# Transformational Leadership for DepEd School Heads

Transformational leadership in schools for DepEd school heads: Bass's four I's, Leithwood's model, what the evidence shows, and a 90-day plan.

This is the Markdown copy of [Transformational Leadership for DepEd School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/transformational-leadership-school-heads), an article on the NASH Reviewer Blog by Mark Anthony Llego, published Oct 30, 2026, updated Nov 4, 2026. Topics: School leadership, Aspiring school heads. NASH Reviewer is an independent practice platform not affiliated with DepEd, BHROD, or NEAP.

Transformational leadership in schools is leadership that builds teachers' commitment to shared goals and their capacity to reach them, instead of relying only on rules, rewards and checks. Below are Bass's four components (the "four I's"), Kenneth Leithwood's version for schools, transformational and transactional leadership compared with Department of Education (DepEd) examples, and what the research says, including the comparison with instructional leadership. The risks, a 90-day plan and three practice items come last.

Transformational leadership matters to teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH), to new school heads and to teachers-in-charge. The Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH), adopted by [DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2020/09/07/september-7-2020-do-024-s-2020-national-adoption-and-implementation-of-the-philippine-professional-standards-for-school-heads/), never use the term "transformational leadership". Its practices sit in strands 1.1 and 1.2 of Domain 1, 4.2, 4.6 and 4.8 of Domain 4, and 5.4 of Domain 5. The Career Stage 4 description comes closest to the idea: school heads there "empower the wider school community in the implementation of school policies, programs, projects, and activities towards school community transformation".

## Key points

- **Transformational leadership works on commitment and capacity.** It began with Burns (1978) and was developed by Bass and his colleagues. Bass's four components are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration.
- **In schools, the most developed version is Leithwood's.** It groups practices into setting directions, developing people and redesigning the organization, and its latest version adds improving the instructional program.
- **Transformational and transactional leadership are partners.** Bass saw the first as building on the second, and Leithwood added management practices because they keep a school stable. Rewarding agreed work is positively associated with school conditions; managing only by exception is not.
- **The strongest links are with teachers, the weakest with test scores.** A meta-analysis of 79 dissertations found correlations of .57 with teacher outcomes, .44 with school conditions and .09 with student achievement.
- **Successful principals combine transformational and instructional leadership.** A New Zealand synthesis found mean effects of .42 for instructional and .11 for transformational leadership, though the two sets of studies measured different outcomes. A study of effective English schools reports that their principals layered both.
- **The main risk is a school that depends on one inspiring person.** Principal turnover lowers results and teacher retention, and about half of public schools have no principal item, so leadership must be built into the school's people and plans.

## What is transformational leadership?

Transformational leadership is a theory of how leaders influence people, not a theory of teaching. It traces back to Burns's 1978 book *Leadership*. In the words of the New Zealand Best Evidence Synthesis (BES), Burns "was interested in how some leaders were able to motivate followers to move beyond self-interest and to pursue the larger goals of the group or organisation". Jingping Sun's review describes the aim as moving followers toward "transcendental goals instead of immediate self-interest".

Bass and his colleagues developed the theory in the 1980s. In their view, the BES says, it "built on (rather than competed with) transactional leadership theory". Bass and Avolio's "two-factor theory" puts the two at the ends of one continuum: "Most leaders do some of both but transformational leadership has augmented effects above transactional leadership" (Sun, p. 7). In plain terms, a transformational school head helps teachers want the school's goals and grow able to reach them. A purely transactional one tells teachers what is expected, then rewards or corrects them.

### Bass's four components (the four I's)

The definitions are quoted from a meta-analysis by Christoph Nohe and Guido Hertel (2017), which traces them to Burns (1978) and Bass (1985).

| Component | Definition (Nohe and Hertel, 2017, p. 2) | What it can look like in a DepEd school |
|---|---|---|
| Idealized influence | "the degree to which leaders show admirable behaviors which cause followers to identify with them" | The school head attends Learning Action Cell (LAC) sessions as a learner, keeps promised schedules, and reports how school funds were spent |
| Inspirational motivation | "the degree to which leaders articulate visions that are appealing and inspiring to followers" | The school head turns the DepEd mission into a goal teachers can picture, such as every Grade 3 learner reading at grade level by year's end, and shows progress monthly |
| Intellectual stimulation | "the degree to which leaders take risks, challenge assumption, and solicit followers' ideas" | In a LAC session, the school head asks why the school keeps a remedial practice its own data do not support, and invites teachers to test an alternative |
| Individualized consideration | "the degree to which leaders listen to followers' concerns, attend to their needs, and act as mentors or coaches" | The school head meets each teacher one-on-one and matches support to need: coaching for a new teacher, a lead role for an experienced one |

Sources word the components differently, so do not memorize one phrasing. The BES describes inspirational motivation as "communicating optimism and high expectations" and puts vision under idealized influence. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), built to test Bass and Avolio's model, splits idealized influence into "attributes" and "behaviors". It has "nine scales: five to capture transformational, three to measure transactional, and one to reflect laissez-faire leadership styles" (Batista-Foguet et al., 2021, p. 1). Critics argue that this "'full-range theory' is not as 'full' as initially suggested" (p. 2). For a NASH taker, the safe point is that the styles describe behaviors one leader can show, not types of people.

