Page 2503

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Instructional Leadership Practices and their Influence on

Curriculum Implementation in Basic Education

Rhea Vianca O. Molina

Cebu Technological University - Main Campus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150600183

Received: 04 July 2026; Accepted: 09 July 2026; Published: 20 July 2026

ABSTRACT

This study examined instructional leadership practices of school leaders and their influence on curriculum

implementation in secondary basic education. Anchored in the premise that school leadership effectiveness is

central to improving teaching and learning outcomes, this analysis examines how principals and school heads

exercise instructional supervision, set academic goals, support teacher professional development, and foster a

conducive learning environment. Using a mixed-methods design, the study gathered qualitative data from

interviews with school leaders (4) and quantitative survey responses from teachers (64) to examine leadership

practices and curriculum delivery alignment. Findings indicate that strong instructional leadership significantly

enhances curriculum implementation when leaders actively engage in classroom observations, provide

constructive feedback, and promote collaborative professional learning among teachers. The area of research is

instructional leadership and curriculum implementation in secondary basic education. Findings indicate that a

strong, positive, and statistically significant relationship exists between instructional leadership and effective

curriculum implementation when leaders actively engage in classroom observations, provide constructive

feedback, and promote collaborative professional learning among teachers. Effective school leadership also

strengthens alignment between curriculum standards and classroom practices, improving instructional quality

and learner outcomes in secondary basic education. The study's outputs are empirical evidence that proactive

instructional leadership marked by regular classroom observation, constructive feedback, and collaborative

professional learning has a positive, statistically significant effect on curriculum implementation in secondary

basic education, and a set of practical recommendations for school leaders to protect instructional time

Keywords: Educational Management and Development, Descriptive Correlational, Instructional leadership,

Curriculum Implementation, Academic performance, Alicia Bohol, Philippines

INTRODUCTION

In the context of secondary basic education, curriculum implementation often presents various challenges such

as adapting to curriculum reforms, addressing diverse learning needs of students, and maintaining high standards

of teaching. Teachers may encounter difficulties in interpreting curriculum guidelines, integrating new teaching

strategies, and assessing student learning effectively. In this regard, the leadership practices of school heads

become essential in providing direction, motivation, and professional support to teachers. Through classroom

supervision, mentoring, and collaborative decision-making, school heads can help strengthen teachers’ capacity

to implement the curriculum effectively. Although the educational leadership literature has acknowledged the

significance of instructional leadership, it is still necessary to investigate how school heads' instructional

leadership practices affect secondary school curriculum implementation. Understanding this link can help

improve leadership techniques and raise the standard of curriculum implementation in secondary basic

education. In order to improve teaching and learning procedures in schools, this study intends to investigate the

instructional leadership practices of school heads and ascertain their impact on curriculum implementation in

secondary basic education. The increasing emphasis on instructional leadership as a determinant of effective

curriculum implementation has been widely recognized in educational research.

Across global, national, and local contexts, school leaders are expected to transition from administrative

managers to instructional leaders who actively shape teaching and learning processes. While numerous studies

Page 2504

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

have examined instructional leadership practices, there remains a significant gap in understanding how these

practices concretely influence curriculum implementation, particularly in secondary basic education settings.

This study seeks to address these gaps by situating the problem within international, national, local, and

environmental contexts.

The impact of instructional leadership on school effectiveness has been thoroughly examined on a global scale.

According to academics like Hallinger and Murphy (2001), instructional leadership includes managing

instructional programs, defining school mission, and fostering a supportive learning environment. Similarly,

research in countries such as the United States, Australia, and Singapore highlights that strong instructional

leadership contributes to improved student outcomes and teacher performance. However, despite the breadth of

international studies, several gaps persist. First, much of the existing literature focuses on student achievement

outcomes rather than the process of curriculum implementation itself. While improved test scores are often

attributed to effective leadership, there is limited exploration of how instructional leaders directly influence

teachers’ interpretation, adaptation, and delivery of the curriculum.

