13 Case Study

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/326665918
Culturally (ir)relevant school leadership: Ethno-religious conflict and school

administration in the Philippines
Article in International Journal of Leadership in Education · July 2018

DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2018.1503819
CITATION READS
1 37
2 authors:
Melanie Brooks Jeffrey S. Brooks

Monash University (Australia) RMIT University
31 PUBLICATIONS 67 CITATIONS 56 PUBLICATIONS 437 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Culturally Proficient Leadership View project
Philippines View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Melanie Brooks on 29 July 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Leadership in Education
Theory and Practice
ISSN: 1360-3124 (Print) 1464-5092 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedl20
Culturally (ir)relevant school leadership: Ethno-

religious conflict and school administration in the
Philippines
Melanie C. Brooks & Jeffrey S. Brooks
To cite this article: Melanie C. Brooks & Jeffrey S. Brooks (2018): Culturally (ir)relevant school
leadership: Ethno-religious conflict and school administration in the Philippines, International
Journal of Leadership in Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2018.1503819
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1503819
Published online: 27 Jul 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tedl20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1503819
Culturally (ir)relevant school leadership: Ethno-religious

conflict and school administration in the Philippines
Melanie C. Brooksa and Jeffrey S. Brooksb
a
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; bSchool of Education, RMIT University,
Bundoora, VIC, Australia
ABSTRACT
Culturally relevant school leaders help establish and nurture
school cultures that support the academic and social success of
all students. Yet, some school leaders are not culturally responsive
and make uncritical or intentional decisions that disadvantage
certain students. This has implications for students marginalized
by the dominant culture, especially in contexts of social unrest
where culturally irrelevant leadership can reinforce existing social
and academic divisions. This research centered on school princi-
pals in Northern Mindanao, Philippines. The region has a long
history of ethno-religious conflict which has displaced
two million people and killed 160,000 people over the last
40 years. The purpose of this research was to explore how and
in what ways school principals in Northern Mindanao are culturally
(ir)relevant leaders. One research question guided this inquiry:
How and in what ways do school principals in Northern
Mindanao understand and practice culturally relevant leadership?
The research findings make explicit the importance of meaningful
principal preparation and professional development programs that
interweave culturally relevant leadership skills, reflective practice,
and inter-cultural understanding in ways that can be locally
applied.
School principals play an essential role in supporting the academic and social success of
all students—in particular students traditionally marginalized due to their race, ethni-
city, language, ability, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation or religion
(Fullan, 2003; Scheurich & Skrla, 2003; Theoharis & Brooks, 2012). Culturally relevant
leadership positively influences student engagement through an emphasis on high
expectations and development of organizational policies and structures that empower
students and families, particularly those from diverse backgrounds (Banks, 1996; Skrla,
Scheurich, Garcia, & Nolly, 2004 ; Johnson, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Riehl, 2000;
Scheurich & Skrla, 2003). Leadership is practiced with an ethic of care (Noddings, 2003;
Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016) and culturally relevant leaders develop in their faculty and
students a critical consciousness that identifies and challenges inequities inherent in
society (Friere, 2014; Horsford, 2010; McLaren, 1997). Yet, some educators do not
CONTACT Melanie C. Brooks melanie.brooks@monash.edu Faculty of Education, Monash University,

Building 6, Clayton Campus, 29 Ancora Imparo Way, 3800, VIC, Australia
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. C. BROOKS AND J. S. BROOKS
practice culturally relevant leadership, and instead perpetuate a status quo of margin-
alization and discrimination toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds
(Brooks & Normore, 2010; Fraise & Brooks, 2015; Zembylas & Iasonos, 2016). As a
consequence, some students have an equitable opportunity for a quality education,
while others do not. School leaders who are not culturally responsive make intentional
and unintentional decisions that disadvantage certain students—which can have pro-
found and negative implications for students marginalized by the dominant culture
(Bogotch & Schields, 2014; Larson & Murtadha, 2002). In contexts of social unrest or
violent conflict, this may aggravate longstanding social divisions, deepen existing social
divides and increase covert and overt aggression (Brooks, 2015; Brooks & Brooks, 2013;
Mundy & Dryden-Peterson, 2011).
Ethno-religious conflicts threaten social stability, exacerbate extant divisions between
different groups, and advantage or disadvantage groups’ ability to participate in social,
economic, political and cultural aspects of society (Kadayifci-Orellana, 2009). This
affects the provision of education in fractious contexts, as certain groups are educa-
tionally privileged over others (Brooks, 2015). Therefore, it is urgent that educational
research examines school leadership in contexts of conflict in order to understand how
school principals manage socio-religious complexities, whilst seeking to improve teach-
ing and learning.
This study is unique in that it contributes to inquiry exploring school leadership in
non-western cultural contexts (Cheng, 1995; Dimmock & Walker, 2000; Murphy &
Hallinger, 1992) and in regions experiencing social unrest due to ethno-religious
difference (Brooks & Sungtong, 2016). We chose Northern Mindanao for this inquiry
because it has a long history of ethno-religious conflict between Christians and Muslims
(Sterkens, Camacho, & Scheepers, 2016), with the vast majority of principals identifying
themselves as part of the dominant Christian majority. The purpose of this research was
to better understand how and in what ways Christian government school principals
lead schools that were culturally relevant and hospitable to all students despite the
challenging context.
Horsford, Grosland, and Gunn (2011) Framework for Culturally Relevant Leadership
guided the study. Accordingly, we conceived culturally relevant leadership as being
shaped by four dimensions: political context, pedagogical approach, personal journey
and professional duty. Each of these four dimensions were relevant in Philippine
schools, as principals work in community contexts that are highly networked through
political and kinship relationships (Sutherland & Brooks, 2014). Therefore, this frame-
work’s conceptual emphasis encouraged deep exploration of issues Filipino school
principals faced on a day-to-day basis and offered the opportunity to view theory as
it relates to practice and practice as it informs theory (Beachum, 2011; Gay, 1994;
Johnson, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Forty-two government school principals parti-
cipated in this qualitative case study, in which we sought to explore the following
research question: How and in what ways do school principals in Northern Mindanao
understand and practice culturally relevant leadership?
This article begins with a brief overview of the historical, social and educational
context of Northern Mindanao. Subsequently, we discuss Horsford et al.’s (2011)
Framework for Culturally Relevant Leadership and explain the methods we used for
this inquiry. This is followed by a report of key findings related to the conceptual
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 3
framework. The article concludes with a discussion that considers the way school
leaders in Northern Mindanao understand and practice culturally relevant leadership,
untangle the complexities of leading ethno-religiously diverse schools in a context of
social unrest and consider the applicability of Horsford et al.’s (2011) Framework for
Culturally Relevant Leadership for further inquiry into leadership practice in contexts
of ethno-religious conflict.
Historical and educational context of Northern Mindanao

