperative to conduct a study titled “Bridging the Gap in School Leadership: Developing
Management Competence and Supervisory Strategies for Improved Teacher Effectiveness,” which
aims to address these challenges and enhance the efficacy of school leadership.

58

Adv. J. STEM. Ed.

Theoretical Background
Administrative and supervisory roles of the school were adapted from a research study for
which content validity indices and reliability coefficients were already obtained. The researcher
only formatted the instrument considering its face validity, readability, and aesthetic value. A rating
scale was added with corresponding qualitative descriptions.
Data Gathering Procedure
A letter from the researcher, with the approval of the adviser, was sent to the office of the
Schools Division Superintendent of Dipolog City Division, requesting permission to gather data by
administering the research instrument of the study in the secondary and integrated schools. A letter
from the researcher, along with the approved letter from the Schools Division Superintendent, was
sent to the secondary school administrators asking for approval to gather data by administering
the research instrument of the study. The researcher personally administered the instrument to the
respondents after receiving approval. The researcher reserved all the rights of respondents to
understand and respond to the items in the questionnaire. However, to obtain an accurate
interpretation of the respondents' answers, interviews were conducted to explain the gaps in the
ratings of the items and the documents, considering that the items in the questionnaire were
technical. After the respondents answered, the questionnaires were promptly retrieved. Following
the retrieval, the responses were tallied, calculated, and interpreted using the statistical software.
Treatment of the Data
After the data were collected and consolidated by the researcher, the data were then treated
for analysis in descriptive and inferential aspects. Frequency Counting and Percentage. These were
utilized to identify the profile of the respondents in terms of sex, age, and length of service as
administrators, educational qualification, and the number of management seminars and training
attended. These were also used to quantify the respondents’ responses along the school
administrators’ management competence, supervisory strategies, and teachers’ performance. After
the data were collected and consolidated by the researcher, the data were then treated for analysis
in descriptive and inferential aspects. Frequency Counting and Percentage. These were utilized to
identify the profile of the respondents in terms of sex, age, and length of service as administrators,
educational qualification, and the number of management seminars and training attended. These
were also used to quantify the respondents’ responses along the school administrators’
management competence, supervisory strategies, and teachers’ performance (Lepardo & Caingcoy,
2021).
Percentages were calculated by dividing the frequency of each category by the total number of
respondents. Weighted Mean. This method was employed to assess the school administrators’
management competence, supervisory strategies, and teachers’ performance. The formula was
utilized to calculate the product of the weight of the scale and the frequency of each scale divided
by the total number of respondents:
𝑊𝑋

Weighted Mean: ∑ = 𝑁

Where:
∑ = Summation
X = Frequency of each scale
W = Weight of each scale
N = Total number of respondents

59

Adv. J. STEM. Ed.

Mann-Whitney U Test. This was employed to test the significant difference in the school
administrators’ management competence when respondents were grouped according to sex.
Computed U-value was obtained by the hereunder formula:
𝑛1 (𝑛1 + 1)
− 𝑅1
2
𝑛2 (𝑛2 + 1)
𝑈2 = 𝑛1 𝑛2 +
− 𝑅1
2
Where R1 = sum of the ranks for group 1 and; R2 = sum of the ranks for group 2
𝑈1 = 𝑛1 𝑛2 +

Where k = the number of groups, nj is the size of the jth group, Rj is the rank sum for the jth group,
and n is the total sample size.

Where d1 = R(X1) –R(Y1), is the difference between the two ranks of each observation, n is the
number of observations
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The study found that in secondary schools, female administrators outnumbered males, with
9 or 60% of administrators being female and 6 or 40% being male. The typical administrator was
in the age range of 51-60 years old. The study further revealed that most school administrators,
46.7%, were relatively new to their positions, with 5 or fewer years of experience. In terms of
educational qualifications, 3 or 20% of school administrators held doctoral degrees, and 6 or 40%
held master's degrees. Most administrators had participated in 6-10 professional development
seminars focused on management skills.

Sex
Male

Table 1. Profile of the School Administrators
Frequency
6
9

Percentage
40.0
60.0

Female
TOTAL

15
Frequency
0
1
4
10
0
15
Frequency
7
4

Age
30 or below
31 – 40
41 – 50
51 – 60
61 or over
TOTAL
Length of Service as Administrators
5 years or below
6 – 10 years
60

100.0
Percentage
0
6.7
26.7
66.7
0
100.0
Percentage
46.7
26.7

Adv. J. STEM. Ed.