In the context of 21st-century education, school heads are increasingly recognized not only as administrative

managers but as key instructional leaders who directly shape the quality of teaching and learning in schools.

Instructional leadership has been identified as one of the most significant factors influencing school improvement

and student achievement (Hallinger, 2005). In basic education, the effective implementation of the curriculum

depends largely on how school leaders guide, support, and monitor instructional practices within their

institutions. According to the Department of Education (DepEd), school heads are expected to fulfill roles that

include curriculum leadership, instructional supervision, and fostering a culture of professional learning (DepEd

Order No. 24, s. 2020). However, disparities in curriculum implementation across schools suggest variations in

the quality of instructional leadership exercised by school heads. Poor curriculum implementation has been

linked to insufficient guidance, lack of instructional feedback, and weak alignment of teaching strategies with

curricular goals (Bush, 2008). As such, examining the instructional leadership practices of school heads is

essential to understanding how these practices influence curriculum delivery in basic education settings. The

study's key finding is that school principals actively define and influence the school's instructional mission by

fusing official curricular policy objectives with their personal convictions. Principals use their own educational

agendas to interpret curriculum improvements rather than merely implementing administrative directives. They

then share this vision with teachers at meetings and retreats. This makes it easier to match the goals of curricular

modifications with the school's teaching focus (Ralebese, M. D., Jita, L., & Badmus, O. T. 2025).

When school heads demonstrate strong instructional leadership, they enhance teacher motivation, improve

instructional quality, and ensure better alignment with curriculum standards, all of which contribute to improved

student outcomes. Given these considerations, this study aims to explore the instructional leadership practices

of school heads and analyze their influence on curriculum implementation in basic education. The findings are

expected to contribute valuable insights to educational policy and leadership development programs, particularly

in strengthening the capacity of school leaders to serve as instructional catalysts in their respective schools.

Therefore, instructional leadership practices of school heads, in collaboration with teachers, play a crucial role

in shaping the effectiveness of curriculum implementation in secondary basic education. As instructional leaders,

school heads are expected to guide, support, and monitor teaching and learning processes, ensuring that

curriculum standards are clearly understood and properly executed in the classroom. Through practices such as

setting clear academic goals, conducting regular classroom observations, providing constructive feedback, and

facilitating continuous professional development, school heads influence how teachers interpret and deliver the

curriculum. At the same time, teachers, as direct implementers, translate these leadership directions into actual

classroom practices, adapting instructional strategies to meet diverse learner needs. The interaction between

leadership practices and teacher engagement determines the extent to which the intended curriculum is faithfully

and effectively implemented. Consequently, strong and responsive instructional leadership fosters alignment

between policy and practice, enhances teacher competence, and ultimately improves the quality of curriculum

delivery in secondary schools.

Page 2505

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Statement of the Problem

This research assessed the Instructional leadership practices and the effectiveness of Curriculum Implementation

in Secondary Basic Education at Alicia District in Division of Bohol, for school year 2025-2026 as basis for the

Enhanced Curriculum Implementation Plan.

Specifically, it sought answers to the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:

1.1 Years of service,

1.2 Designation, and

1.3 Civil Status?

2. To what extent do the school heads utilize the different strategies in curriculum implementation?

2.1 Leadership Support for Teachers Development, and

2.2 Monitoring and Evaluation of Curriculum Delivery?

3. To extent do the school heads encountered the challenges in implementation?

3.1 Resource Availability and Allocation, and

3.2 Teachers Resistance to change?

4.Is there a significant relationship between the dimensions of curriculum implementation strategies and the

challenges encountered in implementation?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study adopted a descriptive-correlational research design to explore the instructional leadership practices

of school heads and assess the status of curriculum implementation in secondary basic education. The descriptive

aspect of the research will identify and characterize the leadership practices, while the correlational component

will investigate the relationship between these practices and the effectiveness of curriculum implementation. The

Descriptive-Correlational design is the most suitable for the research on "Instructional Leadership Practices and

Their Influence on Curriculum Implementation in Secondary Basic Education" as it effectively aligns with the

study's objectives of describing existing leadership practices and examining their relationship with curriculum

implementation.