## Transactional vs transformational leadership, with DepEd examples

Transactional leadership runs on exchange. In the BES's words, "the leader specifies what is expected and provides consequences for meeting or not meeting those expectations". Tony Bush, quoting Miller and Miller, describes relationships "based upon an exchange for some valued resource".

- **Contingent reward:** "the leader rewards the follower for completing the agreed-upon work" (Sun, 2010, p. 66).
- **Management by exception:** "The leader monitors and interferes when performance of the subordinate deviates from the norm" (Sun, 2010, p. 66). Its active form focuses "on mistakes and deviations from standards" (Batista-Foguet et al., 2021, p. 9).
- **Laissez-faire:** "the avoidance or absence of leadership" (Batista-Foguet et al., 2021, p. 9).

| | Transactional | Transformational |
|---|---|---|
| How the leader influences | Agrees on work and rewards it; corrects deviations from a standard | Builds commitment to shared goals and the capacity to reach them |
| Components | Contingent reward; active and passive management by exception | Idealized influence; inspirational motivation; intellectual stimulation; individualized consideration |
| A DepEd example | A designation order sets a coordinator's duties; teaching overload is paid; the school head checks lesson plans for missing parts | Teachers set a reading goal from the school's data; a LAC questions an old practice; a teacher is coached after a non-rated walkthrough |
| Its limit | It "does not produce long-term commitment" (Bush, 2007, p. 399) | Most models are "flawed by their under representation of transactional practices", which are "fundamental to organizational stability" (Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999, p. 5) |

Several exchanges are written into DepEd policy. [DepEd Order No. 005, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/04/29/april-29-2024-do-005-s-2024-rationalization-of-teachers-workload-in-public-schools-and-payment-of-teaching-overload/) sets teaching overload pay at "at least twenty-five percent (25%) of a teacher's regular remuneration" for actual classroom teaching beyond six hours a day. [DepEd Memorandum No. 053, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/09/27/september-27-2024-dm-053-s-2024-implementation-guidelines-for-deped-order-no-005-s-2024-rationalization-of-teachers-workload-in-public-schools-and-payment-of-teaching-overlo/) pays each overload hour at 125% of the teacher's hourly rate. It requires a designation order, concurred in by the teacher, for each teaching-related assignment. These are fair exchanges, and a school head must run them well.

Lesson plans show the difference. A school head who reviews plans only for missing parts is managing by exception. [DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/06/04/june-4-2026-do-016-s-2026-guidelines-on-lesson-planning-and-learning-design/) now says instructional leaders "shall not focus solely on checking the completeness of documents when reviewing lesson plans". It asks for coaching and feedback, and encourages "frequent, non-rated, formative walkthrough observations". The [guide to DO 016, s. 2026](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-lesson-planning-do-016-s-2026) and the [guide to instructional supervision](https://nash.com.ph/blog/instructional-supervision-school-heads) cover both.

The evidence favors keeping fair exchanges and dropping fault-finding. In Sun's meta-analysis, contingent reward correlated .34 with school organizational outcomes. Management by exception had no significant link with them (−.11) and a negative one with teacher outcomes (−.31). It correlated positively with learning in low-income schools (.28), but on "only three studies" (p. 72).

Sun also counts Kouzes and Posner's Leadership Practices Inventory among the instruments that measure transformational leadership. The [guide to leadership vs management](https://nash.com.ph/blog/leadership-vs-management-school-heads) explains their Five Practices and Kotter's management and leadership functions.

## Leithwood's model of transformational school leadership

Bass's theory "has its origins in the business literature", the BES notes, and "has been adapted for educational settings by Leithwood and his colleagues in Canada and Australia". Sun calls Leithwood's the most fully developed educational version. It has changed over time.

| Version | Main categories | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 1999 | Six dimensions: building school vision and goals; providing intellectual stimulation; offering individualized support; symbolizing professional practices and values; demonstrating high performance expectations; developing structures to foster participation in school decisions. Plus four management dimensions: staffing, instructional support, monitoring school activities, community focus | Leithwood and Jantzi (1999), pp. 5–6 |
| 2004 | Three sets of "basics": setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization | Leithwood et al. (2004), pp. 8–9, 23 |
| 2005 | The three sets plus a fourth: "Managing the Instructional Program" in Sun's account, transactional and managerial practices in the BES's | Sun (2010), p. 7; BES Table 4, p. 86 |
| 2020 | Four domains: Set Directions; Build Relationships and Develop People; Redesign the Organization to Support Desired Practices; Improve the Instructional Program | Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins (2020), Table 1 |

The 2004 review says these practices "closely reflect a transformational approach to leadership". The practices in setting directions "account for the largest proportion of a leader's impact". Developing people includes "offering intellectual stimulation, providing individualized support and providing appropriate models of best practice and beliefs".

Two points separate Leithwood's model from Bass's. First, the school version added activities "more specifically related to education", the BES says, "in response to criticism that transformational leadership lacked educational focus" (pp. 86–87). Second, the instructional part of that addition is the least tested. Sun notes that practices "related to managing instruction" had been added to the model, but "no studies included in this review have examined its impacts" (p. 72).

