Community Relation Practices of School Administrators in Public Schools

International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Society
e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijares
85
Copyright © 2022 ASIAN SCHOLARS NETWORK - All rights reserved
Community Relation Practices of School Administrators in Public
Schools in Palapag, Northern Samar
Martin L. Nobis, Jr.1*
1
University of Eastern Philippines Laoang Campus, Laoang, Northern Samar, Philippines
*Corresponding Author: nobisjrmartin@gmail.com
Accepted: 15 July 2022 | Published: 1 August 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55057/ijares.2022.4.2.9
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: School administrators interact with all members of the school community, including
administrative staff, teachers, students, parents and local government officials. This study
aimed to know the profile of the respondents; the community relations practices and the
significant relationship between the profile of the school administrators and community
relations practices and the significant difference among the assessment of the three groups of
respondents on the community relations practices of public-school administrators.
Descriptive-correlational survey methods and a questionnaire were utilized to gather the data.
Findings revealed that the community relations practices were high as perceived by the
respondents. Moreover, the relationship between the profile and the differences in the
assessment of community relations practices were all found not significant.
Keywords: Education; community relation practices; public school; school administrators,
descriptive-correlational; Philippines
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
School officials interact with all members of the school community, including administrative
staff, teachers, students, parents, local government officials and many others which puts them
in an ideal position to be leaders and share basic information about creating healthy indoor
school environments, including managing Indoor Air Quality or IAQ, with everyone who can
work to make a difference. Maintaining good IAQ requires a coordinated management
approach that provides and establishes some routine inspection and maintenance policies, to
carry out the different functions of the public schools.
There is also a need for the development of school-community relations among the school
administrators as well as the community officials. It follows that the school must be managed
by administrators who have desirable leadership behavior for their relationship among
themselves and with the people in the community. One particular tenant is forming a
collaborative relationship with stakeholders in the community (Compassion Capital Fund
Resource Center, 2010). Although the school leader functions as the instructional leader within
the school, setting up and maintaining parental and community relationships are equally
important (Compassion Capital Fund Resource Center, 2010, p. 16). This includes sharing the
vision, clearly articulating the goals, and an agreement on the roles and responsibilities of
members to reach the target (Compassion Capital Fund Resource Center, pp. 16-18). Fiore
(2016) adds that even more important to the role of the school leader or principal as a school-

e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
86
community leader are the "values and beliefs that guide the principal's behavior" (p. 40). That
is, the principal's beliefs guide his or her actions with community stakeholders. These actions
are deliberate and intentional leading toward a "two-way communication with internal and
external groups" Fiore (2016, p. 40).
Green (2013, p. 14) notes seven tenants that are essential for school leaders in building a
collaborative school culture: (1) have knowledge of the emerging issues and trends that can
potentially impact the school community; (2) be able to recognize the need to involve
stakeholders in school decision-making processes; (3) assess whether they are highly visible;
(4) assess whether they are actively involved; (5) assess their effectiveness in communicating
with the larger community; (6) assess whether they give credence to individuals and groups
whose values and opinions may conflict with theirs; and (7) assess whether they are
recognizing and valuing diversity. Green (2013) adds that when school leaders are not open to
the idea of collaboration, the result is "a lose-lose situation with the school standing to lose the
most" (p. 94).
One important responsibility of the school is to look forward to community improvement. On
the other hand, parents and community members need to exert initiative to participate in the
formulation of school policies and conduct of school activities. Programs and projects of the
school call for the assistance of the concerned community members. Without the active
participation and involvement of the two groups, there will be no realization of the goals and
endeavors.
The Diffusion and Dissemination Theory alongside the use of Knowledge For health
(K4Health) of the United States Agency for. International Development (USAID) Model
served as the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of this study that facilitated the analysis
of research produced by the institution, its dissemination, the enablers, and barriers, and until
utilization. The case study design was used to portray an in-depth analysis of the institution’s
situation from research output generation to the enablers and barriers to research utilization.
The analysis of graduate student and faculty research revealed a predominance of quantitative
descriptive study on the issue of “research in aid of policies.” Documentary evidence on
research outputs utilized in policies, programs, and projects is minimal. For the faculty, the
enablers of research utilization are promotions and incentives while for the graduate students
it is a provision of better library services and research resources. The faculty considered
personal and professional issues as barriers while the graduate students cited accessibility of
resources, access policies, and professional/work-related issues. Overall, the utilization of
research in the institution characterizes Conceptual Research Utilization (CRU) only. In
conclusion, the overall dissemination and utilization of research are still beset with leadership,
management, access to dissemination tools, research resources, and researcher motivation
issues. Due to insufficient attention being placed on research applications to capacitate and
empower the community, the approach contributed to low research output utilization. It is
suggested that the proposed action plan based on the findings of this study be implemented
(Clores 2021).
Over the decades, a wide variety of educational reforms have attempted to improve schools
and student outcomes. School community partnerships are among the currently popular reform
initiatives. In these initiatives, schools expand the traditional educational mission of the school
to include health and social services for children and families and to involve the broader
community. Such partnerships have been found to support student learning, strengthen schools
and families, and help neighborhoods flourish. Although the research on these partnerships