Design

This study utilized a descriptive-correlational research design to examine the instructional leadership practices

of school heads and their influence on curriculum implementation in secondary basic education. The descriptive

component of the design will allow the researcher to systematically describe the prevailing instructional

leadership practices demonstrated by school heads, including supervision of instruction, curriculum

management, teacher development, and monitoring of student performance. It will also provide a detailed

assessment of how the curriculum is implemented in secondary schools under their leadership. The use of a

descriptive-correlational research design is appropriate for this study because it allows the researcher to both

systematically describe existing conditions and examine the relationships between variables without

manipulation. In the context of this study, it is essential first to describe the instructional leadership practices of

school heads—such as instructional supervision, curriculum management, teacher professional development,

and performance monitoring—as they naturally occur in actual school settings. The descriptive component

Page 2506

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

provides a clear and objective profile of these leadership practices and the current state of curriculum

implementation in secondary basic education.

Flow of the Study

This study was conducted in four public secondary schools within Alicia District, DIvision of Bohol. These

schools were chosen based on accessibility, school performance data, and administrative willingness to

participate.

Input. In the Input phase, the study considers three major elements: improve teaching performance, enhance

student learning outcomes, and support teachers through professional development.

Process. The Process involves the systematic collection of data using validated research instruments, followed

by the application of appropriate statistical treatments such as descriptive analysis and correlational testing.

Through this process, the study identifies patterns and relationships among the variables, allowing for a deeper

understanding of how learning strategies and challenges influence academic achievement.

Output. The Output of this study is the development of an Curriculum implementation specifically designed for

School Principals. This plan will be informed by the actual data gathered and analyzed, ensuring that the

recommendations are context-based, relevant, and applicable to classroom realities. The enhancement plan is

expected to serve as a practical tool for teachers, school administrators, and other education stakeholders in

designing interventions that strengthen learner performance at the foundational level.

Environment

The study was conducted in four secondary schools, all public basic education institutions, located in Alicia,

Bohol. Alicia is a fourth-class municipality in the province of Bohol, situated in the Central Visayas region of

the Philippines. The town is primarily residential and agricultural, with a growing community that relies heavily

on education to provide opportunities for its youth. The selected schools operate under the supervision and

guidance of the Department of Education (DepEd) Division of Bohol, following national policies, curriculum

standards, and instructional programs mandated by the DepEd. These schools are the municipality's main

providers of secondary basic education, serving students from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds. These

schools are perfect places to study the instructional leadership practices of school heads and their impact on

curriculum implementation because of their close-knit teacher-student relationships, collaborative teaching

methods, and active involvement of school heads in curriculum planning and instructional supervision.

Respondents

For this study the sample was evenly allocated so that each of the four participating schools in the Alicia District

— Katipunan High School, Cayacay High School, La Hacienda National High School, and Alicia Technical

Vocational High School — contributes 16 respondents, yielding a total sample of 64 respondents. The 16

per‑school quota is filled by randomly selecting 1 school head and 15 teachers at each site, which preserves

parity across institutions and reduces selection bias while still focusing the inquiry on those directly responsible

for curriculum delivery and leadership. This balanced design makes comparisons between schools

straightforward, helps ensure that differences in findings reflect real variation in instructional leadership and

curriculum implementation rather than unequal sample sizes, and supports clearer reporting of school‑level

patterns.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This section presents the profile of the respondents in terms of years of service, designation, and civil status.

Understanding these characteristics provides a clearer view of the respondents’ background and their context in

relation to curriculum implementation.

Years of Service

Page 2507

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Years of service describe the length of teaching experience of the respondents, reflecting their level of

professional exposure, familiarity with curriculum implementation, and capacity to adapt to instructional and

educational changes.