### The four domains in a DepEd school

The table gives a selection of the 2020 practices, in the article's words, with a DepEd example for each domain.

| Domain (2020) | Some of its practices | A DepEd example |
|---|---|---|
| Set Directions | Build a shared vision; identify specific, shared, short-term goals; create high-performance expectations; communicate the vision and goals | Keep the DepEd vision, mission and core values, and agree with teachers on one reading goal for the year from the school's assessment results |
| Build Relationships and Develop People | Stimulate growth in the professional capacities of staff; provide support and demonstrate consideration for individual staff members; model the school's values and practices; build trusting relationships | Coach after non-rated walkthroughs; meet teachers one-on-one; work with teachers' organizations, which RA 9155 asks school heads to involve |
| Redesign the Organization to Support Desired Practices | Build collaborative cultures and distribute leadership; structure the organization to facilitate collaboration; build productive relationships with families and communities; allocate resources in support of the school's vision and goals | Set a regular LAC schedule; give Master Teachers and coordinators lead roles; work with the School Governance Council and the PTA; spend MOOE on SIP priorities |
| Improve the Instructional Program | Staff the instructional program; provide instructional support; monitor student learning and school improvement progress; buffer staff from distractions to their work; participate with teachers in their professional learning activities | Recommend staffing from enrollment data; keep administrative tasks away from teachers; join LAC sessions as a learner |

The last practice was added "to acknowledge a key finding" of Viviane Robinson and her colleagues (their 2008 article). The BES reports the same result: "Promoting and participating in teacher learning and development" had a mean effect size of .84, twice that of any other leadership dimension. The 2020 article also keeps two older claims unchanged: "Almost all successful leaders draw on the same repertoire of basic leadership practices", and "The ways in which leaders apply these basic leadership practices – not the practices themselves – demonstrate responsiveness to" context. A city school and a multigrade school need the same practices, carried out differently.

## How transformational leadership reaches learners: through teachers

The 2004 Wallace review concluded that "Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school", and that its effects "are usually largest where and when they are needed most". A 2021 synthesis of US research by Jason Grissom and colleagues found that this judgment "holds up and, in fact, may not have been stated strongly enough".

The influence is mostly indirect. The 2020 revision of Leithwood's "seven strong claims" describes paths through classroom instruction, school organization, the family and emotions. The "Emotions Path" includes "Collective Teacher Efficacy, Teacher Commitment and Teacher Trust in Others".

One early test shows the pattern. Leithwood and Doris Jantzi studied 110 schools in one district in eastern Canada, with surveys from 1,762 teachers and 8,805 students. Transformational leadership had "strong, significant direct effects on organizational conditions and weak but significant indirect effects" on student participation (.07) and identification with school (.10). Family educational culture had the largest effects (.88 and .87). The authors cautioned against dismissing the small effects, since organizational conditions are "the means through which school effects are exercised".

For a school head, the work is on teachers' conditions: their shared belief that they can help learners, their commitment, trust, time and collaboration. Among the seven studies in Sun's review that tested such paths, teacher collective efficacy (partial r = .39) and teacher commitment (.21) were the mediators significantly related to achievement; both figures come from a single study (p. 89 and Table 4.8).

## What the research says about transformational leadership in schools

Jingping Sun's 2010 University of Toronto doctoral thesis, supervised by Leithwood, is the research behind Leithwood and Sun's 2012 meta-analysis. It pooled "Seventy-nine of the original 137 theses" written from 1996 to 2008, mostly North American "but also in England, Hong Kong, Korea, the Philippines and Tanzania".

| Outcome | Weighted mean correlation (r) | Sun (2010) |
|---|---|---|
| School organizational outcomes, overall | .44 | p. 73 |
| Shared goals or mission | .67 | p. 73 |
| Teacher outcomes, overall | .57 | p. 77 |
| Teacher job satisfaction | .76 | p. 77 |
| Teacher commitment | .70 | p. 77 |
| Teacher collective efficacy | .18 | p. 77 |
| Teacher motivation | .12 (not significant) | pp. 77–79 |
| Student achievement, direct | .09 (95% confidence interval .04 to .14) | p. 84 |

Sun's summary is "strong effects of TSL on teacher outcomes, moderately strong effects on organizational outcomes and weak but significant effects on student learning". With socioeconomic status and students' cognitive ability controlled, the link with learning was not significant (p. 88). Of single practices, only building collaborative structures (.17) and providing individualized support (.15) were significantly linked with achievement (p. 87).

Read the numbers with three cautions. The findings "are correlational in nature" (p. 99). They come from unpublished dissertations, which may give smaller effects than journal studies (p. 98). And they rest almost entirely on teachers' reports (p. 100). The BES warns that teachers' ratings reflect how much they like the leader: "When this 'liking' factor is controlled for, the association between transformational leadership and organisational outcomes is significantly weaker".

The Philippine evidence here is thin. Sun's table of achievement studies lists one 1998 Philippine dissertation on principal leadership style in 36 schools, with a direct correlation of .03 and no significant indirect effect (p. 83). One small unpublished study settles nothing. Treat local graduate studies with the same care. When one group of teachers rates both the leader and their own feelings in a single survey, the correlations may be inflated; the BES's "liking" bias is one reason. This is a caution, not a measured result.