e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
87
indicates a variety of models, strategies, and purposes, it is clear about one thing: the vital role
of leadership. Through a close review of the literature, we developed a typology of four types
of partnerships, ranging from least to most comprehensive in purpose and design: Family and
Interagency Collaboration, FullService Schools, Full-Service Community Schools, and a
Community Development Model. These categories provided the framework necessary to
comparatively analyze the role of leadership in each of these models. Our analysis indicates
the importance of leadership, across all four models, at all levels of the organization. The more
comprehensive the model, the more important “cross-boundary” leadership became (Valli et.
Al. 2014).
An examination of community indeed warrants expertise. We submit that the expertise
currently resides in the very neighborhoods we want candidates to learn from, not about. When
thoughtfully engaged, communities themselves become the text from which we learn. That is,
the texts that can provide the most vital and thoughtful learning experiences are located in the
very communities in which educational administrator preparation programs reside. Effective
community learning will require community-based experiences facilitated by faculty
committed to learning with and in the community (Gerald, et.al 2016).
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between selected leadership
behaviors (transformational and transactional) and attitudes toward selected inclusive practices
(behavioral and social) for students with disabilities. Determining how transformational and
transactional leadership behaviors are related to principals’ attitudes toward inclusive practices
is needed because such understanding will assist administrators and other professionals in
deciding what type of leader is best suited for leading inclusive schools. There are few studies
related to administrators’ leadership behaviors and their attitudes toward inclusion in any form.
The results of this study provide an opportunity to examine North Carolina principals’
leadership behaviors as well as their attitudes toward inclusive practices. The results also prove
beneficial to administrators and other professionals who are working to better their currently
existing inclusive programs or to generate new ones. In recent years, as a result of the Least
Restrictive Environment (LRE) mandate, American schools have seen an increase in students
with disabilities being educated in the regular classroom, which is known as inclusion (Houser,
2010).
Collaborative leadership and practices in community schools can improve school climate,
strengthen relationships, and build trust and a sense of collective capacity. Trusting
relationships support school transformation by helping to create nurturing and respectful
environments in which caring adults, community members, and students see each other as
united in working toward student success (Coalition for Community Schools, 2017).
The trusting and supportive relationships built through collaborative practices also extend
beyond the school site and contribute to the health and safety of the broader neighborhood.
Collaborative practices enable schools and communities to work together to strengthen and
expand the curriculum and activities, such as through community-led, project-based,
experiential, and service-learning experiences inside and outside of the classroom. Partnerships
among teachers, school staff, parents, and community members can also improve school
conditions that directly affect student learning, such as creating a supportive and inclusive
school climate or supporting more ambitious instruction (Sebring et.al, 2006)
As educators and other school staff work with community members and families, they can
make sure that the additional services and programs they provide are relevant and responsive