Table 2

Years of Service

Frequency

Percentage

16 years above

12.50

11-15

15.62

6-10

53.12

1-5

18.75

Total

100.00

Table 2 shows that the majority of respondents have 6–10 years of service, comprising 53.12% of the total,

followed by those with 1–5 years (18.75%), 11–15 years (15.62%), and 16 years and above (12.50%). This

indicates that most respondents are in their mid-level teaching experience, suggesting that they have already

developed foundational teaching skills while still being open to professional growth and innovation.

Designation

This refers to the professional rank or position held by the respondents, indicating their level of responsibility,

teaching experience, and involvement in curriculum implementation and school-related instructional practices.

Table 3

Designation

Frequency

Percentage

TIII

40.62

TII

14.06

45.31

Total

100.00

Table 3 shows that the largest group of respondents are Teacher I, with 45.31%, followed closely by Teacher III

at 40.62%, while Teacher II comprises 14.06%. This indicates that most respondents are in the entry and

advanced teaching ranks, suggesting a mix of relatively newer and more experienced teachers in the school. The

presence of a large proportion of Teacher I and Teacher III respondents implies that curriculum implementation

is being carried out by teachers with varying levels of professional experience and responsibilities.

Civil Status

Civil status describes the personal background of the respondents in terms of marital condition, which may

influence their perspectives, responsibilities, and level of engagement.

Page 2508

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Table 4

Civil Status

Frequency

Percentage

Single

26.56

Married

68.75

Widowed

4.69

Total

100.00

Table 4 shows that the majority of respondents are married, comprising 68.75%, followed by single respondents

at 26.56%, and a small proportion of widowed respondents at 4.69%. Result indicate that most teachers have

family responsibilities, which may influence their time management, workload balance, and professional

engagement.

Extent do the School Heads Utilize the Different Strategies in Curriculum Implementation

This section presents the extent to which school heads utilize the different strategies in curriculum

implementation as perceived by the respondents. The results are shown using mean, standard deviation, and

verbal description.

Leadership Support for Teachers Development

Leadership support for teachers’ development reflects the role of school heads in promoting professional growth,

enhancing instructional competencies, and providing opportunities for continuous learning.

Table 5

Leadership Support for Teachers Development

Indicators

Mean

Verbal

Description

The school head encourages teachers to participate in professional

development programs such as seminars and workshops.

4.66

0.57

Strongly Agree

The school head provides opportunities for teachers to attend training

relevant to their teaching field.

4.61

0.63

Strongly Agree

The school head supports teachers in pursuing further studies or graduate

education.

4.64

0.6

Strongly Agree

The school head allocates time for teachers to participate in professional

learning activities.

4.62

0.63

Strongly Agree

The school head provides guidance to improve teachers’ instructional

strategies.

4.61

0.61

Strongly Agree

The school head provides adequate instructional materials to support

teachers’ professional growth.

4.56

0.61

Strongly Agree

Page 2509

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

The school head ensures that teachers have access to teaching resources

and learning technologies.

4.61

0.58

Strongly Agree

The school head provides support for teachers to attend conferences or

professional meetings.

4.69

0.56

Strongly Agree

The school head motivates teachers to improve their teaching

competencies.

4.62

0.6

Strongly Agree

The school head promotes a positive environment that encourages

continuous professional learning.

4.69

0.59

Strongly Agree

Grand Mean

4.63

0.6

Strongly Agree

Legend: 4.21–5.00 Strongly Agree, 3.41–4.20 Agree, 2.61–3.40 Moderately Agree, 1.81–2.60 Disagree, and

1.00–1.80 Strongly Disagree.

Table 5 shows that the respondents strongly agree that school heads provide substantial leadership support for

teachers’ development, as reflected in the grand mean of 4.63 and standard deviation of 0.60. This indicates that

school heads are highly supportive in encouraging teachers to attend seminars and workshops, pursue further

studies, access instructional materials and technologies, and participate in professional learning activities.

The highest-rated indicators, “The school head provides support for teachers to attend conferences or

professional meetings” and “The school head promotes a positive environment that encourages continuous

professional learning,” both obtained a mean of 4.69, showing that professional growth and a supportive learning

climate are strongly emphasized.