11 – 15 years
16 – 20 years
21 or over
TOTAL
Educational Qualification
Bachelor’s Degree
Bachelor’s Degree with MA units/CAR
Master’s Degree
Master’s Degree with doctoral units
Doctoral Degree
TOTAL
No. of Management Seminars and
Training Attended
1 – 5 times
6 – 10 times
11 – 15 times
16 – 20 times
21 times or more
TOTAL

3
1
0
15

20.0
6.7
0
100.0

Frequency
0
2
6
4
3
15
Frequency

Percentage
0
13.3
40.0
26.7
20.0
100.0
Percentage

2
6
1
4
2
15

13.3
40.0
6.7
26.7
13.3
100.0

The study revealed that the level of school administrators' management competence across all
indicators was rated as very highly competent, with a grand weighted mean of 4.50. This means that
the school administrators possess a high level of management competence, with particular
strengths in areas like planning, implementing, assessment, communication, supervision,
community relations, staff development, and conflict management. The high ratings in all
competence areas also imply that the administrators have a well-rounded skill set that allows them
to handle the diverse responsibilities of their role and can effectively lead their schools, manage
school operations, and support teachers in improving classroom instruction and student learning
outcomes.
Table 2. The Level of School Administrators’ Management Competence
Indicators
Grand
Standard
Level/Implication
Weighted
Deviation
Mean
1. Planning
4.51
.634
Excellent/Very Highly
Competent
2. Implementing
4.51
.630
Excellent/Very Highly
Competent
3. Assessment
4.42
.695
Excellent/Very Highly
Competent
4. Communication
4.53
.618
Excellent/Very Highly
Competent
5. Supervision
4.54
.605
Excellent/Very Highly
Competent
6. Community Relations
4.57
.590
Excellent/Very Highly
Competent
7. Staff development
4.50
.654
Excellent/Very Highly
Competent
61

Adv. J. STEM. Ed.

Indicators

8. Conflict Management

Grand
Weighted
Mean
4.45

Overall Weighted Mean
1.00 – 1.80
2.61 – 3.40

Poor/Not Competent
Good/Moderately Competent

4.50
1.81 – 2.60
3.41 – 4.20

Standard
Deviation

Level/Implication

.736

Excellent/Very Highly
Competent
.645
Excellent/Very Highly
Competent
Fair/Less Competent
Very Good/Highly Competent

The results reveal that there is no significant difference in school administrators’ management
competence in all eight indicators when grouped according to sex. The p-values for all the
competence indicators are greater than the significance level of 0.05, indicating that the null
hypothesis cannot be rejected. The findings indicate that the school administrators demonstrate
a consistent level of management competence regardless of whether they are male or female.
Their abilities to plan, implement, assess, communicate, supervise, build community relations,
develop staff, and manage conflicts are not influenced by their gender. This implies that the school
administrators are evaluated and recognized based on their professional capabilities rather than
their sex. It reflects an equitable and merit-based approach to assessing and developing the
management competencies of school leaders.
Table 3. The Difference in the School Administrators’ Management Competence when Grouped
According to Sex
Management Competence
U-Value
P-Value
Interpretation
Decision on 𝑯𝒐
Planning
6056.500 .137
Not Significant
Do not reject
Implementing
5997.500 .112
Not Significant
Do not reject
Assessment
6608.000 .722
Not Significant
Do not reject
Communication
6293.500 .319
Not Significant
Do not reject
Supervision
6265.500 .290
Not Significant
Do not reject
Community Relations
6314.000 .326
Not Significant
Do not reject
Staff Development
6193.000 .216
Not Significant
Do not reject
Conflict Management
6246.500 .264
Not Significant
Do not reject
The study’s findings indicate that there is a significant difference in school administrators’
management competence when grouped according to age for the following competence indicators
such as planning, implementing, and assessment. This means that the school administrators'
management competence in planning, implementing, and assessing differs significantly based on
their age. On the other hand, the study examined various indicators of school administrators’
management competence, including communication, supervision, community relations, staff
development, and conflict management. The results revealed that there is no significant difference
between the school administrators’ management competence when grouped according to their age.
In other words, the age of the school administrators does not impact their ability to communicate
effectively, supervise, engage with stakeholders, train teachers, or resolve conflicts. This means that
the administrators' competence in these areas does not differ significantly based on their age.
The findings further revealed that the school administrators' age plays a role in their
competence related to planning, implementing, and assessment. Older administrators may have
more experience and expertise in these areas compared to their younger counterparts. However,
62