Philippines is a country made up of over 7100 islands in Southeast Asia, with Mindanao
being the second largest and most southern. Islam spread gradually to Mindanao by
way of the Sulu archipelago, where it gained a strong foothold in the region by the
fourteenth century (Milligan, 2005). Two hundred years later, Spanish colonization
brought a Catholic governance structure that dominated the Muslim population
socially, economically and culturally (Brooks & Normore, 2018). This began three
centuries of hostilities and violence between colonial Catholic Spanish rule and indi-
genous Muslim groups (Milligan, 2005; Vellema & Lara, 2011). Spanish subjugation of
the Moros1 intensified through the migration of large numbers of Christians sent to
‘civilize’ the region, a practice that continued under American colonization in the early
twentieth century (Milligan, 2005, p. 37). The Moros violently resisted the Spanish,
American, and later Japanese occupation during World War II, and antagonisms
developed into a ‘poisonous relationship between Muslim and Christian Filipinos’
(Milligan, 2005, p. 38).
Today, over 21 million people live in Mindanao, with 4.3 million residing in
Northern Mindanao (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2016). The majority of inhabitants
identify as Roman Catholic or Christian, with 20% of Mindanao’s Muslim population
identifying as part of 13 different ethno-linguistic groups (Ferrer, 2011; Philippine
Statistics Authority, 2005). Mindanao is also home to 18 indigenous or tribal groups,
each with its own culture and language and collectively referred to as Lumad (Ferrer,
2011). Christian and Muslim communities live in close proximity and remain suspi-
cious of each other due to longstanding discriminatory practices (Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights and Labor, 2004). Additionally, the political solution created in 1989 by
the establishment of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao did not gain wide-
spread acceptance and current proposals to expand the region to a Bangsamoro
Autonomous Region3 is contested nationally.
Consequently, guerrilla groups continue to engage in ethno-religious conflict
throughout Mindanao, such as The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), the
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), Abu Sayyaf, the Communist Party of the
Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom
Fighters (BIFF) (Collier, 2006; Montiel, Rodil, & De Guzman, 2012; Tan, 2010).
Other criminal groups, clan militias and splinter groups operate in the region, con-
tributing to unpredictable violence (Gutierrez, 2012). These various conflicts in
Mindanao have displaced two million people and killed 160,000 people over the last
40 years (Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, 2013; Jamal, 2016).
The violence has had an effect on schooling in Mindanao. Between 2009 and 2015
there were 400 documented attacks on government schools (Save Our Schools Network,
2015). Additionally, schools have been used for military bases and to recruit child
soldiers (Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, 2016). Teachers have been
kidnapped, harassed and killed (Espina-Varona, 2015). The Philippine Department of
Education (DepEd) manages and regulates all aspects of education; however, its sys-
temic corruption permeates the entirety of the national department with unethical
practices, including but not limited to: bribery, extortion, influence peddling, nepotism,
embezzlement and fraud (Reyes, 2010). There is little accountability or oversight and
distorted incentives and disincentives based on power relations hamper the functioning
of the bureaucracy (Chua, 1999). As a result, there are large deficits in policy imple-
mentation and schools lack classroom space, textbooks, desks and learning equipment
such as libraries, computers and science laboratories. The majority of schools are run in
two or three shifts, with class sizes averaging 43 students (Pastrana, 2014). These
bureaucratic weaknesses are compounded by a local context of political and socio-
religious tensions, resulting in continuing uneasiness and mistrust (Thomson-Reuters
Foundation News, 2014).
Prospective school principals receive little formal training from DepEd (Brooks &
Sutherland, 2014). Teachers must pass a National Qualifying Examination for School
Heads, a four-hour examination consisting of 200 multiple choice questions to be
authorized for Principal I positions (DepEd, 2016). Those who pass the examination
attend a basic training course to obtain a certificate of eligibility (DepEd, 2011). Once
they obtain their certificate, principals are assigned to schools. The vast majority of
principals in Northern Mindanao identify as Catholic (75%) and Evangelical Christian
(5%), reflective of the existing hegemonic social structures. Yet, what role do school
principals play in mitigating ethno-religious conflict? There is research that explores
how and in what ways school principals are culturally relevant leaders (Khalifa,
Gooden, & Davis, 2016) and able to positively influence school culture, allowing for
spaces of cultural cohesion where all cultures are considered in both formal and
informal curricula (Fraise & Brooks, 2015; Ladson-Billings, 1992); however, there is
no research that we could find that explores culturally relevant leadership in a context
of social unrest or violent conflict. Accordingly, Northern Mindanao provides a unique
context in which to explore culturally relevant school leadership and the influence this
may have on educating culturally diverse students in an unstable region.
Framework for culturally relevant leadership

Horsford et al. (2011) developed a Culturally Relevant Leadership Framework grounded
in antiracist and cultural proficiency literature that speaks across theory, research and
practice. This framework is helpful in providing a better understanding of culturally
relevant leadership in contexts of diversity and social unrest because it explores four
common dimensions influencing school principalship, specifically: political context,
pedagogical approaches, personal journeys and professional duties.
Dimension one: political context

Education is a highly politicized field (Apple, 2012) and issues such as achievement gaps
(Gorski & Zenkov, 2014), racial disparities (Ladson-Billings, 2007), cultural capital (Xu
& Hampden-Thompson, 2012), inequitable resource allocation (Kozol, 1991) and

within-school segregation (Brooks, 2012; Oakes, 1995)—among many other contentious
issues—influence the experience and effectiveness of schooling. School principals cur-
rently work in a globalizing neoliberal political context, one that emphasizes educa-
tional outcomes, commodification and competition (Pinto, 2015) and they are expected
to comprehend the nuanced ideological, philosophical and political assumptions under-
lying the contexts in which they work (Brooks & Normore, 2010). Horsford et al. (2011)
suggested that culturally relevant school principals are sophisticated in their ability to
identify and navigate political contexts, especially as it relates to education practices and
policy implementation. Often school principals find themselves in the position of being
manager-as-politician (Bolman & Deal, 2007) where, to be successful, they must have a
vision, map the political terrain, network, build coalitions and alliances, use persuasion,
bargain and negotiate and take on the role of public leader (Bryson & Crosby, 1992).
School principals also act as street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 2010), whereby they are
provided the discretion as to how resources are allocated and the extent to which
policies and rules are enforced. Educational stakeholders such as parents, community
members, business leaders, policymakers, students and teachers expect school principals
to be able to effectively serve students from diverse backgrounds and with differing
abilities and needs—no matter the political context (Theoharis, 2009).
Yet, in political contexts of social unrest, school principals navigate highly charged,
unstable and often dangerous environments (Brooks & Normore, 2010; O’Malley,
2010). Longstanding social divisions can hinder school principals’ abilities to imple-
ment policy or effectively serve groups of students who many be excluded from
attending school due to unrest or violence in their communities. Moreover, certain
educational policies, curricula, instruction or practices may be used to aggravate conflict
—as these may be used for exclusionary purposes by those in power (Global Education
Monitoring Report, 2012). Schools in areas of conflict are often under-funded and
under-resourced and can be targeted for attack (Global Coalition to Protect Education
from Attack, 2014). School leaders may lead schools at risk of their own personal safety,
especially if they are viewed as politically aligned or biased (Brooks, 2015). Whether it is
too dangerous to meet the needs of students from underserved groups—or school
leaders simply lack the skills to so—consequent irrelevant leadership greatly diminishes
the learning of students from underserved religious, ethnic, cultural or linguistic
groups. This, in turn, can reinforce social divisions.
Dimension two: pedagogical approach

Culturally relevant school leaders actively integrate and support a pedagogy of learning
that is relevant to students from all backgrounds (Lindsay, Roberts, & CampbellJones,
2004). This pedagogy empowers learners by engaging them socially, emotionally, and
politically through the integration of cultural referents as a way to develop their
awareness, talents, knowledge and attitudes (Ladson-Billings, 1994). Also referred to
as culturally relevant teaching (Gay, 2010), culturally relevant pedagogy supports
student learning by affirming cultural identity and valuing student voice. Teachers are
supported in developing and adapting curricula that reflects their students’ life experi-
ences. Students see themselves in the curricula, which not only validates their cultural
identities, but also builds self-confidence and encourages students to make connections
between what they are learning in school and the larger world. Culturally relevant
pedagogy’s interweaving of cultural referents throughout the curricula allows students
to examine dominant culture norms alongside their own culture, making school
relevant to them while also building critical skills for life-long learning (Gay, 2002).
When the cultural diversity of students is meaningfully considered and embraced, the
success of educating all students is greatly improved (Lindsey, Robins, & Terrell, 2003).
In contexts of conflict, culturally relevant pedagogy can be difficult to implement.
Government entities may require curricula that disenfranchise certain cultural, religious
or ethnic groups. Textbooks may exclude the history, stories, narratives or perspectives
of certain groups and teachers may avoid teaching topics or lessons out of fear of
reprisals (Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, 2014). Additionally, the
language used for classroom instruction can be a disputed issue and an additional cause
for political, ethno-
religious or sectarian violence (King, 2011). Principals hold the most visible position in
schools and they have a large impact on instruction and student learning (Branch,
Hanushek, & Rivkin, 2013) and the implementation of culturally relevant pedagogy
must have their full support as they are responsible for the academic progress of their
students (Khalifa et al., 2016). In areas experiencing social unrest, supporting an
inclusive curriculum responsive to marginalized students can be a risky endeavor
(Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, 2014).
Dimension three: personal journey

