This chapter presents the summary, the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the study.
Summary
This study sought to find out the leadership standards of the secondary school leaders in Hai Phong City to serve as basis for an intervention program. Specifically, it aimed to determine the problems encountered in the current leadership standards of the secondary school leaders in Hai Phong City on the current leadership standards in terms of shared vision, culture of learning, management, family and community, ethics and societal context.
Ascertain the significant difference on the problems encountered when the respondents are grouped according to their profiles. Based from the findings, the proposed intervention program to enhance the leadership standards of the secondary school leaders in Haiphong City has been developed.
This study used the descriptive analysis to determine the significant differences of the variables. A total of 203 leaders of the 203 junior secondary schools in Haiphong City answered the questionnaire. The weighted mean was utilized to describe the perception of the respondents on the current leadership standards of the secondary school leaders in Haiphong City. The chi - square value analysis was used to determine the significant difference on the problems encountered when the respondents were grouped according to their profiles. The statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
Findings
Based on the objectives of the study, the findings are as following:
1. The profile of the respondents as indicated by:
Age : 51-56 with 95 or 47 percent;
Gender : Female with 107 or 53 percent;
Civil Status : Married with 197 or 97 percent;
Educational Attainment : Bachelor’s degree with 177 or 87 percent;
Monthly Income : 6.000.000-8.000.000VND with 94 or 46 percent;
Length of Service :30 years and above with 61 or 30 percent; and Length of Management Experience :30 years and above with 83 or 41
percent.
2. Perceived current leadership standards of the secondary school leaders in Hai Phong City in terms of:
Shared Vision WM= 3.18 evident category Culture of Learning WM=3.21 evident category Management WM=3.21 evident category
Family and Community WM= 3.59 highly evident category Ethics WM=3.39 highly evident category Societal Context WM=3.28 highly evident category
Shared Vision in terms of:
• Age x² = 12.17; p-value = .32 not significant
• Gender x² = 2.68; p-value = .33 not significant
• Civil Status x² = 2.38; p-value = .40 not significant
• Educational Attainment x² = 8.18; p-value = .33 not significant
• Monthly income x² = 5.98; p-value = .50 not significant
• Length of service x² = 11.34; p-value = .34 not significant
• Length of Management Experience x² = 13.38; p-value = .33 not
significant
Culture of Learning in terms of:
• Age x² = 29.14; p-value = .38 not significant
• Gender x² = 3.34; p-value = .34 not significant
• Civil Status x² =1.63; p-value = .60 not significant
• Educational Attainment x² = 11.22; p-value = .18 not significant
• Monthly income x² = 10.46; p-value = .31 not significant
• Length of service x² = 17.41; p-value = .24 not significant
• Length of Management Experience x² = 16.40; p-value = .28 not
significant
Management in terms of:
• Age x² = 8.87; p-value = .46 not significant
• Gender x² = 3.79; p-value = .24 not significant
• Civil Status x² =2.76; p-value = .52 not significant
• Educational Attainment x² = 16.15; p-value = .05 significant
• Monthly income x² = 7.21; p-value = .50 not significant
• Length of service x² = 16.41; p-value = .14 not significant
• Length of Management Experience x² = 13.05; p-value = .32 not
significant
Family and Community in terms of:
• Age x² = 16.60; p-value = .03 significant
• Gender x² = 1.32; p-value = .48 not significant
• Civil Status x² =16.68; p-value = 49.44 not significant
• Educational Attainment x² = 8.46; p-value = .16 not significant
• Monthly income x² = 7.86; p-value = .22 not significant
• Length of service x² = 17.11; p-value = .03 significant
• Length of Management Experience x² = 19.78; p-value = .04
significant
Ethics in terms of:
• Age x² = 10.86; p-value = .28 not significant
• Gender x² = 1.77; p-value = .44 not significant
• Civil Status x² = 0.62 p-value = .78 not significant
• Educational Attainment x² = 11.89; p-value = .15 not significant
• Monthly income x² = 39.14; p-value = .40 not significant
• Length of service x² = 15.75; p-value = .09 not significant
• Length of Management Experience x² = 20.10; p-value = .14 not
significant
Societal Context in terms of:
• Age x² = 9.66; p-value = .32 not significant
• Gender x² = 1.67; p-value = .55 not significant
• Civil Status x² =1.61; p-value = .54 not significant
• Educational Attainment x² = 8.05; p-value = .32 not significant
• Monthly income x² = 3.03; p-value = .39 not significant
• Length of service x² = 13.86; p-value = .13 not significant
• Length of Management Experience x² = 9.89; p-value = .43 not
significant
3. The proposed intervention program of leadership standard for secondary school is developed.
Conclusions
Based on the findings, the following are the conclusions:
1. That the secondary school leaders based on the current leadership standardsare matured, female, married with university graduate (bachelor) degrees, experienced in service and with moderate remuneration.
2. The perceived current leadership standard of secondary school leaders in Hai Phong City in terms of shared vision, culture of learning, management are evident and family and community, ethics and societal context are highly evident.
3. That there is commonality in terms of educational attainment and management, indicating age and family/community, length of service and management experience and family/community and community indicators. Thus, there is adherence to the standards of IOWA.