## Transformational vs instructional leadership: what the evidence says

### Robinson's meta-analysis

The BES, by Viviane Robinson and colleagues, calls instructional leadership "pedagogical leadership", but the construct is the same. Its meta-analysis of published studies found:

- **Transformational leadership:** 13 effect sizes from five studies, where "Most of the student outcomes were social". The mean was .11, "a very weak relationship" (p. 87).
- **Instructional leadership:** 12 studies with 188 effect sizes, all on academic outcomes. The estimate was .42, "which we interpret as moderate" (p. 90).

The BES calls the difference "three to four times" (p. 90) and "nearly four times" (p. 38). Its explanations: transformational leadership "is a theory of leadership, not a theory of educational leadership"; its survey items stress "an unspecified sense of shared purpose"; and its ratings are more prone to the liking bias (pp. 91–92).

This is not a clean contest, because the two sets of studies measured different outcomes, and the authors call their meta-analysis "admittedly limited" (p. 92). Their more useful conclusion is that "The power of transformational leadership lies more in the creation of a collaborative staff culture than in higher social and academic outcomes for students" (p. 88).

The BES also reports a study that combined the two. In Marks and Printy's 24 schools, every school high on shared instructional leadership was also high on transformational leadership, but not the reverse. The BES concludes that this "suggests that transformational leadership is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for shared instructional leadership". With student background controlled, achievement, judged from the intellectual quality of about 5,000 student assignments, averaged .6 of a standard deviation higher in schools with this "integrated" leadership (pp. 92–93).

A last BES finding shows why transformational energy needs a target. In England's literacy and numeracy reforms, Leithwood and Jantzi found that transformational leadership explained how much teachers changed, yet "the extent of teacher change bore no relationship to student gains" (p. 97). Leadership's potency "hinges on the specific classroom practices which leaders stimulate, encourage and promote" (p. 98).

### Day, Gu and Sammons: successful principals layer both

Christopher Day, Qing Gu and Pam Sammons report a three-year mixed-methods study of effective and improving schools in England: a survey of "over 600" schools (363 primary, 309 secondary) and 20 in-depth cases. Their principals "had exercised leadership that was both transformational and instructional", and the BES's "over rigid distinction" did not apply in that sample.

The study found four improvement phases. The first two are described separately; the last two share their main strategies:

- **Foundational:** transformational strategies such as "developing vision, setting directions, building a 'core' senior leadership group", combined with instructional ones such as raising expectations. The priorities were the physical environment, behavior and attendance, and the senior leadership team.
- **Developmental:** wider distribution of leadership, with "systematic classroom observations" and data-informed decisions.
- **Enrichment and renewal:** personalizing learning and enriching the curriculum.

The authors call this "layering". Phases varied in length: some schools reached the second phase in six months, and the school the article describes took three years. The limits matter: the statistical model used principals' responses only, the schools had already improved, and the researchers "did not directly observe the principals at work". The study reports how successful principals describe their work; it does not prove what caused the improvement.

### Practices, not labels

Grissom and colleagues do not sort principals by style. They name four classes of behavior "that the best-available research suggests produce positive school outcomes": instructionally focused interactions with teachers, building a productive school climate, facilitating collaboration and professional learning communities, and managing personnel and resources strategically. The middle two overlap with much of what transformational leadership asks. The 2004 Wallace review warned readers to "be skeptical about the 'leadership by adjective' literature". Philip Hallinger concluded that "the substantive similarities between the models are more significant than the differences".

| | Instructional leadership | Transformational leadership |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | "close involvement" in the academic mission, feedback on teaching and professional development (BES, p. 88) | "a broader array of school and classroom conditions" (Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 6) |
| Strategy | "somewhat more top-down and directive" (Hallinger, 2007) | Individualized support and goals built "from the ground up" (Hallinger, 2007) |
| Link with student outcomes | .42 (BES) | .11 (BES); .09 (Sun) |
| Strongest associations | Academic outcomes, which all its BES studies measured | Teacher satisfaction, commitment and school culture (Sun) |

The companion guide on [instructional leadership for DepEd school heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/instructional-leadership-deped-school-heads) covers the instructional side, and the overview of [leadership styles of school heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-leadership-styles) compares all the styles.

## Transformational leadership, change and the school improvement plan

The 2004 Wallace review says transformational leadership "draws attention to a broader array of school and classroom conditions that may need to be changed if learning is to improve". How to plan a change and handle resistance, with Lewin, Bridges and Kotter, is the subject of the [guide to change management in schools](https://nash.com.ph/blog/leading-change-in-schools).

In a DepEd school, much of the direction is set nationally. RA 9155 gives the school head authority for "Setting the mission, vision, goals and objectives of the school", "Consistent with the national educational policies, plans and standards". [DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2013/09/04/do-36-s-2013-our-department-of-education-vision-mission-and-core-values-deped-vmv/) states that "the official DepEd VMV shall be the only vision, mission, and core values adopted by all offices and schools".