Culturally relevant school principals have critical self-awareness (Khalifa et al., 2016)
and are reflective of their personal life journeys (Horsford et al., 2011). They are
mindful of their deeply held beliefs, biases, and assumptions about students from
diverse backgrounds and work to mitigate these predispositions (Gay & Kirkland,
2003). More than just lessening personal prejudices, culturally proficient principals
are advocates for all cultural groups in the school and they work to identify and
dismantle barriers to student learning (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009). Nevertheless, school
principals who do not reflect on their personal journeys and are unwilling to modify
curricula to meet the needs of underserved students, actively reinforce dominant
cultural norms. This inaction sustains learning environments that uphold existing
hegemonic social structures (Alemán, 2009). Accordingly, ethnically, linguistically and
culturally diverse students are therefore not supported by a school environment and
curricula that value their life experiences and cultural identities. This can exacerbate
social divisions and contribute to extant social tension and unrest (Davies, 2011).
Dimension four: professional duty

Culturally relevant school principals seek to establish a school culture based on equity,
democracy and diversity. They create the conditions for culturally responsive teaching
(Gay, 2010) and foster positive school climates that place learning at the center of daily
activities. They include stakeholders in helping to shape a school’s vision and mission
and find ways to partner with community (Auerbach, 2012). They see it as their
obligation to promote inter-cultural understanding and appreciation of community’s

diverse cultural, social and intellectual resources. Social justice is at the core of their
work. Yet, not all school leaders agree that creating a socially just school is their
professional duty (Young, Madsen, & Young, 2010). Some school leaders are over-
whelmed, overloaded or pay little attention to issues of equity (Brooks & Jean-Marie,
2007). Others have lost their moral purpose and motivation for leading a school where
all students learn (Fullan, 2003). Principals lacking in culturally relevant skills or
knowledge find it challenging to adapt to diversity and to incorporate myriad back-
grounds and experiences into school cultures (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009). As a conse-
quence, schools that are not culturally relevant develop dichotomous school climates in
which the cultural values and norms of one group is integrated while other cultural
group norms and values are viewed as problematic or go unnoticed (Vavrus & Cole,
2002). When school leaders do not attend to upholding social justice and equity for all
of their students, minoritized students are not provided their rightful educational
opportunities.
In contexts of social unrest, school principals’ professional duties shift due to
increased pressures and tensions. They may find a need to engage in politicking to
achieve personal goals or resources (Cuban, 2009; Mulford, 2003). Teacher absence may
rise, resulting in the overcrowding of available classrooms (Steiner-Khamsi & Harris-
Van Keuren, 2009). The issue of safety is prioritized. Limited monies are allocated for
essential building repairs and the replacement of destroyed or stolen materials can be
difficult or impossible (Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, 2014).
Additionally, parents may choose to not send their children to school. Thus, in contexts
of social unrest, school principals’ professional duties are significantly altered and
culturally relevant leadership can be a near impossibility (Human Rights Watch, 2015).
Design of the study

Qualitative methods were the best way to represent the lived experiences of school
principals and to better understand how and in what ways they may be culturally
relevant leaders (Merriam, 2009).2 The study involved two data collection techniques,
school site observations and semi-structured interviews, which focused on exploring the
following research question: How and in what ways do school principals in Northern
Mindanao understand and practice culturally relevant leadership?
Data collection took place over five months in Northern Mindanao4. Since the area is
dangerous and kidnappings of Westerners occur, school site observations were con-
ducted in the cities of Cagayan de Oro, and when safe, the regional areas of Iligan City,
Bukidnon and Camiguin Island. As a measure of safety, rotating faculty and staff from
the university accompanied me to the school sites. School sites were chosen because the
principals assigned to these schools were graduates from the host university. The
purpose of school site observations was to observe the work of school principals and
how they interacted with faculty, students, parents and community members. During
the observations, principals walked me around the schools and allowed me to talk to
teachers, students, parents and community members as well as take pictures, and
observe classroom teaching. These observations were atypical and did not occur in
naturalistic conditions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The schools I visited rarely received
visitors, especially a visitor from the U.S., and my presence was enthusiastically
acknowledged. Although the pictures may compromise confidentiality, photography
was encouraged and I did not want to offend Filipino cultural norms. After the visits, I
wrote observation memos and debriefed with my Filipino colleagues (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). These observations were helpful because it allowed me to triangulate the inter-
view data with field notes (Denzin, 1970/2009) and build rapport with the principals
and teachers (Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen, & Liamputtong, 2009).
I had little control over the location of the interviews, which often occurred in loud
school settings or in quiet, private principal offices. Each interview lasted between 60
and 90 min and was conducted in English. The interview sample included 42 principals,
all of whom were born and raised in Northern Mindanao and worked as a school
principal for 2 to 12 years. I removed all information that could potentially identify the
respondents in the reporting of the findings (Schnabel, 2005).
At the beginning of each interview, I discussed informed consent, the purpose of the
study, confidentiality, and their rights as participants (Creswell, 2013; Miller, Birch,
Mauthner, & Jessop, 2012). Given the varied locations of the interviews, the truthfulness
of principal responses could be questioned. However, I observed that in open settings,
principals freely spoke of challenges and issues just as they did when in more private
locations. Initially, principals did not respond to questions concerning the topics of
multiculturalism or social justice, as they did not understand the terminology. I revised
my interview protocol to arrive at the same topics through language they were more
familiar with. I began the interviews by asking participants to talk about their school,
which focused on location, demographics, school-wide goals, curricula and instruction.
This was followed by questions structured around the theoretical framework, which
centered on the following issues: (a) their perceived safety and the political context; (b)
their pedagogical approach and influence on curricula and instruction; (c) their perso-
nal journeys, which included questions concerning personal background, religious
beliefs, life experiences; and, (d) their professional duties, which included school
governance, budgeting, decision-making, resource allocation, and community involve-
ment. This overview fails to relate the complexities of these topics; however, in the
context of this qualitative study, inquiring about these issues provided insight into the
leadership of Filipino school principals in Northern Mindanao.
I was restricted by my etic positionality as an American Caucasian middle-aged
female; however, my Filipino colleagues and I often discussed issues from insider and
outsider perspectives (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). I was able to build rapport with the
participants by introducing myself as a prior teacher and married mother with children,
the length of time I was staying in Cagayan de Oro, and discussing my teaching
position at the local university. I worked to maintain rapport during the interview
through eye contact and open body language (Dickson-Swift et al., 2009). At the end of
every interview, I thanked the participant and asked if they would be interested in
continuing with the study, and they all agreed.
Data analysis used a priori coding procedures grounded in Horsford et al.’s (2011)
Culturally Relevant Leadership Framework discussed above. Within each of these
dimensions, I initially sorted the data using an inductive and iterative process to
thematically code the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This helped me to distinguish
descriptive themes and subthemes. I next sought to identify patterns across the
framework’s dimensions that could help me understand the framework as intercon-

nected phenomena (Richards, 2005). For example, an initial analysis guided by the
dimension of professional duty emphasized the importance of garnering resources for
the school and the challenges principals faced navigating a corrupt and inefficient
bureaucracy within a highly politicized local community context.
I established trustworthiness through member checks, peer debriefing with local
school leadership faculty members, rich data collection and triangulation (Creswell,
2013; Denzin, 1970/2009). Only a few of the participants could be located for member
checks, and therefore I shared my preliminary analysis with Filipino educational
leadership faculty to make sure that the findings were grounded in the data (Marshall
& Rossman, 2011). The faculty members confirmed that my preliminary findings were
in line with educational practices and school principal work.
Findings
The presentation of findings is organized around Horsford et al.’s (2011) Culturally
Relevant Leadership Framework, which conceived the practice of culturally relevant
leadership as influenced by four dimensions: political context, pedagogical approach,
personal journey and professional duty. The findings relate insights into how and in
what ways principals were culturally ir(relevant) leaders.
Political context: principal as street-level bureaucrat