4. The proposed intervention program is ready for tryout.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions, the following are the recommendations:
1. Conduct a research using the 6 instructional variables (Identify the variables) by respective schools that would provide specific programs for each finding.
2. That principals should be regularly assessed throughreasonable proceedingsbased on the criteria for evaluation.
3. Policy formulation and implementation for recruitment and upliftment of educational attainment of the school leaders.
4. The intervention program may be further validated and its acceptability evaluated.
REFERENCES
Aaron, A.The Effect of Leadership on Values-based Management, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28, 2007.
Abhishek Kasina. (2002). Organizational Leadership From A Social Perspective: Columbia University Press.
Allen Morrison. (2006). Ethical Standards and Global Leadership: Advances in Global Leadership.
Beatriz Pont. Deborah Nusche and Hunter Moorman. (2008). Improving School Leadership Volume 1: Policy and Practice.
Beatriz Pont. Deborah Nusche and David Hopkins. (2008). Improving School Leadership - Volume 2: Case Studies on System Leadership.
Christa Boske. (2009). Children’s spirit.International Journal of Educational Management: Kent State University.
Circular No. 29/2009/TT-BGDDT dated October 22. 2009 by the Minister of Ministry of Education and Training Vietnam
Circle No 33/2005/TT-BGD&ĐT on December 8th 2005 Introduction about allowances for leaders in public educational institutions
Cynthia Golden. (2006). Cultivating Careers: Professional Development for Campus IT: Educause Publisher.
Decision No 27/2003/QĐ-TTgon the date of 19th February 2003 of Prime Minister about issuing“Regulations onthe appointment.re-appointment.
transfer. resignation. dismission of officials and leaders”.
Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown. (January 2011). A New Culture of Learning: Create Space Publisher.
Educational Law 2005. The 2009 Law is adjusted and added with some articles
Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008 by the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC
Florida Principal Leadership Standards (2005)
http://www.ccsso.org/documents/2008/educational_leadership_policy_standar ds_2008.pdf
http://www.floridaschoolleaders.org/fpls.aspx
https://www.educateiowa.gov/iowa-teaching-standards-criteria
http://coe.fgcu.edu/faculty/valesky/ISLLCStandards.htm
http://www.rtuni.org/userfiles/file/national-standards-for-school-leadership- 2008.pdf
http://www1.ccny.cuny.edu/prospective/education/leadership/leadership_stan dards.cfm
http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/21558/leadership/what_is_a_shared_visi on.html
http://infed.org/mobi/peter-senge-and-the-learning-organization/
http://www.newcultureoflearning.com/
http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/familycommunity/
http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/FACE/default.htm http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7201f.pdf
http://www.academia.edu/1841003/Assessment_And_Impact_Of_Organizatio nal_Leadership_From_A_Social_Perspective
www://e-lead.org/principles/standards1.asp
http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/downloads/FACEHandbook.pdf http://countrystudies.us/vietnam/43.htm
http://www.internations.org/vietnam-expats/guide/living-in-vietnam- 15470/education-in-vietnam-3
http://en.moet.gov.vn/?page=6.7&view=4402 http://www.oecd.org/edu/schoolleadership
http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/familycommunity/
http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/FACE/default.htm Iowa Standards for School Leaders (2007).
Kenneth Leithwood and Carolyn Riehl.(2003). What We Know About Successful School Leadership. Philadelphia. PA: Laboratory for Student Success: Temple University
Labor Law 2012. (2012).
Larry Lashway. (July 2003). Role of the School Leader.New Jersey Professional Development Initiative for School Leaders.
Leading Learning Communities (2001): NAESP Standards for What Principals Should Know and Be Able to Do. National Association of Elementary School Principals, Alexandria, Virginia.
Linda Lambert. The Constructivist Leader.second edition.Teacher College Press.1234 Amsterdam Avenue: New York.10027 and National Staff Development Council. P.O. Box 240. Oxford. OH 45056. 2002.
Matthew, M., Bonnie, F., Thomas, T., Thomas, P., How Professional Standards Guide Practice for School Principals.International Journal of Education, Management Vol. 27, 2011.
Mariage and Family Law. (2000).
Moving Leadership Standards into Everyday Work Descriptions of Practice (2003): WestEd, San Francisco, California.
Nihar, R., Quality and Reliability Corner: Six Sigma: Myths and Realities, InternationalJournal of Education, Reliability Management Vol 21, 2004.
Official Law. (2013).
Peter Senge. (1990)The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization: Random House Business Books, part of Cornerstone Publishing.
Principal Professional Development (April, 2001): National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Regulations of Secondary Schools and High Schools with Many Grade Levels andCircular No.12/2011/TT-BGDĐTMarch on 28th 2011 by the Minister of Education and Training
Regulations of secondary school Principals in Haiphong of Ministry of Education and training
Regulations of Office Standard in Haiphong (2012).
Dr. S.L. Sharma. (2009) Educational Management: a Unified Approach of Education: Global India Publications Pvt Ltd.
Sam Redding. Marilyn Murphy. & Pam Sheley. (2011) The Handbook on Family and Community Engagement: Academic Development Institute.
Van Cooley and Jianping Shen. (2003) The Relationship between Teachers' and Principals' Decision-Making Power: Is It a Win-Win Situation or a Zero-Sum Game: Taylor & Francis. Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800.
Philadelphia. PA 19106.