These findings affirm that school heads play an active role in strengthening teacher competence, which is

consistent with the view that effective school leadership promotes teacher learning and improves instructional

practice (Leithwood et al., 2020).

Likewise, leadership that prioritizes professional development helps build teachers’ capacity to respond to

curriculum demands and instructional improvement (Fullan, 2020). The findings imply that school heads should

continue sustaining professional development initiatives, access to learning opportunities, and supportive

leadership practices, as these are essential in enhancing teacher performance and ensuring effective curriculum

implementation.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Curriculum Delivery

Monitoring and evaluation of curriculum delivery refer to the processes used by school heads to supervise

instruction, assess teaching effectiveness, and ensure alignment with curriculum standards.

Table 6

Monitoring and Evaluation of Curriculum Delivery

Indicators

Mean

Verbal

Description

The school regularly monitors the delivery of the curriculum across all

subjects.

4.62

0.58

Strongly Agree

Teachers are provided with feedback regarding the effectiveness of

their curriculum delivery.

4.56

0.64

Strongly Agree

Page 2510

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

There is a clear schedule for regular monitoring of curriculum

implementation in classrooms.

4.58

0.61

Strongly Agree

The school leadership ensures that all teachers follow the prescribed

curriculum guidelines.

4.59

0.53

Strongly Agree

Teachers are encouraged to reflect on their teaching practices

regularly.

4.61

0.55

Strongly Agree

Teachers have opportunities to evaluate their own performance in

delivering the curriculum.

4.59

0.61

Strongly Agree

Teachers are provided with time for self-assessment and curriculum

delivery improvements.

4.59

0.58

Strongly Agree

Teachers are actively involved in the evaluation process of their

curriculum delivery.

4.52

0.64

Strongly Agree

Teachers are supported in adjusting their teaching methods based on

evaluation outcomes.

4.5

0.69

Strongly Agree

Students’ performance is regularly assessed to evaluate the

effectiveness of curriculum delivery.

4.59

0.61

Strongly Agree

Grand Mean

4.58

0.6

Strongly Agree

Table 6 shows that the respondents strongly agree on the effective monitoring and evaluation of curriculum

delivery, as reflected in the grand mean of 4.58 and standard deviation of 0.60. This indicates that school heads

consistently ensure that curriculum implementation is regularly monitored, teachers receive feedback, and

classroom practices are aligned with prescribed curriculum standards.

The highest-rated indicator, “The school regularly monitors the delivery of the curriculum across all subjects,”

obtained a mean of 4.62 and a standard deviation of 0.58, suggesting that systematic supervision is a common

practice in the school.

This finding supports the view that instructional monitoring and feedback are essential leadership functions that

improve teaching quality and ensure curriculum fidelity (Hallinger, 2021). The findings imply that school heads

should continue sustaining strong monitoring and evaluation systems, as these are important in maintaining

curriculum quality, guiding instructional adjustments, and improving overall teaching effectiveness.

Challenges Encountered in the Implementation

The challenges encountered in implementation refer to the difficulties experienced by school heads in carrying

out curriculum implementation effectively. These challenges may arise in terms of resource availability and

allocation, as well as teachers’ resistance to change. Understanding these concerns provides insight into barriers

that may affect the successful delivery and sustainability of curriculum implementation

Resource Availability and Allocation

Resource availability and allocation refer to the provision, accessibility, and distribution of instructional

materials, financial support, and teaching resources necessary for curriculum implementation.

Page 2511

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

Table 8

Resource Availability and Allocation

Indicators

Mean

Verbal

Description

The school provides enough instructional materials such as textbooks,

workbooks, and guides.

4.23

0.77

Strongly Agree

There is a sufficient number of technological tools (e.g., computers,

television, etc.) to aid in teaching.

4.17

0.83

Agree

The school provides adequate science, arts, and physical education

resources for teachers.

3.98

0.77

Agree

Resources are allocated fairly among different departments in the

school.