Filipino school principals were street level bureaucrats. They used their knowledge of
DepEd policies along with their political networks to obtain supplies for their under-
resourced schools. It was common for school principals to ask political leaders to
provide materials for building extensions, new furniture and school fences. A principal
of a large urban primary school with 3,000 students spoke of how political savvy was
essential to solving problems. He explained that when he arrived at the school, he
noticed that many of his primary students couldn’t see very well. He described how he
coordinated help for the students:
I decided to talk to our city mayor. The city mayor talked to the president of the local
ophthalmologist association and asked for volunteers to visit the school. The eye
doctors came and gave free reading glasses to the students who needed help with
their vision.
The same principal explained that he approached his work through ‘SPG.’ When I
asked him to explain the acronym, he said,
SPG means ‘school, parent, government.’ To find solutions to problems I have to tap
each of these sectors. For example, the covered court is sponsored by our congressman
and the new four-story building is sponsored by the secretary of education. I also asked
the local mining company for materials, not money. They gave us 3,000 hollow blocks,
1,500 sacks of cement, and then I used my money to pay the laborers to repair the
fence.
School principals who tapped into their networks were for the most part successful in
acquiring needed resources DepEd did not supply.
While doing fieldwork at a rural school I noticed a man building tables and inquired
about his project. He explained that he is a father of two children at the school and also
the Parent Teacher Association’s (PTA) president. He was building tables for a com-
puter work room. It was a small room that accommodated up to eight computers,
which were expected to be delivered during the school year. During the interview with
the principal, he confirmed that the only work that is completed in the school is
through parent volunteers. School principals had discretion in the day-to-day operation
of their schools, identifying what problems to find solutions to, and seeking the right
person to help solve the problem or provide the right resources. School principals who
garnered additional resources had networks to draw from and were politically astute.
Principals without these connections, or were in the wrong political party, had more
difficulty leveraging needed resources.
The color of politics

As a result of inadequately resourced and overcrowded schools, school principals relied
on navigating political networks to obtain resources. Yet, these complicated political
networks were aligned to political parties, designated by specific colors. Civic works
paid for by a candidate were typically painted in the politician’s color, so that sponsor-
ship was easily identified. At the local level, political parties were led by local elites who
did not see themselves beholden to those who did not support their election. This had
consequences for school principals who were aligned with a color different from the
elected official in which the school was located. One principal explained the financial
repercussions of nonalignment:
Our school really needs new buildings and a covered court for the children to play. But in
our barangay [neighborhood] we have only a little amount for the development fund, only
200,000 pesos. It is not enough. A covered court costs a million pesos. That is why we need
the support of our congressmen. But, we cannot have his support if we are in a different
colored party.
Another principal of an urban high school further explained the process of securing
political support. He said, ‘If we put through a resolution asking for a building, if
the barangay chairman, principal, PTA president, and parents are the same color,
the congressman will say, “Oh yes, this is my place, I have lots of votes here, okay,
yes” and just like that, we will have support. If we are not their color, they will just
say “no” and that’s the end.’ Another principal explained, ‘Congressmen only
enhance schools where they are assured that they will get votes, they just give
because they can get something back.’ As street level bureaucrats, principals who
had political knowhow without overtly defying the DepEd code of ethics were given
considerable amount of influence and were able to shape the school to their
priorities.
Politically motivated violence added complexity to the political context. Terrorist
groups, among other violent factions, were active in Northern Mindanao. Principals, as
political actors, understood the nuanced ideological and political context. A principal
explained her approach when working in an indigenous area:
If you make them your friends and you tell them that you are with them, they will protect
you. They look at teachers and principals as highly respected people and so even if they
bring their guns, I am not afraid because I know that they are with me, and that they
respect me.
Another principal discussed her reliance on the community for the safety of the school,
students, and herself. She said, ‘We ask for the support from the barangay. Our
barangay official designates policemen to come to our activities. That’s good to see
their support for us.’ Yet, not all school principals felt this level of security. During an
interview with a principal the conversation turned to the recent death of a colleague.
This colleague was shot in his driveway for investigating financial corruption. He
explained,
Last month my friend was killed. He was investigating parents who were receiving monies
they were not entitled to from the government. He was shot dead. That is why I will not
look into any suspected instances of corruption. I might be next.
School principals worked in highly political contexts and had to learn how to
contend for limited resources. Yet, they were not immune to the complexities and
insecurities of tenuous relationships, which could quickly change under political
pressures. Killings, like the principal discussed, reminded them that they were left
to their own devices.
Pedagogical approach: leadership or managerialism?

Filipino principals interviewed did not understand the concept of culturally relevant
pedagogy or the importance of creating socially just schools. They did not see them-
selves as responsible for leading instruction. Rather, they focused on completing
required DepEd managerialism (Normore, Brooks, & Silvia, 2016), with little to no
attention given to ensuring quality learning was taking place in their schools.
Absence of pedagogical leadership

DepEd required principals to observe teachers, a process by which principals could lead
instructional development. However, principals did not see this as an avenue to provide
pedagogical insights. A principal explained her approach to teacher evaluation:
I leave a simple note. On the note I write the strengths that I observed. I write, ‘con-
gratulations, a heart for you, or stars for you.’ If the classroom was untidy or if there was
no discipline, I suggest that they improve in these areas. Still, I give them a heart or an
apple.
This lack of pedagogical leadership was also reflected in a subsequent interview and
observation. I met with a primary school principal who was overseeing a double shift
school of over 7000 students. While touring the school, I asked if I could visit the
special education building. The principal replied, ‘I have never been in that building. I
am too scared to go in there.’ Yet, upon my asking, the principal took me to the
building. I visited the special education class and while I talked to one of the teachers,
the principal stood in the back of the class with her arms crossed and did not talk with
either the students or the other teachers. Through this short observation, it was
apparent that the principal was not involved in leading instruction or ensuring learning
was equitable for every student enrolled in her school.
Again, absence of pedagogical leadership was evident at a smaller primary school. A

female principal explained how her teachers modified the curriculum to make it
relevant for their indigenous student population. She said, ‘Teachers believe that one
size fits all. We have one Filipino curriculum that teachers teach. We are trying to
localize the curriculum, but there is a lot of work to be done.’ She continued to state
that DepEd asked for teachers to modify the curriculum to meet the local needs of the
students, yet no resources were given to support this request. She reflected,
It is a work in progress. DepEd told us to get stories from the people who lived in the area
and to save these stories. We have stories that teachers have made into books. But these
stories are just made up by the teachers. So, we’re going to say it’s not perfectly done yet.
It’s still in progress.
She laughed because she said that the students did not know that the stories were made
up by their teachers. She said, ‘there is no harm done.’
School principals did not understand the importance of leading instruction and
developing authentic curricula where students of different cultural backgrounds and
abilities were included in all aspects of learning. Moreover, no principals viewed their
position as responsible for creating and maintaining learning environments that valued
diversity and none that I interviewed were attentive to issues of equity.
Focus on managerialism
Rather than placing an emphasis on pedagogical leadership, principal work focused on
completing required DepEd managerialism, navigating the DepEd bureaucracy and solving
unexpected problems. DepEd did not provide schools resources until budgets were liqui-
dated. Consequently, this placed pressure on school principals to find ways to discharge
previous debts, especially when the debts occurred prior to their appointment at a school. A
principal explained what she considered the most important aspect of her work, ‘Number
one is paperwork. Often times the problems are from the previous principal who has left
and it’s very difficult to solve their budgeting errors.’ The focus on balancing budgets took
much of their time. A principal explained the challenge of paying a water bill:
When I arrived at this school last year, the water bill was high because the former principal
did not pay. I talked to the community to discuss the problem, and they were very
negative. I realized that I had to start looking for other ways to pay the bill – 80,000
pesos. We do not have the money to pay and I later learned that the community was
tapping into school water pipes and running water to their houses. To avoid a quarrel, I
decide to connect another one and disconnect the old pipes. The bill is still not paid.
Other responsibilities likewise consumed principal time. DepEd required principals and
teachers to attend weekly trainings and acquire certificates to document their participa-
tion. These certificates were collected and presented at the end of the year for evaluation
and were essential to the promotion process. The trainings occurred on Saturdays and
principals and teachers were expected to attend—no matter the content. A principal
reflected:
DepEd has the money for trainings, and so they think that they need to have trainings in
order to check the box to say that they trained principals or teachers. If I just relied on
DepEd trainings, I wouldn’t know enough. I actually enrolled some in civic service courses
for my self-improvement.
Principals placed a high value on certificates, less so on the topics presented as

evidenced through my observations of principals sleeping, texting and talking during
these training sessions. Accordingly, principal work focused on managerialism, problem
solving, and attending required meetings rather than on leading instruction and
improving pedagogical approaches.
Personal journey: principalship as god’s work