National priorities also enter the school improvement plan (SIP) directly, as the [SIP policy review on the app](https://nash.com.ph/sip-policy-review#added-effect) shows. For the School Innovation and Improvement Fund, [DepEd Memorandum No. 073, s. 2025](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2025/08/29/august-29-2025-dm-073-s-2025-allocation-and-release-of-the-school-innovation-and-improvement-fund-to-eligible-public-schools-to-strengthen-decentralization-and-accelerate-literacy-interve/) asked schools to revisit their SIP and Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) so that literacy and numeracy were priority improvement areas. [DepEd Memorandum No. 048, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/08/03/august-3-2026-dm-048-s-2026-allocation-and-release-of-the-school-innovation-and-improvement-fund-to-non-implementing-unit-public-schools-to-strengthen-decentralization-practices-in-the-de/) requires funded activities to align with those areas.

So inspirational motivation in a public school is rarely about writing a new vision. It is about making the DepEd vision and the SIP's priorities specific and believed in this school. The BES reports a study of Sydney secondary schools in which "the more strongly principals espoused abstract vision statements, the more negatively their teachers reacted", because "visions that never amount to more than words and symbols soon lose any power to inspire" (p. 97). Bush adds that politicians and bureaucrats "are inclined to use the language of 'transformation' to achieve their own policy objectives" (p. 397). The [guide to the DepEd school improvement plan](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-school-improvement-plan) covers the planning steps.

## Risks of transformational leadership: the hero, overwork and turnover

### The hero principal

Transformational leadership has been criticized as "a vehicle for control over teachers and more likely to be accepted by the leader than the led" (Bush, 2007, p. 396). One critic Bush cites calls it potentially "despotic" because of "its strong, heroic and charismatic features". The successful principals in Day, Gu and Sammons's study "were not charismatic or heroic in the traditional sense": they had clear values, built trust and distributed responsibility as trust grew. Hallinger names the danger: "One of the major impediments to effective school leadership is trying to carry the burden alone". And because of the liking bias, popularity is not evidence of good leadership.

### Goodwill, workload and the rules

Bush quotes Leithwood's assumption that commitment and capacity "result in extra effort and greater productivity". In a Philippine public school, that extra effort has limits set by policy.

- [DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/01/26/january-26-2024-do-002-s-2024-immediate-removal-of-administrative-tasks-of-public-school-teachers/) says administrative tasks "shall be performed by School Heads and non-teaching personnel".
- DO 005, s. 2024 caps teaching overload at two hours a day and requires that it be compensated.
- DO 016, s. 2026 directs school heads to "ensure that teachers/ALS implementers are relieved of administrative tasks".

Inspiration does not replace these rules. A school head who uses teachers' goodwill to cover work the rules assign elsewhere spends trust the school will need later. These studies do not show that transformational leadership burns teachers out. In Sun's thesis, the only study that measured teacher stress linked transformational leadership with less stress, not more (r = .16; pp. 155, 197). The workload can still wear school heads down: Grissom and colleagues note that, under teacher-evaluation reforms, the focus on being in classrooms "takes time away from other leadership tasks and may contribute to greater burnout". None of these studies measured burnout among transformational school heads, so treat this as a practical caution, not a finding.

### When the school head leaves

The most serious risk is improvement that rests on one person. Quasi-experimental studies reviewed by Grissom and colleagues show test scores dip by 0.01 to 0.02 standard deviations after a principal leaves, a dip that may last several years and may be larger in high-poverty and low-achieving schools (p. 51). Principal turnover also causes teacher turnover and lowers teachers' ratings of school climate. The damage seems to come from "the associated loss of leadership skills, relationships, and the like".

The US schools that Karen Seashore Louis and colleagues studied had "about one new principal every three to four years". "Coordinated forms of leadership distribution have the potential to mitigate at least some of the negative consequences", and new principals who "initially work within the existing culture of their schools" are more likely to avoid them (p. 165).

In the Philippines the larger problem is schools with no principal at all. In October 2026 DepEd told the Senate that about half of public schools (about 23,000 of 45,928) had no principal item, down from 55% (26,453 of 48,113) in January 2026. EDCOM II counts 13,313 schools with neither a principal nor a head teacher. Many are led by designated teachers-in-charge, as the [guide to principals, head teachers and teachers-in-charge](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-head-teacher-teacher-in-charge) explains; the app tracks the [principal shortage in numbers](https://nash.com.ph/principal-shortage). A transformational school head therefore builds leadership into other people and into the plan. The guide to [distributed leadership in DepEd](https://nash.com.ph/blog/distributed-leadership-deped-schools) shows how head teachers, Master Teachers and coordinators share the work.

## What the school head does: a 90-day plan for a newly assigned school head

The 90-day frame is a practical choice, not a research finding. Day, Gu and Sammons found that a first phase can take six months to three years, so these days are only its start. If the school is unsafe or disorderly, begin there: leaders "may need to focus on orderliness, safety, and civility before they can give fuller attention to the curriculum and teacher professional learning" (BES, p. 205).