e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
88
to the needs and cultural practices of the community. Students and families, for their part, are
more likely to access available resources when they have been part of the local needs and asset
mapping. And, practically speaking, collaboration provides the additional human resources that
schools require to offer this expanded range of activities. Importantly, collaborative practices
also extend leadership and power beyond site administrators to include teachers, school staff,
parents, and community partners. By being more inclusive, these practices both improve the
quality of the decisions being made and help prevent an unhealthy dynamic in which educators
and other professionals see themselves as in charge of delivering services to families and
communities, rather than as partners in creating a thriving school community and addressing
social inequalities. Finally, collaboration can build community support for public education,
including the ongoing investments that are critical to sustaining and expanding a community
school's initiative.
The focus of this study is not to examine the value of particular activities associated with the
current orientation of community support and involvement, nor is it intended to highlight issues
that specifically influence such involvement. Rather, the focus of this study is to gain insight
into the dispositions of teachers and community officials regarding their school leaders' roles
in community support and involvement and to provide a platform for establishing
communication amongst school officials regarding how to engage and involve
parents/guardians and other stakeholders who represent a new cultural wave of opinions and
thoughts that differ from the past and present academic institutional landscape.
2. Methods
This study was conducted in the province of Northern Samar, particularly in the municipality
of Palapag a 4th class municipality of the 24 municipalities in the province of Northern Samar,
Philippines. The respondents that were involved in this study were (5) high school
administrators, (50) high school teachers and (40) elected barangay officials. There was a
complete enumeration of these groups of respondents. This study employed the descriptive-
correlational research design. Descriptive design because it identified and analyzed the profile
of school administrators in terms of sex, age, civil status, highest educational attainment,
number of years in the service as an administrator, position and training/seminars attended
relative to school administration, and the community relations practices. This study also used
a Correlational because it identified and analyzed the relationship of the profile of school
administrators in terms of sex, age, civil status, highest educational attainment, number of years
in the service as an administrator, position and training/seminars attended relative to school
administration, and the community relations practices.
3. Results and discussion
Profile of School Administrators
Sex. Table 1 presents the distribution of respondents according to sex. As reflected in Table
1, 3 or 60 percent were male and 2 or 40 percent were female. This shows that most of the
secondary school administrators in Palapag, Northern Samar were male. This implies that male
dominates in the administrative positions of secondary schools in Palapag Northern Samar.
Age. The same table shows that out of 5 respondents 3 or 60 percent belonged to the 41-45
age bracket, while 1 or 20 percent fall within the 36-40 age bracket and 1 or 20 percent
belonged to the 46-50 age bracket. The finding shows that most of the respondents are in the
age bracket of 46-50 years old which implies that they are in their middle adulthood stage.

e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
89
Civil Status. As shown in the same table, 3 or 60 percent of the respondents were married
while only 1 or 20 percent were single and likewise 1 or 20 percent were a widow. It implies
that married people have more chances to get top management positions in the secondary
schools of Palapag, Northern Samar.
Highest Educational Attainment. The table reveals that 3 or 60 percent of the respondents
earned M.A. units, only 1 or 20 percent Ph. D. units and 1 or 20 percent was Ph. D. holder.
This indicates that secondary school administrators are qualified educational leaders. They are
equipped with leadership behavior and community relations necessary to educational
institutions.
Number of Years in Service as Administrator. As gathered from the data, 4 or 80 percent
belonged with 6-10 years of experience while 1 or 20 percent, with, 11-15 years of experience
as school administrators. This implies that most of them have experienced managerial
functions.
Position. The table shows that out of 5 respondents 3 0r 60 percent are Head Teacher II while
2 or 40 percent, are School Principal II. This implies that most of the respondents have the
appropriate position as school administrators. They meet only the required qualifications as
head teachers.
Training/Seminar Attended Related to School Management. As shown in the table, 3 or 60
percent attend 7-9 or more seminars, and only 2 or 40 percent have 4-6 seminars attended. This
means that the secondary school administrators are highly trained. They are prepared to lead
the students, teachers and people in the school and the community, implying further that those
trainings is conducted to enable the school administrators to perform effectively their duties
and functions as administrators. They should be trained with digital tools to enhance their
community collaboration and involvement (Nobis, 2021).
Table 1: Profile of the Respondents
Sex Frequency Percentage
Male 3 60%
Female 2 40%
Total 5 100%
Age Frequency Percentage
36-40 years old 1 20%
41-45 years old 3 60%
46-50 years old 1 20%
Total 5 100%
Civil Status Frequency Percentage
Single 1 20%
Married 3 60%
Widow/widower 1 20%
Total 5 100%
Highest Educational Attainment Frequency Percentage
M.A. units 3 60%
Ph. D. units 1 20%
Ph. D. Graduate 1 20%
Total 5 100%
Number of Years in Service as
administrator
Frequency Percentage
6-10 years 4 80%
11-15 years 1 20%