4.31

0.87

Strongly Agree

The allocation of resources is based on the needs of the teachers and

students.

4.39

0.79

Strongly Agree

The school leadership ensures that resource allocation is transparent

and well-communicated.

4.41

0.71

Strongly Agree

The school allocates a sufficient budget for professional development

and training of teachers.

4.41

0.73

Strongly Agree

The school has a clear plan for the allocation and utilization of financial

resources.

4.44

0.73

Strongly Agree

Students’ performance is regularly assessed to evaluate the

effectiveness of curriculum delivery.

4.53

0.62

Strongly Agree

Students’ can describe the actual experiences and strategies

4.41

0.71

Strongly Agree

Grand Mean

4.28

0.78

Strongly Agree

Legend: 4.21–5.00 Strongly Agree, 3.41–4.20 Agree, 2.61–3.40 Moderately Agree, 1.81–2.60 Disagree, and

1.00–1.80 Strongly Disagree.

Table 8 shows that the respondents strongly agree on the adequacy of resource availability and allocation, as

reflected in the grand mean of 4.28 and standard deviation of 0.78. This indicates that the school generally

provides instructional materials, allocates resources fairly, and maintains clear plans for the distribution and

utilization of funds needed for curriculum implementation. The highest-rated indicator, “Students’ performance

is regularly assessed to evaluate the effectiveness of curriculum delivery,” obtained a mean of 4.53 and a standard

deviation of 0.62, while indicators on transparency, budget allocation, and fairness in resource distribution also

received strong agreement. However, the indicators related to the sufficiency of technological tools and

specialized resources for science, arts, and physical education were rated relatively lower, suggesting areas that

still need improvement.

This finding is consistent with the view that access to adequate instructional resources and learning materials is

essential to support teaching quality and curriculum implementation (UNESCO, 2021). It also supports the

argument that strategic resource management enables schools to create more effective and equitable learning

environments (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). The findings imply that school heads should continue

Page 2512

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

strengthening resource planning and transparent allocation while prioritizing technological and subject-specific

resources to improve curriculum delivery and support better teaching and learning outcomes.

Teachers Resistance to Change

Teachers’ resistance to change refers to the hesitation or reluctance of teachers to adopt new teaching methods,

innovations, and curriculum reforms.

Table 9

Teachers Resistance to Change

Table 9 shows that the respondents agree that teachers’ resistance to change is a challenge in curriculum

implementation, as reflected in the grand mean of 4.01 and standard deviation of 0.98. This indicates that while

teachers generally recognize the value of change, they still experience hesitation in adopting new methods,

technologies, and curriculum adjustments. The highest-rated indicator, “I believe that change can lead to better

teaching and learning outcomes if it is implemented properly obtained a mean of 4.72 and a standard deviation

of 0.52, suggesting that teachers are not entirely opposed to change but are more concerned about how it is

Introduced and supported. At the same time, indicators related to effort, uncertainty, and adaptation to new

technologies also received notable agreement, showing that resistance may stem from perceived difficulty and

Indicators

Mean

Verbal

Description

I prefer to continue using the teaching methods I am already familiar

with.

4.31

0.81

Strongly Agree

I believe that change can lead to better teaching and learning outcomes

if it is implemented properly.

4.72

0.52

Strongly Agree

I feel that adopting new teaching methods will require too much effort

and time.

4.39

0.79

Strongly Agree

I believe that changes in teaching methods may negatively affect the

learning outcomes of my students.

3.7

1.31

Agree

I feel unsure about my ability to implement new teaching strategies

effectively.

3.64

1.15

Agree

I am afraid that I will not be able to keep up with the demands of new

teaching technologies.

3.41

1.34

Moderately

Agree

I am concerned that I will not be able to successfully adapt to new

curriculum changes.

3.48

1.25

Agree

I observe that most of my colleagues are reluctant to adopt new teaching

methods.

3.55

1.21

Agree

I am motivated to change my teaching methods if the new strategies

align with my educational values.