Adv. J. STEM. Ed.

age does not seem to be a significant factor in the administrators' communication, supervision,
community relations, staff development, and conflict management skills. The age of school
administrators does not seem to be a significant factor in their ability to communicate, supervise,
engage in support of the stakeholders, train teachers, and resolve conflicts.
Table 4. The Difference in the School Administrators’ Management Competence when Grouped
According to Age
Management
H-Value
P-Value
Interpretation
Decision on 𝑯𝒐
Competence
Planning
9.444
.009
Significant
Reject
Implementing
7.087
.029
Significant
Reject
Assessment
6.905
.032
Significant
Reject
Communication
3.389
.184
Not Significant
Do not reject
Supervision
5.420
.067
Not Significant
Do not reject
Community Relations
4.663
.097
Not Significant
Do not reject
Staff Development
5.341
.069
Not Significant
Do not reject
Conflict Management
5.169
.075
Not Significant
Do not reject
The findings indicate that there is a significant difference in school administrators’
management competence when grouped according to their length of service as administrators.
These are planning, implementation, assessment, communication, community relations, staff
development, and conflict management. This means that experienced school administrators are
characterized by their ability to implement, communicate, plan, develop others, assess, engage
stakeholders, and resolve conflicts between teachers and non-teaching staff. This could be
attributed to the accumulated knowledge, skills, and practical experience that administrators gain
over time in their roles. Longer-serving administrators may have had more opportunities to
develop and refine these competencies through job experience, professional development, and
exposure to diverse school management challenges.
Furthermore, there is no significant difference in school administrators’ management
competence when grouped according to the length of service under supervision. This suggests
that school administrators’ management competence is not associated with the length of service
under supervision.
Table 5. The Difference in the School Administrators’ Management Competence when Grouped
According to Length of Service as Administrator
Management Competence H-Value
P-Value
Interpretation
Decision on 𝑯𝒐
Planning
14.094
.003
Significant
Reject
Implementing
9.291
.026
Significant
Reject
Assessment
7.833
.050
Significant
Reject
Communication
10.140
.017
Significant
Reject
Supervision
3.945
.268
Not Significant
Do not reject
Community Relations
9.511
.023
Significant
Reject
Staff Development
8.453
.038
Significant
Reject
Conflict Management
8.423
.038
Significant
Reject
The study revealed a significant difference in school administrators’ management
competence when grouped according to educational qualifications in supervision. This means
63

Adv. J. STEM. Ed.

that the administrators' competence in supervision differs significantly based on their educational
attainment. The school administrators with higher educational attainment, such as doctoral
degrees, may have more advanced knowledge and skills in supervising teachers and school
operations Additionally, there was no significant difference in management competence when
administrators were grouped based on educational qualifications in planning, implementation,
assessment, communication, community relations, staff development, and conflict management.
This suggests that educational qualifications were not associated with the seven management
competence indicators for school administrators.
Table 6. The Difference in the School Administrators’ Management Competence when Grouped
According to Educational Qualification
Management Competence H-Value
P-Value
Interpretation
Decision on 𝑯𝒐
Planning
3.881
.275
Not Significant
Do not reject
Implementing
2.464
.482
Not Significant
Do not reject
Assessment
6.103
.107
Not Significant
Do not reject
Communication
.964
.810
Not Significant
Do not reject
Supervision
8.551
.036
Significant
Reject
Community Relations
3.555
.314
Not Significant
Do not reject
Staff Development
6.071
.108
Not Significant
Do not reject
Conflict Management
3.895
.273
Not Significant
Do not reject
The study found that there is no statistically significant difference in the school
administrators' management competence when grouped according to the number of management
seminars and training attended across all the competence indicators. This means that the number
of management seminars and training courses attended is not a reliable indicator of differences in
management competence. It is possible that the seminars and training attended by the
administrators cover a wide range of topics, and the number alone does not necessarily translate
into improved competence in specific areas like planning, implementing, assessment,
communication, supervision, community relations, staff development, and conflict management.
Targeted training programs that address specific competency gaps may be more effective in
enhancing the administrators' skills, and providing opportunities for hands-on practice, mentoring,
and feedback can also contribute to the development of management competencies.
Table 7. The Difference in the School Administrators’ Management Competence when Grouped
According to the No. Management Seminars and Training Attended
Management
H-value
P-value
Interpretation
Decision on Ho
competence
Planning
6.261
.180
Not Significant
Do not reject
Implementing
2.125
.713
Not Significant
Do not reject
Assessment
1.721
.787
Not Significant
Do not reject
Communication
3.706
.447
Not Significant
Do not reject
Supervision
2.961
.564
Not Significant
Do not reject
Community Relations
2.845
.584
Not Significant
Do not reject
Staff Development
3.108
.540
Not Significant
Do not reject
Conflict Management
5.817
.213
Not Significant
Do not reject
The study revealed that the extent of use of school administrators’ supervisory strategies
64