e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
90
Total 5 100%
Position Frequency Percentage
Principal II 2 40%
Head Teacher II 3 60%
Total 5 100%
Training/Seminar Attended as
School Administrator
Frequency Percentage
4-6 seminars 2 40%
7-9 seminars/more 3 60%
Total 5 100%
Community Relation Practices
The Level Community Relations Practices of Secondary School Administrators as
Perceived by Themselves
Table 2 shows the community relations of secondary school administrators as perceived by
themselves as:
A. Factual Publicity. This community relation practice got its highest mean of 5.00
interpreted as very high for item 4, “I welcome people when they need to consult with
me”. The lowest mean was 2.80 interpreted as moderately high for item 5, “I inform
that a good family makes a good community”. This implies that the administrators are
approachable. It's overall mean was 3.83 interpreted as high. This implies that school
administrators constantly inform the community about school activities.
B. Community as Resource for the School. The highest mean for this community relation
was 4.80 interpreted as very high for item 2, “I involve the community people in school
affairs” and item 3, “I welcome ideas from the people, especially for the good of the
school and community”. While the lowest mean 3.80 interpreted as high on item 5“I
encourage the community officials to participate in policy making and decision
making”. This implies that the people themselves in the community participate in the
school activities and they are given importance because their ideas are solicited by the
school administrators. Its overall mean was 4.30 interpreted as high. This implies that
administrators consider a community-school partnership in the planning and
management of school affairs.
C. School as the Resource to the Community. Its highest mean was 4.80 interpreted as
very high for item 8, “I do not absent myself from community activities unless it is
necessary”. Its lowest mean was 3.40 interpreted as moderately high on item 4 “I make
the school as a center for community activities”. This implies that the visibility of
administrators during a meeting in the community motivates the continuous
participation of the community. It's overall mean was 4.08 interpreted as high. It implies
that school administrator gives priority to their participation and attendance in school
and community activities.
D. School and Community as Educational Partners. The highest mean of this community
relation was 4.80 interpreted as very high on item 6, “I maintain a good working
relationship with school staff and community” and item 7, “I engage myself in
discussions regarding programs and projects”. And the lowest mean was 1.80
interpreted as low on item 5, “I encourage my members with the people to solve
problems by themselves”. This implies that the administrators have established good
linkages, and communication with the community and always involve themselves in
solving problems. The overall mean was 3.95 interpreted as high. This implies that
administrators maintained good working relations with subordinates and the

e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
91
community and involved everyone in the planning and implementation of school-
community programs and projects.
E. School and Community as Interactive Elements in the Process of Social Change. The
highest mean was 5.0 interpreted as very high on item 8, “I give recommendations to
people who do a good job”. Its lowest mean was 4.40 interpreted as high among item
2, “I am concerned with the needs and problems of the community by initiating
projects”; item 3, “I take time and effort to think and plan better wants of doing thing
with the people” and item 6, “I help solve the conflicts of misunderstandings among
the community and school people in a democratic way”. This implies that
administrators appreciate and give recognition to innovations done by people in the
community. The overall mean was 4.60 interpreted as very high. This implies that
school administrators encourage the community to actively participate in school affairs
with their innovative ideas.
The grand mean was 4.15 interpreted as high. It implies that school administrators have a
high level of community relations practices demonstrated in their policies and practices
which establish communication with the community and seek mutual understanding and
goodwill, implying further that the community leaders are empowered to use their talents and
skills to effect desirable change in the community.
The Community Relations of Secondary School Administrators as Perceived by their
Teachers
Table 2 shows the community relations of secondary school administrators as perceived by
their teachers:
A. Factual Publicity. This community relation practices got its highest mean of 4.52
interpreted as very high for item 4, “he welcomes people when they need to consult
with him” and item 6, “he arrives punctually whenever there is a school-community
conference“. The lowest mean was 4.24 interpreted as high for item 3, “he makes the
report of the community’s activities”. This implies that administrators are approachable
and make themselves visible during meetings. It's overall mean was 4.41 interpreted as
high. This implies that their administrators are always constantly informing the
community regarding school activities.
was 4.40 interpreted as high for item 6, “he makes the community resource as
instruments for schools program implementation“. While the lowest mean of 4.18 is
interpreted as high in item 5, “he encourages the community officials to participate in
policy making and decision making” and in item 8, “I encourage the community to
participate in solving school-community problems”. This implies that the teachers and
their administrators believe that the efforts of the community must be considered
important as the best avenue in carrying out the goals of the school. It's overall mean
was 4.29 interpreted as high. This implies that the community is always involved in
planning school activities so that their full support can be extended to the school during
implementation.
high for item1, “he initiates educational program for the out of school children and
adults” and item 7, “he encourages the school in participating community activities”.
Its lowest mean was 3.78 interpreted as high on item 3, “he advocates the use of the
public building and grounds places for discussions, public debates, and literary national
and local affairs”. This implies that the administrators are also concerned about the