All school principals in this study expressed a strong belief in God’s positive role in
their lives, and assumed that everyone held similar beliefs and experiences. What stood
out to me during the interviews was the numerous references to spirituality and how
this informed their work life.
Reliance on god
Christianity played a large role in the lives of Filipino school principals. The principals I
spoke to said that their work was spiritually directed. A female principal explained:
I have to be a spiritual leader. When I pray, I get guidance. All the decisions that I have to
make for the school, for the students, for the parents should come from a lot of discern-
ment and not because it is just a decision that I have to make.
Similarly, a secondary school principal’s approach to a student problem focused on an

appeal to God for help: ‘I had to solve this problem. This was when I turned to God and
asked for intervention. I asked him, “Please help me with what to do.” With His help, I
just started toward solving the problem.’ Another female principal expressed the
importance of listening for God. She explained:
I tell the teachers that I am their leader, and that I am not always right. I stress that I am
really listening to the Lord. If I am wrong, then I should be held accountable. I pray to God
and if I don’t listen, then maybe trouble will come.
Every principal I interviewed prayed daily and were not shy to discuss how spirituality
informed their work. This religiosity was reflected in Filipino school culture.
Christian hegemony
When visiting schools, it was clear that Christian symbolism was normalized. The type
of iconography displayed reflected the religion of the principal. Catholic school princi-
pals sanctioned the display of crucifixes, religious statuary, candles and rosaries.
Principals who were Christian allowed the display of Bible versus and signs presenting
religious teachings. Yet, Christianity was an accepted part of school culture. For
example, a male secondary school principal was also an evangelical pastor at a local
church. He did not separate these roles and talked with me about his approach to
working with students. He explained, ‘I help students who are experiencing emotional
and psychological problems by sharing God’s word with them. I tell them that prayer
can move mountains and no matter how big the problem, God is always there to help.’
This principal also used his position to publically preach God’s message. He explained,
Every Monday I read the Gospel during the flag ceremony. I teach them about God’s word.
I tell them to pray. I release blessings for the teachers and for the students. They are
hungry for God’s word. Parents want me to do this.
This principal’s school enrolled 3500 students, most of whom were not evangelical
Christians, and some of whom were Muslim, as several girls wore hijabs. This principal
did not show concern for the diversity of beliefs amongst his students or teachers.
When I asked school principals about their Muslim students, every principal
responded that they respected their religion and that they were welcome in the school.
One principal discussed Muslim students in regards to their school-wide monthly
Catholic mass:
I think there are only ten Muslim students enrolled. We do not force them to attend the
school’s monthly mass. Catholics will be there because Catholics are the majority. For
those who are not Catholic, they will be taken to a classroom. We do this so there will be
no disturbances.
School principals did not force attendance at any religious gathering, stating that
students had freedom to choose. Yet, the Christian hegemony present in schools was
customary. Principals either had an inability to or an unwillingness to critically reflect
on how and in what ways Christianity influenced school culture. As a consequence,
religiously diverse students were not supported by a school environment that valued
their beliefs. This lack of perception concerning entrenched Christian hegemony mir-
rored larger social divisions. Several principals called their Muslim students ‘lazy.’
Principals interviewed acknowledged that they had Muslim students in their schools,
but that their needs were met and that all was fine. Thus, school principals in Northern
Mindanao sustained existing social divisions without question.
Professional duty: peripatetic leadership

School principals worked in a bureaucratic and hierarchical organization which had
clear lines demarking the scope of their positions and were prohibited by DepEd to stay
at a school for longer than three years. Principals accepted the impermanence of their
placements and did not question this practice.
DepEd policy of principal transfer

DepEd appointed principals through hierarchies and political alliances. Hinterland
placements were the lowest ranking and the principals I spoke to discussed how they
wanted to be reassigned and promoted to urban schools as quickly as possible. One
principal reflected, ‘Recently, I was transferred to a new school, a little bit bigger and
nearer to the city, but I just stayed there for five months. After that, I was promoted
again.’ A male primary school principal expressed his view, ‘If there’s an opportunity
for me in a higher position, I will always grab the opportunity.’ Another principal
discussed his start as a teacher in a hinterland school:
I taught out of school youth for five years and served hinterland people, especially those
belonging to the tribal group, Higaonon. Because of my efforts and dedication to service,
DepEd requested me to become a school head. That is the reason why I am now a
principal.
According to the interviewees, DepEd’s practice of relocating principals every two to

three years was to share best practices. A principal explained this philosophy,
That’s the system. If you are a good principal, you have implemented a lot of programs
and projects. When DepEd sees this, then it is time that you are moved to the higher
school to do the same at a new school. So if you can handle a bigger school, that’s a
promotion.
Yet, reassignment was not always easy for principals. In many cases, principals were
assigned to particular schools to solve the problems left by the outgoing principal. A
female teacher explained:
When I arrived at my new school, I learned of a conflict existing between parents, the
former principal, and a teacher. This conflict concerned budget liquidation. The super-
intendent ordered me to be here to solve that problem. Yet, I quickly learned of another
problem – many of the students had tuberculosis because of the landfill.
Often there would be more than one problem to solve at a new school. How satisfied
DepEd was with principal solutions often determined their next school placement. A
young principal explained his hesitancy to be rapidly promoted through the bureau-
cratic system:
I’m not fit to handle this school because I am only Principal I. The school division
superintendent assigned me here during her first weeks on the job. I declined because I
told her that I only had minimal experience. My first school had only 53 teachers. She
would not accept my refusal. Now I am a principal overseeing 205 teachers and almost
8,000 pupils.
Another principal knew he would be moved because of upcoming elections, ‘I am