Adv. J. STEM. Ed.

was rated as strongly agree or to a great extent, with a grand weighted mean of 3.68. This means
that school administrators always use supervisory strategies to enhance the performance of
teachers and non-teaching personnel. This implies that school administrators are consistently using
supervisory strategies, such as classroom visitation and demonstration strategy, which can
ultimately contribute to enhanced teaching and learning outcomes.
Table 9. The Relationship Between the School Administrators’ Management Competence and
the Extent of Use of School Administrators’ Supervisory Strategies Along Classroom Visitation
Strategy
Indicators
Computed
P-Value
Interpretation
𝝆
Planning and Classroom
.561
.000
Large/High Positive
Visitation
Correlation/Significant
Implementing and
.617
.000
Large/High Positive
Classroom Visitation
Correlation/Significant
Assessment and Classroom
.550
.000
Large/High Positive
Visitation
Correlation/Significant
Communication and
.584
.000
Large/High Positive
Classroom Visitation
Correlation/Significant
Supervision and Classroom
.592
.000
Large/High Positive
Visitation
Correlation/Significant
Community Relations and
.597
.000
Large/High Positive
Classroom Visitation
Correlation/Significant
Staff Development and
.653
.000
Large/High Positive
Classroom Visitation
Correlation/Significant
Conflict Management and
.605
.000
Large/High Positive
Classroom Visitation
Correlation/Significant
The study reveals that there is a significant relationship between school administrators’
management competence and the extent of use of school administrators’ supervisory strategies,
along with demonstration strategy. This means that the school administrators who demonstrate
high competencies in key areas such as planning, implementing, assessment, communication,
supervision, community relations, staff development, and conflict management are more likely
to effectively utilize demonstration as a supervisory strategy. These findings indicate that
developing administrators' management competencies can enhance their ability to model
effective teaching practices and provide valuable feedback to teachers through demonstrationbased supervision, highlighting the importance of cultivating well-rounded leadership skills
among school leaders.
Table 10. The Relationship Between the School Administrators’ Management Competence
and the Extent of Use of School Administrators’ Supervisory Strategies Along the
Demonstration Strategy
Variables
Computed
P-Value
Interpretation
𝝆
Planning and Demonstration
.517
.000
Large/High Positive
Strategy
Correlation/Significant
65

Adv. J. STEM. Ed.

Variables
Implementing and
Demonstration Strategy
Assessment and
Demonstration Strategy
Communication and
Demonstration Strategy
Supervision and
Demonstration Strategy
Community Relations and
Demonstration Strategy
Staff Development and
Demonstration Strategy
Conflict Management and
Demonstration Strategy

Computed
𝝆
.547

P-Value

Interpretation

.000

.507

.000

.541

.000

.557

.000

.596

.000

.616

.000

.604

.000

Large/High Positive
Correlation/Significant
Large/High Positive
Correlation/Significant
Large/High Positive
Correlation/Significant
Large/High Positive
Correlation/Significant
Large/High Positive
Correlation/Significant
Large/High Positive
Correlation/Significant
Large/High Positive
Correlation/Significant

The study revealed that the majority of secondary school teachers received a “very
satisfactory” rating, while 48 teachers received an outstanding rating. The data indicates that the
overall level of teachers' performance is very satisfactory, with the average weighted value of 4,20.
The high percentage of outstanding ratings further indicates that a significant portion of teachers
are performing at an exceptional level. The findings suggest that school administrators can focus
on maintaining and further enhancing the high level of teachers' performance, potentially through
continued professional development, regular provision of technical assistance, and recognition of
outstanding performance.

Numerical
Rating
5
4
3
2
1

Table 11. The Level of Teachers’ Performance
Range of Values
Frequency
Adjectival Rating/Implication
4.500 – 5.000
3.500 – 4.499
2.500 – 3.499
1.500 – 2.499
Below 1.499
TOTAL
Average Weighted Value
Standard Deviation

48
184
1
0
0
233
4.20
.413

Outstanding
Very Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Poor
Very Satisfactory
-

The study findings indicate that there is no significant relationship between school
administrators’ management competence and teachers’ performance. Despite both groups
receiving high ratings, the management competence of administrators does not impact teachers’
performance. Consequently, the provision of management support practices by administrators
does not significantly affect teachers’ performance, even when management competence is high.
However, further investigation is needed to identify other factors related to administrators’
management skills that may influence teachers’ performance.

66

Adv. J. STEM. Ed.

Table 12. The Relationship Between the School Administrators’ Management Competence and
the Level of Teachers’ Performance
Variables
Computed
P-Value
Interpretation
𝝆
Planning and Teachers’
.016
.806
Not Significant
Performance
Implementing and Teachers’
.008
.902
Not Significant
Performance
Assessment and Teachers”
.023
.731
Not Significant
Performance
Communication and Teachers’
.011
.867
Not Significant
Performance
Supervision and Teachers’
.021
.754
Not Significant
Performance
Community Relations and
.013
.841
Not Significant
Teachers’ Performance
Staff Development and Teachers’
.066
.313
Not Significant
Performance
Conflict Management and
.061
.352
Not Significant
Teachers’ performance
CONCLUSIONS
This study concludes that school administrators in public secondary schools in the Dipolog
City Division are predominantly female, relatively older, have less experience in school
management, professional development is a priority, especially among the administrators, and they
are very highly competent in their management in achieving positive outcomes.
On the other hand, school administrators' gender and number of management seminars
attended do not significantly impact their overall competence, their age, length of service, and
educational qualifications in specific areas play a role in shaping their abilities, highlighting the
importance of practical experience, targeted professional development, and a merit-based
approach to evaluating and developing school leaders' management skills. The school
administrators' consistent use of supervisory strategies, such as classroom visitation and
demonstration, contributes to enhanced teaching instruction and student outcomes.
Classroom visitation and demonstration strategies were widely employed by administrators,
showing a strong positive correlation with their competence. Additionally, teachers’ performance
was rated as very satisfactory, but the study did not find a direct impact of school administrators’
management competence on teachers’ performance.
The results of this study emphasize the importance of effective leadership in promoting
teacher effectiveness and enhancing the quality of education. While management competence and
supervisory strategies play a crucial role in school leadership, further research is needed to explore
the complex factors influencing teachers' performance.

LIMITATION & FURTHER RESEARCH
The findings of the study are limited to the public secondary school administrators in the
Schools Division of Dipolog City, which limits generalizability to other school divisions, educational
levels, or private institutions. The reliance on personally disclosed information and quantitative
measures may fail to capture the intricate qualitative insights into leadership practices or the
67

Adv. J. STEM. Ed.

unique contextual challenges encountered by school administrators. Additionally, the descriptivecorrelational design limits the ability to determine the causal relationships between variables such
as management competence and teacher performance. The lack of direct correlation between
school administrators’ competence and teachers’ performance may also indicate a ceiling effect, as
teachers were already rated "very satisfactory," leaving little room for improvement. The study did
not account for external factors, such as school resources, stakeholders’ engagement, or teacher
motivation, which could influence outcomes independently of administrative practices. These
limitations highlight the need for methodological expansion and contextual diversity in future
research.
To address these constraints and build upon the current findings, the following directions
are recommended for future research. Future studies should widen the scope geographically and
demographically to include various educational landscapes and leadership approaches.
Longitudinal research could monitor changes in school administrators’ management competence
and their long-term impact on teacher performance. The triangulation method that combines
surveys, interviews, and observations may provide a deeper understanding of how supervisory
strategies like demonstration and classroom visitation contribute to academic improvements.
Exploring external variables, such as socio-economic factors, allocation of resources, and school
environment, could also clarify their role in influencing leadership effectiveness. Additionally,
examining why gender and management training show not significance—despite the influence of
age and experience—could guide the development of more equitable and targeted training
programs for school leaders. Replicating the study in settings where teacher performance is not
uniformly high might further emphasize the connections between school administrators’
management competence and instructional outcomes. Incorporating these recommendations could
strengthen the explanatory power of future studies and lead to more evidence-based strategies for
improving education leadership.
Furthermore, future researchers may consider integrating comparative approaches that
examine public versus private institutions, rural versus urban settings, or developing versus
developed regional contexts to uncover context-sensitive leadership models. Investigating the
influence of digital leadership competencies and adaptive leadership frameworks in post-pandemic
educational environments may also yield relevant insights, especially as schools increasingly rely
on technology-integrated systems. Additionally, mixed-method designs can illuminate the
experiential narratives behind quantitative patterns, revealing the subjective realities of both
school administrators and teachers. The evolving demands on educational leadership—ranging
from crisis management to inclusive policy implementation—require that future inquiries adopt
multidimensional perspectives. By embedding cultural, technological, psychological, and policyrelated dimensions into the framework of analysis, scholars can craft a richer, more practical
foundation to guide leadership training and decision-making in schools. These expansions will not
only refine the applicability of leadership theories in educational settings but also enhance the
responsiveness of school systems to diverse and dynamic challenges.

REFERENCES
Adanu, O., Kajo, D., & Odeh, R. (2019). Perceived influence of supervision strategies of principals on
teachers’ job performance in public secondary schools in North Central Nigeria. IOSR Journal of
Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 9(6), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.9790/73880906015459
Ahmad, A. R., & Farley, A. (2013). Federal government funding reforms: Issues and challenges facing
Malaysian public universities. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 3(1), 282–298.

68

Adv. J. STEM. Ed.

https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.1.2013.31.282.298
Caguite, R., & Ching, G. (2023). Instructional supervisory practices of school heads during the full
implementation of face-to-face classes in the third congressional district of Quezon: Basis for a
supervisory plan. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(10), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8071738
Day, C., & Sammons, P. (2014). Successful school leadership: A review of key leadership practices and
challenges. In Supporting inclusive school leadership (hlm. …). European Agency for Special
Needs and Inclusive Education.
De Ramos, J., & Briones, J. (2024). Level of functioning of service quality of a private higher education
institution in the Philippines: Personnel and student perspectives. Education Policy and
Development, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.31098/epd.v2i2.2365
Ezeugbor, C. O., & Emere, O. N. (2017). Appraisal of principals’ managerial practices for teacher
effectiveness in public secondary schools in Nigeria. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(9),
513–526. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo/896000
Fritz, X., & Miller, Y. (2013). Supervisory options for instructional leaders.
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2023). Effective school leadership: The role of management expertise in achieving
organizational goals. Journal of Educational Administration, 61(4), 471–487.
Lepardo, R., & Caingcoy, M. (2021). Competency of school heads in leading people influences school
performance. International Journal of Educational Policy Research and Review, 8(4), 126–131.
https://doi.org/10.15739/IJEPRR.21.015
Masaudling, M. D. (2018). Leadership competencies: Their mediating effect on the relationship between
supervisory strategies of administrators and job performance of teachers. Tin-Aw, 2(1), 1.
Mulyasa, E. (2013). Manajemen dan kepemimpinan kepala sekolah [Manajemen dan Kepemimpinan
Kepala Sekolah]. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Nkwoh, B. (2011). Analysis of administrative roles of principals in private secondary schools in Aba
Education Zone, Abia State. Journal of Educational Administration, 2(1), 33–41.
Villamor, N. B. (2023). Leadership styles, practices, characteristics, and its effectiveness to the management
innovations of basic education school leaders: A basis for professional development program.
Psychology
and
Education:
A
Multidisciplinary
Journal,
9(5),
531–544.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8009419
Wenceslao, A., Misa, J., & Tugonon, T. (2018). Leadership capabilities, management competence and
performance of elementary public administrators. International Journal of Innovation and
Research in Educational Sciences, 5(3), 293–301.

69