e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
92
welfare of the OSY thus, involving them in school affairs, implying further that the
school also plays a role in the development of the OSY. It's overall mean was 3.99
interpreted as high. It implies that school administrators recognize the roles of the
school in the development of the community by extending its facilities for their use.
relation was 4.30 interpreted as high on item 4, “he invites parents, community leaders
and teachers to have a conference meeting with him regarding school matters”. And the
lowest mean was 3.82 interpreted as high in item 2, “I encourage the teacher to visit the
community” and in item 5, “he encourages the people to solve problems by
themselves”. This implies that consultative meeting is done for any school activities,
implying further that there is a practice of collaborative efforts between the community
and the school. The overall mean was 4.09 interpreted as high. This implies that school
personnel and inside and outside stakeholders work together to carry out the goals of
the school. Along with achieving the goals of the school, Macalor revealed in his study
that principals refer to relate to the educational program of the school with a
concentration on curriculum development.
highest mean was 4.20 interpreted as high on item 5, “he avoids personal loyalties but
loyal to the interest of the school and the community”. Its lowest mean was 3.82
interpreted as high on item 3, “he cooperates with other organizations, clubs and the
like in implementing a project for community improvement”. This implies that the
administrators consider the community before their welfare, implying further that their
leadership functions are given priority over their benefits. The overall mean was 4.05
interpreted as very high. This implies that school administrators give more weight to
making a difference in the community for its improvement than their interests.
The grand mean was 4.17 interpreted as high. It implies that teachers believed that their
school administrators have a high level of community relations demonstrated in their
managerial tasks expressed in policies and practices which establish the charismatic power
motivating the community and influence their ideal designs to foster changes in the
community.
The Level Community Relations Practices of Secondary School Administrators as
Perceived by Community Officials
Table 2 shows the level of community relations practices of secondary school administrators
as perceived community officials as to:
A. Factual Publicity. This community relation practices got its highest mean of 4.43
interpreted as very high for item 5, “he informs that a good family makes a good
community”. The lowest mean was 3.80 interpreted as high for item 3, “he makes the
report of the community’s activities”. This implies that the administrators believe that
there is unity in a wholesome community, implying further that virtuous people are
good partners who can easily be reached and respond to the needs of the school. It's
overall mean was 4.18 interpreted as high. This implies that school administrators have
a high level of performance in school community relations, which further implies that
they always give information to the public regarding school affairs.
was 4.28 interpreted as high for item 8, “he encourages the community to participate in
solving school-community problems”. The lowest mean was 3.94 interpreted as high
on item 6, “he makes the community resource as instruments for schools program

e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
93
implementation”. This implies that administrators involve the public in school affairs
thus collaborative efforts are practiced. It's overall mean was 4.13 interpreted as high.
This implies that the administrators always count on the roles of the community in any
school activity.
very high for item 1, “he initiates educational program for the out of school children &
adult”. Its lowest mean was 3.73 interpreted as moderately high on item 4, “he
encourages the community officials to participate in policy making and decision
making”. It's overall mean was 3.93 interpreted as high. It implies that school
administrators also include in the planning, programs/projects that would be initiated
in response to the expressed needs of the OSY, further implying that the school plant
and facilities are used not only for the instruction of students but also for the OSY and
adults.
relation was 4.25 interpreted as high on item 1, “he encourages the people to strive for
high goals in their physical, intellectual, creative and spiritual endowment”. And the
lowest mean was 3.45 interpreted as high on item 8, “he does not confine my friendship
to my group but to a bigger circle”. This implies that the administrators broaden their
functions as catalyzers by extending the latitude of community activities that would
empower the people to develop their knowledge, skills and abilities and apply them to
actual activities to improve their quality of living. The overall mean was 3.78
interpreted as high. This implies that school administrators give importance to people
empowerment to enhance the partnership between the school and the community.
highest mean was 4.05 interpreted as high on item 4, “he views problems and situations
objectively and thinks for the welfare of the community and the school”. Its lowest
mean was 3.75 interpreted as high on item1, “he cooperates with other organizations,
clubs and the like in implementing a project for community improvement” and item 7,
“he does not allow himself to be influenced by the people in making decision related to
my functions”. This implies that administrators are fair in decision-making; the welfare
of the community always prevails particularly on matters that bring changes/
improvement in the community. The overall mean was 3.87 interpreted as very high.
This implies that school administrators are always objective in finding a solution to
problems for the welfare of the community.
The grand mean was 3.98 interpreted as high. It implies that school administrators have a
high level of community relations, implying further that administrators initiate high-level
school community relations as an avenue toward encouraging the community to make a
difference that would ultimately result in the improvement of their living conditions.