expecting to be moved next month, before the election. My attitude is to do my best. If I
do this, maybe I will not be moved again, which would be good. But I am used to it.’
This transitory nature of the position was accepted, never challenged. This limited the
work that principals could do at a location, as everyone knew that they would be
transferred at any time. With every reassignment, principals were faced with building
and fostering new school-community relationships. The educational context required
principals to look to school communities for support, protection and resources. In every
interview, principals stressed the need to build trust with community before anything
could be achieved. A primary school principal explained, ‘I try to make sure that my
actions and words persuade the community to trust me.’ If principals secured trust,
albeit for their limited tenure at a school, they were more likely to obtain needed
resources and be recognized for promotion—leaving schools that were questionably
improved.
Discussion
School principals are vital to ensuring that all students, no matter their differences, have
equitable opportunities for academic and social success (Scheurich & Skrla, 2003;
Theoharis & Brooks, 2012). Principals who seek to be culturally relevant develop and
sustain school cultures that not only emphasize high expectations for every student in
the school, but also develop organizational policies and structures that empower every
student and family (Banks, 1996; Johnson, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Horsford et al.
(2011) developed a framework that allowed for exploration of culturally relevant
leadership in a context of ethno-religious diversity and social unrest because of its
grounding in dimensions of principal work. The findings of our study suggested three
areas for discussion. First, school principals in Northern Mindanao generally lacked a
critical consciousness that identified and challenged existing inequities in their schools
and in the larger society. Second, principals were deficient in their pedagogical knowl-
edge, which impeded instructional leadership and disenfranchised students from mar-
ginalized groups. Third, principals were unreflective of their personal biases and
imposed their religious beliefs on their students, without concern for those of differing
faiths. This culturally irrelevant leadership reinforced hegemonic social structures and
buttressed longstanding frictious ethno-religious social divisions.
First, school principals in Northern Mindanao lacked the ability or willingness to
identify and challenge existing inequities. To challenge the status quo was personally
and professionally risky. Working in a hierarchical and corrupt organization, with
insufficient and inequitably distributed resources, principals were on their own to
look for solutions to solve problems. Their success was reliant on their ability to
work as street-level bureaucrats—to be politically savvy and tap into established net-
works. This was especially difficult if principals were placed in communities that were
not affiliated with their political allegiances or networks. Communities of different
political loyalties were often not willing to offer support, as it was not viewed as
politically worthwhile or advantageous. As street-level bureaucrats, principals were
more effective if they worked within the status quo and navigated its existing social
structures. Challenging the status quo threatened their professional position (Friere,
2014; McLaren, 1997; Theorharis, 2009). Consequently, policy implementation and
decision making was completed on ad hoc bases, resulting in wide-ranging and incon-
sistent practices.
Additionally, creating organizational structures and processes that could empower
students and faculty was not feasible. Principals sanctioned existing hegemonic social
structures and the marginalization of students with different ethno-religious back-
grounds in the school because it was the social norm. No other religious décor was
evident other than Catholic or Christian ornamentation. Moreover, the context of social
instability and political networks made it hazardous for school principals to challenge
existing social structures, norms and mores. With the threat of politically motivated
violence, principals needed to build trust with communities as a way to safeguard
themselves and the school—and not be viewed as controversial or unusual (Brooks,
2012). Thus, school principals in Northern Mindanao were culturally irrelevant leaders,
not solely due to lack of education about social justice and cultural relevancy, but
because highlighting difference and working outside the accepted customs was hazar-
dous—in terms of personal danger and political recklessness. Therefore, developing a
critical consciousness and empowering students and teachers to question the status quo
was contradictory to and insupportable of the work of the principalship.
Second, school principals in Northern Mindanao lacked an equity orientation and
did not practice culturally relevant leadership. They did not receive formal training on
culturally relevant instruction and their day-to-day work was primarily focused on
managerialism, budget liquidation and problem-solving. Principals spoke of providing
supportive observations of teachers, but they did not provide constructive feedback for
teacher development. They participated in trainings in order to receive certificates for
promotion, and encouraged their teachers to do likewise; however, they did not see
themselves in the role of instructional leader. This deficiency limited their ability to
support teachers in adapting existing curricula that valued their students’ life experi-
ences and diversity of cultures (Brooks & Miles, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994).
Moreover, their actions were often counter to culturally relevant instruction, as evi-
denced in the approval of fabricated indigenous cultural stories. School principals did
not concern themselves with the explicit or implicit messages this sent to students.
Preference for dominant cultural knowledge along with a one-size-fits-all curricula were
accepted practice.
The structure of schooling also limited principals’ mindfulness concerning issues of
diversity. Schools were overcrowded, with many having two shifts of students a day
with thousands of students enrolled in one school. This hampered the development of
principal-student relationships and building rapport with families. Additionally, with
only a maximum of a three-year placement in a school, principals did not have the time
or resources to implement wide-scale reforms targeted at lessening social divisions and
inequity. As a consequence, principals did not change school structures, cultural norms
or curricula (Gay, 2002) because doing so was an unnecessarily risky endeavor (Global
Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, 2014). Accordingly, school principals did
not provide a space for cultural cohesion or for the development of cross-cultural
understanding, thereby limiting minoritized student engagement (Terrell & Lindsey,
2009).
Third, principals were unreflective of their personal biases by imposing their reli-
gious beliefs on their students and staff. They lacked a critical self-awareness (Khalifa
et al., 2016) that would have recognized that the privileging of one religion over others
was not serving the needs of all students. Providing classroom space for non-Catholic
students to sit during the celebration of mass was a common practice. School principals
regarded separate accommodation as equal accommodation. However, these practices
set religiously diverse students apart from activities in the school and did not affirm
students’ cultural identities. Rather, the enforced separations minoritized religiously
diverse students and created dichotomous school climates (Terrell & Lindsey, 2009).
Advocating for religiously diverse students was unheard of and viewed as unnecessary.
In contexts of conflict, revealing privilege, such as Christian privilege and entitlement,
could lead to resentment and hostility. Therefore, it was in principals’ interest to not
reflect and mitigate their personal biases or change religious practices in schools. Doing
so would reveal entrenched discrimination and injustice. Thus, ignoring the need to
teach multicultural awareness and being open to learning about ‘the other’ was counter
to accepted norms. Consequently, schooling in Northern Mindanao taught students
that separation and marginalization of diverse students was appropriate and needed—
counter to culturally relevant leadership and pedagogy.
It is important for us to state that while this discussion seems to frame issues in
a negative light, we note that the principal preparation and training schemes in the
Philippines generally conceived the role of school principal in a functionalist and
difference-blind paradigm (Larson & Murtadha, 2002). Their main functions are
those of administration and management of the school, and issues that might
foster a greater understanding of cultural relevance are not at the heart of the
scope of their work. In many ways, interviewing principals in the Philippines was
an echo of the banking approach to education that inspired Friere (2014) to write
Pedagogy of the Oppressed—an education where fostering critical consciousness in
students, educators and school leaders was not seen as a purpose of education.
Instead, education is largely seen as the transmission of content from teacher to
student; in terms of leadership, it is the transmission of policy and procedure from
principal to teacher. It will be fascinating to see how recent education reforms,
such as adding two years to secondary education and emerging political tensions
in the era of Rodrigo Duterte’s presidency, might move the Philippines forward,
backward or keep it in a holding pattern with respect to the ways that educators
conduct their work and the forms of education they will deliver to students.
Conclusion
School principals have an important role to play in shaping and creating positive school
cultures that are spaces for cultural cohesion, where students—no matter their differ-
ence—can be academically and socially successful. Principals who are culturally relevant
leaders emphasize high expectations and create processes and policies that engage
students emotionally, socially and politically. They seek to develop in their students a
critical consciousness that identifies and challenges inequities inherent in the larger
society. Yet, the findings from this study suggest that school principals in Northern
Mindanao were culturally irrelevant leaders. They perpetuated the status quo of mar-
ginalization toward students from diverse backgrounds. As a result, some students
received an opportunity for a quality education while others did not. In Northern
Mindanao, it was disadvantageous for principals to counter prevailing social and
organizational norms. Therefore, school principals did not promote intercultural
understanding nor bring to light social injustices, as doing so could threaten their
professional standing.
Although this study is limited in its scale and questions remain as to the
applicability of applying culturally relevant leadership frameworks to non-
Western contexts, this case sheds light on how culturally irrelevant school princi-
pals sustain and reinforce social division and hegemonic social structures. The
research findings make explicit the importance of meaningful principal preparation
and professional development programs that interweave culturally relevant leader-
ship skills, reflective practice and inter-cultural understanding in ways that can be
locally applied. Shifting the ways principals see their roles in the organization, and
allowing them to change school culture, can help create more inclusive environ-
ments for all students. Additionally, this study suggests that reducing principal
transfer is essential in allowing principal’s time needed to establish advantageous
working relationships with teachers and the larger communities their schools
serve. Given time, school principals are uniquely positioned to create inclusive
schooling environments that welcome and support all students and their families.
This is important in contexts of social unrest, where cross-cultural trust can be
difficult to build and sustain (Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack,
2014).
More broadly, this study adds to the two decades of discourse on culturally relevant
leadership and instruction (Khalifa et al., 2016) and suggests the need for the develop-
ment of indigenized frameworks that are applicable to principal practice in non-
Western and postcolonial contexts (Bryant, 1998; Khalifa, Bashir-Ali, Abdi, & Arnold,
2014). Nonetheless, the findings that emerged from applying Horsford et al.’s (2011)
Culturally Relevant Leadership Framework to the Filipino context, emphasizes that
school principals—no matter their geographic location—have an obligation to be
reflective leaders and to provide students an education that is culturally relevant to
their lives. Without accepting this obligation, minoritized students will continue to be
disregarded, hegemonic social structures maintained, and educational futures lost. In
contexts of conflict, this indifference can have ominous consequences.
Notes
1. The lead author of this article collected all data for the study. Accordingly, she discusses
the methodology and presents the data from a first person perspective.
2. The term ‘Moro’ was used by the Spanish for Muslim, drawing from the term ‘Moors.’
3. A proposed new autonomous political region with expanded authority.
4. This qualitative case study is part of a larger study supported by the U.S. Fulbright Scholar
Program that took place over five months in Northern Mindanao. Melanie Brooks
collected and analyzed the data. Jeff Brooks contributed to interpretation of the data and
to the original conceptualization of the study.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Alemán, E. (2009). Latcrit educational leadership and advocacy: Struggling over whiteness as
property in Texas school finance. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(2), 183–201.
Apple, M. W. (2012). Education and power. New York, NY: Routledge.
Auerbach, S. (Ed.). (2012). School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships:
Research perspectives for transforming practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (1996). Multicultural education, transformative knowledge and action:
Historical and contemporary perspectives. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Beachum, F. (2011). Culturally relevant leadership for complex 21st century school contexts. In
F. W. English (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory,
research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. (2013). The Philippines: Religious conflict
resolution on Mindanao. Retrieved from http://repository.berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/
130801BCPhilippinesReligiousConflictResolutionMindanao.pdf
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories
and methods (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Bogotch, I., & Schields, C. M. (2014). Introduction: Do promises of social justice trump para-
digms of educational leadership. In I. Bogotch & C. Shields (Eds.), International handbook of
educational leadership and social (in)justice (pp. 1–12). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2007). The manager as politician. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Branch, G. F., Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2013). School leaders matter: Measuring the
impact of effective principals. Education Next, 13(1), 1–8.
Brooks, J. S. (2012). Black school white school: Racism and educational (mis)leadersip. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Brooks, J. S., & Jean-Marie, G. (2007). Black leadership, white leadership: Race and race relations
in an urban high school. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(6), 756–768.
Brooks, J. S., & Miles, M. (2010). Educational leadership and the shaping of school culture:
Classic concepts and cutting edge possibilities. In S. D. Horsford (Ed.), New perspectives in
educational leadership: Exploring social, political, and community contexts and meaning.
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Brooks, J. S., & Normore, A. H. (2010). Educational leadership and globalization: Literacy for a
global perspective. Educational Policy, 24(1), 52–82.
Brooks, J. S., & Sutherland, I. E. (2014). Educational leadership in the Philippines: Principals’
perspectives on problems and possibilities for change. Planning and Changing, 45(3/4),
339–355.
Brooks, M. C. (2015). School principals in Southern Thailand: Exploring trust with community
leaders during conflict. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(2),
232–252.
Brooks, M. C., & Brooks, J. S. (2013). What can school leaders do about violence in schools?
Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 10(2), 115–118.
Brooks, M. C., & Sungtong, E. (2016). “We still have bombings”: School principals and insurgent
violence in Southern Thailand. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(5),
505–533.
Bryant, M. T. (1998). Cross-cultural understandings of leadership themes form Native American
interviews. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 26(1), 7–20.
Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (1992). Leadership for the common good: Teaching public problems
in a shared-power world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. (2004). International religious freedom report
2004. U.S. Department of State Diplomacy in Action. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/
drl/rls/irf/2004/35425.htm#
Brooks, J. S., & Normore, A. H. (2018). José Rizal: Leadership lessons from the national hero of
the Philippines. In J.S. Brooks & A. H. Normore (Eds.), Leading Against the Grain: Lessons for
Creating Just and Equitable Schools (pp. 64-71). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Chua, Y. T. (1999). Robbed: An investigation of corruption in Philippine education. Quezon City,
PH: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
Collier, K. (2006). TERRORISM: Evolving regional alliances and state failure in Mindanao.
Southeast Asian Affairs. 26–38. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27913301
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (2009, December 15). Principals as political actors: Facing reality. [Web log comment].
Retrieved from https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/principals-as-political-actors-
facing-reality/
Cheng, K. M. (1995). The neglected dimension: Cultural comparison in educational administra-
tion. In K.C. Wong & K.M. Cheng (Eds.), Educational leadership and change: An interna-
tional perspective (pp. 87-102). Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Davies, L. (2011). Can education interrupt fragility? Toward the resilient citizen and the
adaptable state. In K. Mundy & S. Dryden-Peterson (Eds.), Educating children in conflict
zones. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1970/2009). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.
Piscataway, NY: Transaction.
DepEd. (2011). DO 97, s.2011 – Revised guidelines on the allocation and reclassification of
school head positions. Retrieved from http://www.deped.gov.ph/orders/do-97-s-2011
DepEd. (2016). Principal’s Test. Retrieved from http://www.deped.gov.ph/principals-test
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2009). Researching sensitive
topics: Qualitative research as emotion work. Qualitative Research, 9(1), 61–79.
Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2000). Developing comparative and international educational
leadership and management: A cross-cultural model. School Leadership & Management, 20
(2), 143–160.
Espina-Varona, I. (2015, September 5). They’re killing teachers and children, Mr. President. ABS-
CBN News. Retrieved from http://news.abs-cbn.com/blogs/opinions/09/04/15/theyre-killing-
teachers-and-children-mr-president
Ferrer, M. C. (2011). To share of divide power? Minorities in autonomous regions, the case of the
autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(12), 2097–2115.
Fraise, N. J., & Brooks, J. S. (2015). Toward a theory of culturally relevant leadership for
school-community culture. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1), 6–21.
Friere, P. (2014). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th anniversary edition. New York: Bloomsbury.
Fullan, M. (Ed). (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Gay, G. (1994). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse stu-
dents: Setting the stage. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(6),
613–629.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education-
Washington DC, 53(2), 106–116.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self reflection in
preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 181–187.
Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack. (2014). Education under attack 2014. Retrieved
from http://protectingeducation.org/sites/default/files/documents/eua_2014_full_0.pdf
Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack. (2016). Country profiles: The Philippines.
Retrieved from http://www.protectingeducation.org/country-profile/philippines
Global Education Monitoring Report. (2012). Conflicts are one of the biggest barriers to education
for all. World Education Blog. Retrieved from https://efareport.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/
conflicts-are-one-of-the-biggest-barriers-to-education-for-all/
Gorski, P. C., & Zenkov, K. (Eds.). (2014). The big lies of school reform: Finding better solutions
for the future of public education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gutierrez, E. (2012). From Ilaga to Abu Sayyaf: New entrepreneurs in violence and their impact
on local politics in Mindanao. Philippine Political Science Journal, 24(47), 145–178.
Horsford, S. D. (2010). New perspectives in educational leadership: Exploring social, political, and
community contexts and meaning. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Horsford, S. D., Grosland, T., & Gunn, K. M. (2011). Pedagogy of the personal and professional:
Toward a framework for culturally relevant leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 21(4),
582–606.
Human Rights Watch. (2015). Philippines: Paramilitaries attack tribal villages, schools. Retrieved
from https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/09/23/philippines-paramilitaries-attack-tribal-villages-
schools
Jamal, T. (2016). Philippines-Mindanao (1971- first combat deaths). Ploughshares: Research and
Action for Peace. Retrieved from http://ploughshares.ca/pl_armedconflict/philippines-
mindanao-1971-first-combat-deaths/
Johnson, L. (2006). “Making her Community a better place to live”: Culturally responsive urban
school leadership in historical context. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(1), 19–36.
Kadayifci-Orellana, S. A. (2009). Ethno-religious conflicts: Exploring the role of religion in
conflict resolution. In J. Bercovitch, V. Kremenyuk, & I. W. Zartman (Eds), The SAGE
Handbook of Conflict Resolution (pp. 264–284). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Khalifa, M. A., Bashir-Ali, K., Abdi, N., & Arnold, N. W. (2014). From post-colonial to neoliberal
schooling in Somalia: The need for culturally relevant school leadership among Somaliland
principals. Planning and Changing, 45(3/4), 235–260.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research (Published Online before Print),
1–40. doi:10.3102/0034654316630383
King, E. (2011). The multiple relationships between education and conflict: Reflections of
Rwandan teachers and students. In K. Mundy & S. Dryden-Peterson (Eds.), Educating children
in conflict zones (pp. 137–152). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities. New York, NY: Crown.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A culturally relevant
approach to literacy teaching. Theory into Practice, 31(4), 312–320.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishing Co.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2007). Pushing past the achievement gap: An essay on the language of
deficit. The Journal of Negro Education, 76(3), 316–323. http://www.jstor.org/stable/
40034574
Larson, C. L., & Murtadha, K. (2002). Leadership for social justice. Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, 101(1), 134–161.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lindsay, R. B., Roberts, L. M., & CampbellJones, F. (2004). The culturally proficient school: An
implementation guide for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lindsey, R. B., Robins, K. N., & Terrell, R. D. (2003). Cultural proficiency: A manual for school
leaders (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services, 30th
anniversary special edition. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary multiculturalism: Pedagogies of dissent for the new millennium.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, T., Birch, M., Mauthner, M., & Jessop, J. (Eds.). (2012). Ethics in qualitative research. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Milligan, J. A. (2005). Islamic identity, postcoloniality, and educational policy. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Montiel, C. J., Rodil, R. B., & De Guzman, J. M. (2012). The Moro struggle and the challenge to
peace building in Mindanao, Southern Philippines. In D. Landis & R. D. Albert (Eds.),
Handbook of ethnic conflict: International perspectives. New York, NY: Springer.
Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Changing roles and impact on teacher and school
effectiveness. Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Retrieved from http://
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/61/2635399.pdf
Mundy, S., & Dryden-Peterson, K. (2011). Educating children in conflict zones: Research, policy,
and practice for systemic change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1992). The principalship in an era of transformation. Journal of
Educational Administration, 30(3), 77–78.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Normore, A. H., Brooks, J. S., & Silvia, S. (2016). Global core leadership competencies: A
response to ‘institutional culture’ and (in)-competence in higher education. In A. H.
Normore & J. S. Brooks (Eds.), The dark side of leadership: Identifying and overcoming
unethical practice in organizations (pp. 155–176). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
O’Malley, B. (2010). Education under attack, 2010: A global study on targeted political and
military violence against education, staff, students, teachers, union and government officials,
aid workers and institutions. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/