### Days 1 to 30: listen and learn

1. **Read before you change anything.** Study the SIP and AIP, the latest SBM self-assessment under [DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/05/20/may-16-2024-do-007-s-2024-policy-guidelines-on-the-implementation-of-the-revised-school-based-management-sbm-system/), assessment results and the teaching loads in the eSF7.
2. **Meet every teacher one-on-one.** Ask what works, what gets in the way and what help each needs. Individualized support was one of only two practices significantly linked with achievement in Sun's meta-analysis.
3. **Keep what works and announce no new vision yet.** New principals who first work within the existing culture are more likely to avoid the harm of a leadership change (Louis et al., 2010).
4. **Model what you will ask of others.** Keep small promises, start meetings on time, protect class time and attend LAC sessions as a learner. The BES's Sydney study shows what happens when talk and walk differ.
5. **Find out who already leads.** Note which Master Teachers, head teachers, coordinators and teachers others turn to for help (PPSSH indicator 4.6.1).

### Days 31 to 60: set direction together

6. **Turn the data into one or two specific goals.** With teachers and the School Governance Council, agree on goals that serve the DepEd vision and mission and the SIP's priority improvement areas. Leithwood's 2020 framework calls for "specific, shared, short-term goals".
7. **Communicate the goals everywhere.** Use faculty meetings, LAC sessions, parents' meetings and a written summary. Say why the goal matters and what will not change.
8. **Use the LAC for intellectual stimulation.** [DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/06/07/do-35-s-2016-the-learning-action-cell-as-a-k-to-12-basic-education-program-school-based-continuing-professional-development-strategy-for-the-improvement-of-teaching-and-learning/) defines a LAC as "a group of teachers who engage in collaborative learning sessions to solve shared challenges". Bring one practice the data question and let teachers test alternatives; the [LAC guide](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-learning-action-cell) covers the order.
9. **Start non-rated walkthroughs and coaching.** DO 016, s. 2026 lets feedback come "without the pressure associated with formal performance evaluation". Tie it to the shared goal.

### Days 61 to 90: build structures that outlast you

10. **Build collaborative structures.** Set regular planning time for grade-level or learning-area groups. This practice had the largest single-practice link with achievement in Sun's meta-analysis (.17).
11. **Give people real roles, within the rules.** Designate coordinators from DO 005, s. 2024's list, such as the Reading/Literacy and Numeracy coordinator, by designation order with their concurrence. The [guide to teaching-related assignments](https://nash.com.ph/blog/teaching-related-assignments-deped) lists all eleven. The order allows these assignments only where "developmental programs are included in the School Improvement Plan", and the school sends its list to the schools division superintendent for approval. LAC coordination is already part of Master Teachers' functions under DO 005. Under DO 35, s. 2016, the school head is the LAC Leader and makes sure each LAC has an assigned facilitator, "preferably a Master Teacher or senior teacher or senior member of the faculty" (Annex 2).
12. **Recognize specific contributions.** Name what a teacher, learner or parent did and how it served the goal (PPSSH indicator 4.8.1).
13. **Write the agreements into the plan.** Put the goals, routines and roles into the SIP and AIP so they survive the next leadership change. At day 90, review progress with the team and adjust.

## Transformational leadership and the PPSSH: strands and Career Stage 1 indicators

The PPSSH describes Career Stage 1 school heads as aspiring school heads who "demonstrate basic knowledge and understanding of the authority, responsibility, and accountability expected of school heads". The table gives the Career Stage 1 indicators that transformational leadership draws on, in the words of the PPSSH.

| Strand | Career Stage 1 indicator | What it asks in transformational leadership |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1 Vision, mission and core values | 1.1.1 Demonstrate knowledge of the DepEd vision, mission and core values to foster shared understanding and alignment of school policies, programs, projects and activities. | Inspirational motivation within DO 36, s. 2013: making the DepEd vision shared and specific, not replacing it |
| 1.2 School planning and implementation | 1.2.1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the phases of development and implementation of school plans aligned with institutional goals and policies. | Writing shared goals and roles into the SIP and AIP so they outlast the school head |
| 4.2 Professional reflection and learning | 4.2.1 Demonstrate understanding of how professional reflection and learning can be used in improving practice. | Intellectual stimulation through LAC sessions, reflection and coaching |
| 4.6 Leadership development in individuals and teams | 4.6.1 Identify strengths, capabilities and potentials of individuals and teams in performing leadership roles and responsibilities. | Finding and growing other leaders |
| 4.8 Rewards and recognition mechanism | 4.8.1 Reward and recognize learners, school personnel and other stakeholders for exemplary performance and/ or support. | Fair contingent reward, and recognition tied to shared goals |
| 5.4 Communication | 5.4.1 Demonstrate competent skills in speaking and writing, as well as in utilizing communication platforms, in communicating with teachers, learners, parents and other stakeholders. | Communicating the vision and goals in every channel |

The [PPSSH guide](https://nash.com.ph/ppssh) lists every indicator at all four career stages. The domain guides, such as [Domain 1, Leading Strategically](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-1-leading-strategically) and [Domain 4, Developing Self and Others](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-4-developing-self-and-others), read each strand with DepEd data.

## Practice: how the NASH may test this

[DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2025/08/11/august-11-2025-dm-069-s-2025-administration-of-the-national-assessment-for-school-heads-for-fiscal-year-2025/) says the NASH covers "conceptual and situational critical thinking questions aligned with" the PPSSH, using the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy as its framework. On this topic, expect conceptual items that ask you to name a practice and explain how it works, and situational items that set an inspiring but empty option beside one that builds commitment, capacity and structure together. The three items below are original practice items, not actual or recalled NASH items. Each option is scored 3-2-1-0, as in the [NASH practice questions with answers](https://nash.com.ph/blog/nash-practice-questions-with-answers). Timed sets are on the [NASH Reviewer assessment page](https://nash.com.ph/assessment).

### Question 1

*Indicator 4.2.1, Professional reflection and learning. Career Stage 1, Conceptual, Moderate.*

Grade 3 reading results in a public elementary school have been low for two years. At a faculty meeting, the school head asks teachers to question the school's long-standing practice of pulling struggling readers out of class for drills. She invites them to propose and test other approaches in their LAC, and she pairs each new teacher with a Master Teacher as coach. Which statement best describes this practice in terms of transformational leadership?

- **A.** It is mainly transactional leadership, because the school head sets clear expectations for the teachers and will later judge each new approach by whether reading results rise.
- **B.** It combines intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration, which build teachers' capacity and commitment; any gain in reading would come through what teachers then change in class.
- **C.** It shows intellectual stimulation, because the school head invites teachers to challenge a long-held practice of the school and to try out new approaches in the LAC.
- **D.** It shows intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration, because the school head encourages new ideas from teachers and gives new teachers the support of a mentor.

**Answer and explanation**

**Best answer: B.** Points: A = 0, B = 3, C = 1, D = 2.

- **A (0 points, Prestructural).** The school head offers no reward for agreed work and corrects no deviation from a standard. Reading the practice as an exchange misses what she is doing.
- **B (3 points, Relational).** This names both components and connects them to how leadership reaches learners: through what teachers learn and then do in class.
- **C (1 point, Unistructural).** Intellectual stimulation is correct, but the answer sees only one of the two components in the scenario.
- **D (2 points, Multistructural).** Both components are named correctly, but they are listed without saying how they lead to better reading.

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.2.1 asks how professional reflection and learning improve practice. Intellectual stimulation means leaders "challenge assumption, and solicit followers' ideas", and individualized consideration means leaders "act as mentors or coaches". Leithwood's 2004 review places both under developing people, and research finds that leadership affects learners mostly through teachers. The option that names both components but stops there gets the labels right and misses that connection.

*Indicator 4.2.1: Demonstrate understanding of how professional reflection and learning can be used in improving practice.*

*Sources: Nohe and Hertel (2017); Leithwood, Louis, Anderson and Wahlstrom (2004); Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins (2020); DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.*

### Question 2

*Indicator 1.1.1, Vision, mission and core values. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.*

You are the new school head of a large public high school where morale is low. Teachers tell you that your predecessor "talked a lot about vision" but nothing changed. You want to build a shared sense of direction in your first school year. What is the most appropriate action?

- **A.** Keep the DepEd vision, mission and core values, turn the school's data into two or three specific goals with teachers that serve the mission, and use them in meetings, LAC sessions and the AIP.
- **B.** Ask each department to write its own vision statement and goals so that every group owns its direction, and post each department's statement outside its own faculty room for all to see.
- **C.** Speak about the DepEd vision with energy at every flag ceremony and faculty meeting, and share stories of learners who succeeded, so that teachers can feel the school's sense of purpose again.
- **D.** Set the year's goals yourself from the division's targets for the school, announce them at the first faculty meeting, and post a monitoring calendar so that everyone knows exactly what is expected.

**Answer and explanation**

**Best answer: A.** Points: A = 3, B = 0, C = 1, D = 2.

- **A (3 points, Relational).** This connects the DepEd vision and mission, the school's data, teachers' involvement, and specific goals that appear in daily routines and the plan.
- **B (0 points, Prestructural).** Separate department visions split the school's direction. DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013 makes the DepEd vision, mission and core values the only ones adopted by all offices and schools.
- **C (1 point, Unistructural).** Enthusiasm for the vision is part of inspirational motivation, but talk without specific goals and action is what the teachers already distrust.
- **D (2 points, Multistructural).** Specific goals and monitoring are right, but goals set alone and announced are a transactional instruction, not a shared direction.

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.1.1 asks for knowledge of the DepEd vision, mission and core values used to foster shared understanding and alignment. Leithwood's 2020 framework asks leaders to build a shared vision and "Identify specific, shared, short-term goals". The BES reports that abstract vision statements unsupported by action made teachers react negatively. The option that sets goals without teachers gets their content right and misses the sharing that makes them work.

*Indicator 1.1.1: Demonstrate knowledge of the DepEd vision, mission and core values to foster shared understanding and alignment of school policies, programs, projects and activities.*

*Sources: DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013; Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009), p. 97; Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins (2020); DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.*

### Question 3

*Indicator 4.6.1, Leadership development in individuals and teams. Career Stage 1, Situational, Difficult.*

You have been the designated teacher-in-charge of a small elementary school for two years. Under your leadership the school started a daily reading program, and the share of Grade 3 learners reading at grade level has risen. You learn that you will be reassigned in three months, and the teachers worry that the program depended on you. What is the most appropriate action?