e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
94
Table 2: Level of Community Relation Practices of School Administrators as Perceived by Themselves,
their Teachers and Community Officials
FACTUAL PUBLICITY
Administrato
rs
Teachers
Community
Officials
W
M
Interpr
etation
WM
Inter
preta
tion
WM
Inter
pretat
ion
1. I inform the school of what the community is doing. 3.60 High 4.34 High 4.03 High
2. I explain the aims of programs & activities of the
community.
4.20 High 4.40 High 4.38 High
3. I make a report of the community’s activities. 4.20 High 4.24 High 3.80 High
4. I welcome people when they need to consult with me. 5.00
Very
High
4.52
Very
high
4.38 High
5. I inform that a good family makes a good community. 2.80
Modera
tely
Low
4.47 High 4.43 High
6. I arrive punctually whenever there is a school-
community conference.
4.00 High 4.52
Very
high
4.25 High
7. I make the people aware of community policies &
rules.
3.40
Modera
tely
Low
4.44 High 4.20 High
8. I always find ways of communicating with the people
about the community’s endeavors.
3.40
Modera
tely
Low
4.38 High 4.00 High
MEAN 3.83
Moder
ately
Low
4.41 High 4.18 High
THE COMMUNITY AS A RESOURCE FOR THE SCHOOL
1. I encourage the use of the community resource to
improve the school
2. I involve the community people in school affairs. 4.80
Very
high
4.32 High 4.20 High
3. I welcome ideas from the people, especially for the
good of the school & community
4.80
Very
High
4.30 High 4.20 High
4. I seek community resources for the school’s
discussion
4.00 High 4.26 High 3.98
Very
High
5. I encourage the community officials to participate in
policy making and decision-making.
6. I make the community resource as instruments for
school program implementation. 4.00
High
4.44
High
3.94
High
7. I make the people express their ideas w/o fear or
embarrassment.
4.60
Very
High
4.30 High 4.10 High
8. I encourage the community to participate in solving
school-community problems.
MEAN
THE SCHOOL AS A RESOURCE TO THE COMMUNITY
1. I initiate educational programs for the out of school
children & adults.
2. I initiate programs for improving the lives of the
people.
3. I advocate the use of public buildings & grounds
places for discussions, public debates, and literary
national and local affairs.
4. I make the school a center for community activities. 3.40
Modera
tely
low
4.06 High 3.73 High
5. I use the school resources to serve the community. 4.40 High 3.98 High 3.75 High

e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
95
6. I involve the school in solving a problem on
community health, adult education and the like.
7. I encourage the school in participating community
activities,
8. I do not absent myself from community activities
unless it is necessary.
4.80
Very
high
3.92 High 4.08 High
MEAN 4.08
High
3.99
High 3.93 High
THE SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY AS EDUCATIONAL PARTNERS
1. I encourage people to strive for high goals in their
physical, intellectual, creative and spiritual endowment.
2. I encourage the teacher to visit the community. 3.80 High 3.82 High 3.63 High
3. I stimulate the community members who have special
talents and abilities to offer services when the school
needs assistance in music & in certain projects.
4. I invite parents, community leaders and teachers to
have a conference meeting with me regarding school
matters.
3.80 High 4.30 High 3.80
High
5. I encourage my members with the people to solve
problems by themselves.
1.80 Low 3.82 High 3.68 High
6. I maintain good working relationships with school
staff & community.
4.80
Very
high
4.26 High 3.95 High
7. I engage myself in discussions regarding programs &
projects.
4.80
Very
High
4.28 High 3.68 High
8. I do not confine my friendship to my group but to a
bigger circle
MEAN 3.95 High 4.09 High 3.78 High
THE SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY AS INTERACTIVE ELEMENTS FOR SOCIAL CHANGE
1. I cooperate with other organizations, clubs and the like
in implementing a project for community improvement.
4.60
Very
High
3.82 High 3.75 High
2. I am concerned with the needs and problems of the
community by initiating projects.
3. I take time & effort to think & plan better wants of
doing things with people.
4. I view problems & situations objectively & think for
the welfare of the community & the school.
4.60
Very
High
4.18 High 4.05 High
5. I avoid personal loyalties but am loyal to the interest
of the school & the community
4.60
Very
High
4.20 High 3.79 High
6. I help solve the conflicts of misunderstandings among
community & school people in a democratic way.
7. I do not allow myself to the influenced by people in
making decisions related to my functions. 4.80
Very
High 3.94
High
3.75
High
8. I give recommendations to people who do a good job. 5.00
Very
High
4.06 High 3.93 High
MEAN 4.60
Very
High
4.05 High 3.87 High
GRAND MEAN 4.15 High 4.17 High 3.98 High
Test of Relationship Between the Profile of the School Administrators and their Level of
Table 3 shows the summary result on the relationship between the profile of the respondents
and the level of community relations.
In terms of sex, its computed value of 2.2 was lesser than the value of 9.488 at 4 degrees of
freedom, interpreted as not significant. Thus, the null hypothesis that states that there is no
significant relationship between a profile in terms of sex and the community relations practices

e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
96
was accepted. This implies that the administrators establish linkages with the community
regardless of their gender. In terms of age, its computed value of 2.20 was lesser than the value
of 15.507 at 8 degrees of freedom, interpreted as not significant. Thus, the null hypothesis
which states that there is no significant relationship between a profile in terms of age and
community relations practices of the administrators was accepted. This implies that the age of
the respondents does not influence their policies and practices in having linkages with the
community. In terms of civil status, its computed value of 1.15 was lesser than the value of
15.507 at 8 degrees of freedom, interpreted as not significant. So, the null hypothesis which
states that there is no significant relationship between the profile in terms of civil status and the
community relations practices of the administrators. It can be inferred that administrators
manifest practices of securing mutual understanding with the community regardless of their
civil status. In terms of highest educational attainment, its computed value of 2.34 was lesser
than the value of 15.507 at 8 degrees of freedom, interpreted as not significant. Therefore, the
null hypothesis which states that there is no relationship between the profiles in terms of highest
educational attainment was accepted. This implies that the educational attainment of the
administrators has no relation to their ability in dealing with the public. In terms of the number
of years in service as an administrator, its computed value of 0.83 is lesser than the value of
15.507 at 8 degrees of freedom, interpreted as not significant. Therefore, the null hypothesis
which states that there is no significant relationship between profiles in terms of the number of
years in service as administrator was accepted, implying that the high level of community
relations practices of the administrator was not influenced by their length of service as school
managers. In terms of position, its computed value of 6.13 was lesser than the tabular value of
9.488 at 4 degrees of freedom, interpreted as not significant. So, the null hypothesis which
states that there is no significant relationship between the profile in terms of position and the
community relations practices of the administrators was accepted. This implies that their being
school administrators do not influence their manner in establishing a relationship with the
community. As regards training/seminars attended related to school management, it showed
that the computed value of 6.13 was lesser than the tabular value of 9.488 at 4 degrees of
freedom, interpreted as not significant. Thus, the null hypothesis that states that there is no
significant relationship between the profile in terms of training/seminars attended related to
school management was accepted. This implies that the level of knowledge on updates in
management does not convey any relation to the skills of the administrator in their practices to
promote mutual understanding and goodwill with the community.
A similar finding was revealed by Guevara in her study. It showed that the profile of
administrators in the District of Tanauan had no relationship to attitudes towards community
activities and community involvement of the teachers.
Table 3: Test of Relationship Between the Profile of the School Administrators and their Level of
d.f. x2
c x2
t
Level of
Significa
nce
Decision Interpretation
Sex 4 3.23 9.488 .05
Accept
Ho
Not Significant
Age 8 2.20 15.507 .05
Accept
Ho
Not Significant
Civil Status 8 1.15 15.507 .05
Accept
Ho
Not Significant
Highest educational attainment 8 2.34 15.507 .05
Accept
Ho
Not Significant

e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
97
Number of years in service as
administrators
8 0.83 15.507 .05
Accept
Ho
Not Significant
Position 4 6.13 9.488 .05
Accept
Ho
Not Significant
Training and seminars attended
related to school management
4 6.13 9.488 .05
Accept
Ho
Not Significant
Test of Difference Among the Perceptions of the School Administrators, their Teachers
and Community Officials on the Level of Community Relation Practices of the School
Administrators
Table 4 represents the test of significant differences among the perceptions of school
administrators, their teachers and community officials on the level of level community relations
practices. As to the respondents, the computed F-value of 2.75 is less than the t-value of 3.07
at a 0.05 level of significance with 3 degrees of freedom. This means that the null hypothesis
which states that there is no significant difference among the perceptions of school
administrators, their teachers and community officials on the level of community relations
practices, the null hypothesis was accepted. This means that there are no variations in the
perception of school administrators, their teachers and community officials on the level of
community relations practices. It implies that respondents have a similar opinion on their
perception of administrators’ community relations practices, implying further that they believe
that the administrators demonstrate the social philosophy of management expressed in policies
and practices which pave the way communicate with the public to secure mutual understanding
and goodwill.
In contrast, Guevara disclosed in her study that there was no significant difference in
perception of teachers’ involvement in community activities to their teaching performance.
Table 4: Test of Difference Among the Perceptions of the School Administrators, their Teachers and
Community Officials on the Level of Community Relation Practices of the School Administrators
4. Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions and implications were drawn:
The majority of the respondents were male, which implies that male dominates the
administrative positions of secondary schools in Palapag Northern Samar. The majority were
41-45 years old, which implies that they belong to middle adulthood. Most of the school
administrators were married which implies that married persons have more chances to get top
management positions in Palapag, N. Samar. Most of the school administrators had M.A. units
and had 6-10 years of experience as school administrators. This implies that most of the
respondents are educationally qualified and have experienced managerial tasks. The majority
had 7-9 or more training attended related to school management, this implies that
seminars/training enables them to perform effectively their duties.
As regards the level of community relations practices of school administrators, they rated
themselves high. It implies that there is a high level of community relations expressed in
policies and practices which established communication with the public. The teachers
Sources of
variation
Sum of
Squares
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Squares
Computed F
Tabular
F(.05)
Decision Interpretation
Between
Column
0.88 2 .44
2.75 3.07
Accept Ho Not Significant
Within
Column
19.22 117 .16