4.44

0.73

Strongly Agree

Students’ performance is regularly assessed to evaluate the effectiveness

of curriculum delivery.

4.5

0.73

Strongly Agree

Grand Mean

4.01

0.98

Agree

Page 2513

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

lack of confidence rather than refusal alone. This supports the view that educational change is more likely to

succeed when teachers are given adequate support, clarity, and capacity-building opportunities (Fullan, 2020).

It also aligns with research showing that teachers’ beliefs, confidence, and access to support influence their

willingness to adopt new practices (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). The findings imply that school heads

should provide continuous guidance, training, and encouragement to help teachers manage change more

confidently and reduce resistance during curriculum implementation.

Significant Relationship Between the Dimensions of Curriculum Implementation Strategies and Challenges

Encountered in Implementation

The significant relationship between the dimensions of curriculum implementation strategies and the challenges

encountered in implementation was examined to determine whether the extent of leadership support and

monitoring practices is associated with resource-related concerns and teachers’ resistance to change.

Table 11

Relationship between the Dimensions of Curriculum Implementation Strategies and Challenges Encountered

in the Implementation

Variables

rho-

value

Degree of

Relationship

Remarks

Decision

Curriculum Implementation Strategies and

Challenges Encountered in Implementation

0.657

<0.001

Moderate

positive

Significant

Reject the Null

Hypothesis

Table 11 presents the relationship between the dimensions of curriculum implementation strategies and the

challenges encountered in implementation. The result revealed a significant relationship, with a rho-value of

0.657 and a p-value less than 0.001, indicating a moderate positive relationship. This means that as the extent of

curriculum implementation strategies such as leadership support and monitoring practices increases, the

challenges encountered, particularly in terms of resource availability and teachers’ resistance to change, also

tend to increase. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. This finding suggests that as school heads become

more actively involved in implementing strategies, they also become more aware of and engaged with the

challenges present in the process. It supports the idea that increased leadership involvement does not eliminate

challenges but rather exposes areas that require attention and improvement. This is consistent with the

perspective that educational leaders play a critical role in identifying and addressing implementation barriers

(Spillane, 2020). Moreover, it aligns with findings that intensified instructional leadership often brings greater

recognition of systemic and operational challenges in schools (Hallinger, 2021). The findings imply that school

heads should not only strengthen curriculum implementation strategies but also develop proactive approaches in

managing emerging challenges. Addressing issues related to resources and resistance to change through

planning, support systems, and capacity-building initiatives can lead to more effective and sustainable

curriculum implementation.

Summary

This study determined the profile of the respondents in terms of years of service, designation, and civil status. It

also examined the extent to which school heads utilize curriculum implementation strategies in terms of

leadership support for teachers’ development and monitoring and evaluation of curriculum delivery. Further, it

identified the challenges encountered in implementation in terms of resource availability and allocation and

teachers’ resistance to change. Finally, the study determined the significant relationship between curriculum

implementation strategies and the challenges encountered in implementation. A descriptive-correlational

research design was employed using a structured questionnaire. Frequency and percentage were used to describe

the profile of the respondents, while weighted mean and standard deviation were used to determine the extent of

strategies utilized and challenges encountered. Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient was used to test

the significant relationship between the variables.

Page 2514

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

FINDINGS

The profile of the respondents shows that most teachers have six to ten years of service, indicating that the

majority are already in their mid-level teaching experience. In terms of designation, Teacher I comprised the

largest group, followed closely by Teacher III, while Teacher II represented the smallest proportion. With respect

to civil status, most respondents were married, followed by single respondents, with only a small number of

widowed teachers. These findings suggest that the respondents represent a mix of relatively experienced teachers

with varying professional ranks and personal responsibilities.

The findings revealed that school heads highly utilize curriculum implementation strategies. Leadership support

for teachers’ development was rated strongly agree, indicating that school heads are highly supportive in

encouraging professional growth, providing access to training, and motivating teachers to improve their

competencies. Similarly, monitoring and evaluation of curriculum delivery also obtained a strongly agree rating,

showing that school heads consistently supervise instruction, provide feedback, and ensure alignment with

curriculum standards.