images/0018/001868/186809e.pdf.
Oakes, J. (1995). Two cities’ tracking and within-school segregation. Teachers College Record, 96
(4), 681–690.
Pastrana, D. (2014). Dilapidated, overcrowded public schools in the Philippines. World Socialist
Web Site. Retrieved from https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/06/20/phil-j20.html
Philippine Statistics Authority. (2005). Mindanao comprised about 24 percent of the Philippines’
total population. Retrieved from https://psa.gov.ph/content/mindanao-comprised-about-24-
percent-philippines-total-population
Philippine Statistics Authority. (2016). Quickstat Region X. Retrieved from https://psa.gov.ph/
statistics/quickstat
Pinto, L. E. (2015). Fear and loathing in neoliberalism: School leader responses to policy layers.
Journal of Educational Administration and History, 47(2), 140–154.
Reyes, V. C. (2010). The Philippine department of education: Challenges of policy implementa-
tion amidst corruption. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(4), 381–400.
Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review
of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration.
Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55–81.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Save Our Schools Network. (2015). Lumad gives Sec. Luistro a 3-day ultimatum to address
military attacks on schools. Retrieved from https://saveourschoolsnetwork.wordpress.com/2015/
11/10/lumad-gives-sec-luistro-a-3-day-ultimatum-to-address-military-attacks-on-schools/
Scheurich, J. J., & Skrla, L. (2003). Leadership for equity and excellence: Creating high-achievement
classrooms, schools, and districts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2016). Ethical leadership and decision making in education:
Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. New York, NY: Routledge.
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., Garcia, J., & Nolly, G. (2004). Equity audits: A practical leadership tool
for developing equitable and excellent schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1),
317–342.
Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Harris-Van Keuren, C. (2009). Teacher absenteeism and teacher account-
ability. Washington DC: USAID Education Strategy Development.
Sterkens, C., Camacho, A. Z., & Scheepers, P. (2016). Ethno-religious identification and latent
conflict: Support of violence among Muslim and Christian Filipino children and youth. In C.
Harker & K. Hörschelmann (Eds.) Conflict, Violence and Peace (pp. 1–16). Singapore:
Springer.
Sutherland, I., & Brooks, J. S. (2014). Becoming and developing school leaders in the Philippines.
In A. H. Normore & N. Erbe (Eds.), Collective efficacy: Interdisciplinary perspectives on
international leadership (pp. 199–213). Bingley, UK: Emeralk Group Publishing Limited.
Schnabel, A. (2005). Preventing and managing violent conflict: The role of the researcher. In E.
Porter, G. Robinson, M. Smyth, A. Schnabel, & E. Osaghae (Eds.) Researching conflict in
Africa: Insights and experiences (pp. 24-44). Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University Press.
Tan, S. K. (2010). The Muslim south and beyond. Quezon City, PH: University of the Philippines
Press.
Terrell, R. D., & Lindsey, R. B. (2009). Culturally proficient leadership: The personal journey
begins within. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Theoharis, G. (2009). The school leaders our children deserve: Seven keys to equity, social justice,
and school reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Theoharis, G., & Brooks, J. S. (Eds.). (2012). What every principal needs to know to create
equitable and excellent schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Thomson-Reuters Foundation News. (2014, June 3). Philippines-Mindanao conflict. News
Spotlight Briefing. Retrieved from http://news.trust.org//spotlight/Philippines-Mindanao-
conflict/?tab=briefing
Vavrus, F., & Cole, K. (2002). “I didn’t do nothin”: The discursive construction of school
suspension. The Urban Review, 32(2), 87–111.
Vellema, S., & Lara, F. (2011). The agrarian roots of contemporary violent conflict in Mindanao,
Southern Philippines. Journal of Agrarian Change, 11(3), 298–320.
Xu, J., & Hampden-Thompson, G. (2012). Cultural reproduction, cultural mobility, cultural
resources, or trivial effect? A comparative approach to cultural capital and educational
performance. Comparative Education Review, 56(1), 98–124.
Young, B. L., Madsen, J., & Young, M. A. (2010). Implementing diversity plans: Principals’
perception of their ability to address diversity in their schools. NASSP Bulletin, 94(2), 135–157.
Zembylas, M., & Iasonos, S. (2016). The entanglement of leadership styles and social justice
leadership: A case study from Cyprus. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(3), 297–322.
View publication stats