e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
98
perceived similar views at a high level. This implies that they feel the administrators foster
communication with the community to carry out activities of the school. Likewise, the
community officials perceived high, implying that the high level of community relations
practices serves as an avenue to realize the goals of the school and establish mutual
understanding and goodwill.
The study further revealed that there was no significant relationship between the profile of
school administrators and their level of community relations practices. This implies that the
profile of the administrators has no connection to the relationship of administrators, teachers
and community officials in the realization of school and community functions and goals.
The study further revealed that there was no significant difference in the perceptions of the
three sets of respondents on the level of community relations practices of the administrators.
This implies that the administrators, teachers and community officials have similar views on
how the administrators express their philosophy of management as manifested in policies and
practices which establish communication to the public, mutual understanding and goodwill.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are suggested:
• There should be a continuing community relations training / seminar among school
administrators for them to be more responsive to changes in attitudes, values and behaviors.
This can help them more effective school administrators.
• The school administrator should know their strength and weaknesses in their community
relations for them to know what practices to develop and change.
• School and community should develop good working relations for the success of
implementation of projects and programs of both school and community.
• Further studies involving other variables on community relations must be conducted to
enhance their level of community relations practices.
References
Anne Marie Fitz Gerald and Matthew Militello. Preparing School Leaders to Work with and in
Community. School Community Journal, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2 107 Available at
http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
Clores, V. M. (2021). Higher Education Institution Research Dissemination and Utilization
through the Lens of Community Engagement. ASEAN Journal of Community
Engagement, 5(2), 315-334
Coalition for Community Schools (2017) Community schools: A whole child framework for
school improvement. Retrieved August 1, 2018, from
http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/AssetManager/CommunitySchools-A-
Whole-Child-Approach-to-School-Improvement1.pdf.
Compassion Capital Fund Resource Center. (2010). Partnerships: Frameworks for working
together. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved
from http://www.strengtheningnonprofits.org/resources/guidebooks/Partnerships.pdf
Fiore, D. (2016). School-Community relations. (41 h ed.). New York: Routledge.
Green, R. L. (2013 ). Practicing the art of leadership: A problem-based approach to
implementing the ISLLC standards. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Houser, Mary A.; Bell, Genniver; Dickens, Virginia; and Hicks, Terence, "The Relationship
Between Selected Leadership Behaviors and Attitudes Toward Behavioral and

e-ISSN: 2682-8138 | Vol. 4, No. 2, 85-99, 2022
99
Social Inclusive Practices Among Middle School Principals in North Carolina"
(2010). Faculty Working Papers from the School of Education. 17.
https://digitalcommons.uncfsu.edu/soe_faculty_wp/17
Linda Valli, Amanda Stefanski, Reuben Jacobson, (2014) Leadership in School-community
Partnerships, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 141, Pages 110-
114, ISSN 1877-0428, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.020.
Nobis, Martin, Jr., L. (2021). Digital Literacy of Mathematics Teachers in State Universities
and Colleges (SUCs). Asian Journal Of Research In Education And Social Sciences,
3(2), 99-113. Retrieved
from https://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ajress/article/view/14083
Pigg, K. E., & Bradshaw, T. K., (2003). Catalytic community development: A theory of
practice for changing rural society. In D. L. Brown & L. E. Swanson (Eds.),
Challenges for rural America in the twenty-first century (pp. 385-396). Pennsylvania
State University Press.
Rubinstein, S. A., & McCarthy, J. E. (2012). Public school reform through union-management
Collaboration. Advances in industrial and labor relations, 20, 1–50.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-6186(2012)0000020004.
Sebring, P. B., Bryk, A. S., & Easton, J. Q. (2006). The essential support for school
improvement. Human Development (September).

Community Relation Practices of School Administrators in Public Schools

More Related Content

Similar to Community Relation Practices of School Administrators in Public Schools (20)

More from Martin Nobis (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Community Relation Practices of School Administrators in Public Schools