The findings further showed that school heads encountered challenges in curriculum implementation,

particularly in terms of resource availability and allocation and teachers’ resistance to change. Resource

availability and allocation was rated strongly agree, indicating that concerns related to instructional materials,

technology, and resource planning were strongly felt. Teachers’ resistance to change was rated agree, which

suggests that although teachers generally recognize the value of change, hesitation in adopting new methods,

technologies, and curriculum adjustments still exists. These findings imply that both resource concerns and

resistance to change remain important issues in the implementation process.

The test of relationship revealed a significant relationship between curriculum implementation strategies and the

challenges encountered in implementation. The result indicated a moderate positive relationship, which means

that as the extent of curriculum implementation strategies increases, the challenges encountered in

implementation also tend to increase. This suggests that stronger leadership support and more intensive

monitoring practices may also be associated with greater recognition of implementation barriers such as resource

constraints and teachers’ resistance to changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of the study, the respondents are generally mid-career teachers occupying different

professional ranks and mostly carrying family responsibilities. School heads highly utilize curriculum

implementation strategies, particularly in supporting teachers’ professional development and in monitoring and

evaluating curriculum delivery. At the same time, implementation is affected by challenges related to resource

availability and allocation and, to a lesser extent, teachers’ resistance to change. The significant relationship

between curriculum implementation strategies and the challenges encountered implies that the implementation

process becomes more complex as school heads intensify their efforts in curriculum delivery. Thus, effective

curriculum implementation requires not only strong leadership practices but also deliberate actions to address

resource limitations and reduce resistance to change.

Recommendation

School heads are encouraged to continuously strengthen instructional leadership support for teachers’

professional development by sustaining seminars, training programs, mentoring activities, and other learning

opportunities that enhance teacher competence and instructional effectiveness. Schools may also reinforce their

monitoring and evaluation systems through regular classroom supervision, structured feedback mechanisms, and

reflective practices that promote continuous improvement in curriculum delivery. In addition, school

administrators may prioritize effective resource planning and transparent allocation of instructional materials,

technological tools, and subject-specific resources to ensure the effective implementation of the curriculum.

Moreover, interventions such as orientation sessions, coaching, and capacity-building programs may be provided

to increase teachers’ confidence and reduce resistance to curriculum changes and the integration of new teaching

technologies.

Page 2515

www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership. Journal of Educational Administration,

38(2), 130–141.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230010320082

2. Bush, T. (2008). Leadership and management development in education. SAGE Publications.

3. Department of Education. (2020). Guidelines on the provision of learning resources and learning tools

and equipment for public schools (DepEd Order No. 24, s. 2020).

4. Gao, C., Khalid, S., Cai, L., & Tadesse, E. (2023). Integrated leadership for coherent school improvement

in Ethiopia: The moderating role of transformational leadership on the relationship between instructional

leadership and student academic achievement mediated by the school improvement process. Psychology

in the Schools, 61(2), 455–474.

5. Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to

fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221–239.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244793

6. Hallinger, P. (2021). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management

Administration & Leadership, 49(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219896074

7. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The

Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247.

8. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership

revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077

9. Ralebese, M. D., Jita, L., & Badmus, O. T. (2025). Examining primary school principals’ instructional

leadership practices: A case study on curriculum reform and implementation. Education Sciences, 15(1),

70. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010070

10. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes:

An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5),

635–674.

11. Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence. School

Leadership & Management, 22(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430220143042

12. Sumamo, Y. M. (2026). The contribution of instructional supervision to the improvement of instructional

practices in governmental secondary schools of Wolaita Zone, South Ethiopia Regional State. Research

on Humanities and Social Sciences. https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/RHSS/article/view/63768

13. Tian, M., Risku, M., & Collin, K. (2020). A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2017:

Theory development, empirical evidence, and future research focus. Educational Management

Administration & Leadership, 48(1), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218781063