13 Case Study

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

13 Case Study

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Culturally (ir)relevant school leadership: Ethno-religious conﬂict and school

Article in International Journal of Leadership in Education · July 2018

Melanie Brooks Jeﬀrey S. Brooks

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Culturally Proﬁcient Leadership View project

Philippines View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

ISSN: 1360-3124 (Print) 1464-5092 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedl20

Culturally (ir)relevant school leadership: Ethno-

Melanie C. Brooks & Jeffrey S. Brooks

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1503819

Published online: 27 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Culturally (ir)relevant school leadership: Ethno-religious

CONTACT Melanie C. Brooks melanie.brooks@monash.edu Faculty of Education, Monash University,

Historical and educational context of Northern Mindanao

Framework for culturally relevant leadership

Dimension one: political context

& Hampden-Thompson, 2012), inequitable resource allocation (Kozol, 1991) and

Dimension two: pedagogical approach

Dimension three: personal journey

Dimension four: professional duty

obligation to promote inter-cultural understanding and appreciation of community’s

Design of the study

framework’s dimensions that could help me understand the framework as intercon-

Political context: principal as street-level bureaucrat

The color of politics

Pedagogical approach: leadership or managerialism?

Absence of pedagogical leadership

Again, absence of pedagogical leadership was evident at a smaller primary school. A

Principals placed a high value on certiﬁcates, less so on the topics presented as

Personal journey: principalship as god’s work

Similarly, a secondary school principal’s approach to a student problem focused on an

Professional duty: peripatetic leadership

DepEd policy of principal transfer

According to the interviewees, DepEd’s practice of relocating principals every two to

Another principal knew he would be moved because of upcoming elections, ‘I am

aid workers and institutions. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/

View publication stats

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi