Strategies for the Development of School Administrators in the Era of Disruption under the Office of the Basic Education Commission

Abstract

This research aimed to: 1) Analyze the components of school administrator development in the disruption era under the Office of the Basic Education Commission. 2) Formulate strategies for school administrator development in the disruption era under the Office of the Basic Education Commission. 3) Evaluate the strategies for school administrator development in the disruption era under the Office of the Basic Education Commission. The study employed a mixed-methods research design, conducted in three phases. Phase one involved component analysis through qualitative content analysis of documents and interviews with 18 experts. Concurrently, quantitative analysis utilized statistics including frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on data from a questionnaire administered to a sample of 400 school administrators. Phase two focused on creating the strategy and a corresponding manual, which were validated for appropriateness by 9 experts via a Connoisseurship seminar. The third phase consisted of evaluating the final strategy with 30 school administrators. The findings revealed that: 1. There are eight primary components for developing school administrators: (1) Holistic Management Skills; (2) Role in Leading Change and Organizational Development; (3) Innovative Leadership and Interpersonal Skills; (4) Strategic Leadership and Innovation Driving; (5) Understanding of Education in the Disruption Era and Active Learning; (6) Administrative Competency and Building an Innovative Organizational Culture; (7) Lifelong Leadership Potential Development; and (8) Ethical Leadership and Good Governance. 2. Strategy for the Development of School Administrators in the Disruption Era, which includes philosophy, vision, mission, goals, 8 strategic issues, and implementation guidelines. The accompanying manual was rated as highly appropriate (=4.63). 3.The evaluation of the strategy demonstrated that its validity, appropriateness, feasibility, and utility were all at the highest level (=4.63, 4.57, 4.54, and 4.63, respectively).