Authors : Jocelyn A. Parcon; Remigilda Gallardo

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 6 - June

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/46pmybm9

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25jun796

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : This study explored the experiences of school heads in promoting accountability among public school teachers, with a specific focus on the challenges they face when allocating ancillary assignments, the coping mechanisms they employ, and the insights they gain. Understanding these experiences is important for improving leadership practices and strengthening accountability systems in schools. A qualitative research design using a phenomenological approach was employed to capture the lived experiences of five public school heads of Asuncion, Davao del Norte. Data were collected through in-depth interviews using an interview guide and were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key patterns and themes. The findings revealed six main challenges faced by principals: unequal workload distribution, lack of clear guidelines, resistance from teachers, mismatch between teachers’ skills and tasks, time constraints, and limited resources. To cope, school heads employed strategies such as ensuring fair workload distribution, clarifying expectations, communicating openly, matching tasks to teachers’ strengths, prioritizing tasks, and seeking additional resources. Insights gained included the importance of fairness, matching tasks to strengths, and fostering open communication to build trust and teamwork. The study highlights the need for clear policies, responsive leadership, and supportive practices that enhance teacher motivation and cooperation. The findings have practical implications for school heads, the Department of Education, teachers, and policymakers in improving task allocation and accountability systems.

Keywords : School Heads, Teacher Accountability, Ancillary Assignments, Leadership, Coping Strategies, Public Schools.

References :

1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267-299.
2. Bautista, L. (2023). Teacher perceptions of special assignment allocation in Davao City schools. Philippine Journal of Educational Leadership, 15(2), 34-47.
3. Bautista, L. (2023). Teacher perceptions of special assignment allocation and its impact on classroom performance in Davao City schools. Philippine Journal of Educational Leadership, 15(2), 34-47.
4. Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234.
5. Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802-1811.
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
7. Chang, Y., & Li, H. (2022). The impact of hierarchical norms on teacher assignment allocation in Asian schools. Journal of Comparative Education Studies, 24(1), 112-130.
8. Chang, Y., & Li, H. (2022). The impact of hierarchical norms on teacher motivation and classroom performance in Asian schools. Journal of Comparative Education Studies, 24(1), 112-130.
9. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
10. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
11. Cruz, R., Santos, M., & Velasco, J. (2023). Patronage and favoritism in the allocation of special assignments in Philippine schools. Asian Journal of Educational Administration, 9(1), 45-62.
12. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
13. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
14. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). SAGE Publications.
15. Guest, G., Namey, E., & Mitchell, M. L. (2013). Collecting Qualitative Data: A Field Manual for Applied Research. SAGE Publications.
16. Harris, A., Jones, M., & Adams, D. (2021). Leadership for equity: School leadership and the challenge of distributing leadership equitably. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(6), 967-984.
17. Johnson, M., Carter, S., & Roberts, T. (2020). Inequalities in special assignment allocations: Impacts on teacher retention. Educational Research Quarterly, 42(3), 66-85.
18. Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954-2965.
19. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations (2nd ed.). Wiley.
20. Kennedy, J. (2019). The role of seniority in special assignment distribution in American schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(4), 377-389.
21. Kim, M., & Kim, S. (2018). Perceived fairness and transparency in teacher special assignment allocation in South Korean schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(3), 399-414.
22. Knight, R., & York, C. (2020). Balancing merit and organizational needs in teacher assignments: A case study from the United Kingdom. British Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 657-673.
23. Knight, R., & York, C. (2020). The positive effects of leadership roles on teacher classroom performance: A case study from the United Kingdom. British Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 657-673.
24. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE Publications.
25. Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. AISHE-J: The All-Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 3351-33514.
26. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
27. Mertens, D. M. (2018). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity With Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
28. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
29. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. SAGE Publications.
30. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-13.
31. Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93-96.
32. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544.
33. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
34. Salazar, D. (2022). Teacher workload and burnout in Philippine public schools: The case of additional assignments. Philippine Educational Research Journal, 11(2), 89-105.
35. Salazar, D. (2022). Teacher workload, special assignments, and classroom performance in Philippine public schools. Philippine Educational Research Journal, 11(2), 89-105.
36. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.
37. Smith, J. A. (2015). Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234.
38. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE Publications.
39. Thompson, P., & Hall, C. (2021). Subjective decision-making in teacher special assignment allocation: A European perspective. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(7), 1324-1341.
40. Tracy, S. J. (2019). Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
41. Vagle, M. D. (2018). Crafting Phenomenological Research (2nd ed.). Routledge.
42. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405.
43. Van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of Practice: Meaning-Giving Methods in Phenomenological Research and Writing. Routledge.
44. Young, I. P., & Place, A. W. (2019). Aligning special assignments with professional development for effective classroom performance. Journal of School Leadership, 29(3), 204-225.
45. Young, I. P., & Place, A. W. (2019). Teacher assignment and career longevity: The impact of special assignments on teacher retention. Journal of School Leadership, 29(3), 204-225.