- **A.** Work extra hours in your last three months to run the daily reading sessions yourself and finish all the program's materials, so that your successor inherits a complete program and strong results.
- **B.** Prepare a detailed handover report for your successor that lists the program's schedule, materials, assessment results and suppliers, and brief the district supervisor and the teachers on it.
- **C.** Ask the most senior teacher to take over the program after you leave and to keep running it exactly as it runs now, since the results show that the current design works.
- **D.** Identify teachers whose strengths fit the program, give them lead roles now by designation orders they concur with, coach them while you remain, and write the program and roles into the SIP.

**Answer and explanation**

**Best answer: D.** Points: A = 0, B = 1, C = 2, D = 3.

- **A (0 points, Prestructural).** Doing more of the work yourself deepens the very dependence that worries the teachers. It misreads the problem.
- **B (1 point, Unistructural).** A handover report helps, but documents alone give no one the role, skill or authority to lead the program.
- **C (2 points, Multistructural).** Handing the program to a teacher is right, but choosing by seniority, without support, and freezing the design leave it fragile.
- **D (3 points, Relational).** This connects teachers' strengths, formal roles, support while you are still there, and the school plan, so the program can survive the change of leader.

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.6.1 asks the aspiring school head to identify the strengths of individuals and teams for leadership roles. Louis and colleagues report that coordinated forms of leadership distribution "have the potential to mitigate at least some of the negative consequences" of principal turnover, and Grissom and colleagues' review shows that test scores dip after a principal leaves. DO 005, s. 2024 treats a designated teacher-in-charge as a school head and requires a designation order, with the teacher's concurrence, for teaching-related assignments such as reading coordinator, allowed only where the program is in the SIP. The option that names a successor by seniority hands over the work but not the capacity to lead it.

*Indicator 4.6.1: Identify strengths, capabilities and potentials of individuals and teams in performing leadership roles and responsibilities.*

*Sources: Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom and Anderson (2010); Grissom, Egalite and Lindsay (2021); DepEd Order No. 005, s. 2024; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.*

## Frequently asked questions

### What is transformational leadership in education?

Transformational leadership in education builds teachers' commitment to shared goals and their capacity to reach them. In schools, its best-known version is Kenneth Leithwood's model: setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization and, in later versions, improving the instructional program.

### What are the four I's of transformational leadership?

They are Bass's four components. Idealized influence means acting in ways people admire and identify with. Inspirational motivation means offering an appealing vision. Intellectual stimulation means challenging assumptions and inviting ideas. Individualized consideration means attending to each person's needs and coaching them.

### What is the difference between transformational and transactional leadership?

Transactional leadership works through exchange: the leader sets expectations, rewards agreed work and corrects deviations. Transformational leadership works through shared goals, new thinking and personal support. Bass saw them as complementary, and most leaders use both.

### Is instructional leadership better than transformational leadership?

In the New Zealand Best Evidence Synthesis, instructional leadership showed a larger mean effect on student outcomes (.42) than transformational leadership (.11), but the two sets of studies measured different outcomes. Successful principals in England combined and layered both. The useful question is which practices a school needs now, not which label to adopt.

### Does DepEd require school heads to use transformational leadership?

No. DepEd does not prescribe a leadership style by name. RA 9155 makes the school head "both an instructional leader and administrative manager", and the PPSSH describes practices in five domains without using the term. Strands such as 1.1, 4.6 and 4.8 describe what transformational leaders do.

## More on school leadership

This post is part of a series on what a school head does under the DepEd rules in force today. Related posts:

- [Leadership Styles of School Heads: What the Evidence Says](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-leadership-styles)
- [Instructional Leadership for DepEd School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/instructional-leadership-deped-school-heads)
- [Distributed Leadership in DepEd: Head and Master Teachers](https://nash.com.ph/blog/distributed-leadership-deped-schools)
- [Principal, Head Teacher or Teacher-in-Charge in DepEd](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-head-teacher-teacher-in-charge)
- [RA 9155 Duties of DepEd School Heads: 12 Areas Explained](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ra-9155-school-head-duties)
- [Leadership vs Management for School Heads: Five Practices](https://nash.com.ph/blog/leadership-vs-management-school-heads)
- [Change Management in Schools: A Guide for DepEd School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/leading-change-in-schools)
- [DepEd School Improvement Plan (SIP): Steps, AIP and SRC](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-school-improvement-plan)
- [DepEd Learning Action Cell (LAC) Guidelines: DO 35, s. 2016](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-learning-action-cell)
- [DepEd Instructional Supervision: Observing and Coaching](https://nash.com.ph/blog/instructional-supervision-school-heads)
- [OPCRF for DepEd School Heads in 2026: What Applies Now](https://nash.com.ph/blog/opcrf-school-heads-deped)
- [PPSSH Domain 4: Developing Self and Others With DepEd Data](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-4-developing-self-and-others)
- On the app: [The roles of a school head](https://nash.com.ph/school-head-roles), the six roles in one guide; the [PPSSH guide](https://nash.com.ph/ppssh); the [SIP policy review](https://nash.com.ph/sip-policy-review); and the [principal shortage in numbers](https://nash.com.ph/principal-shortage)

## Sources

DepEd issuances and laws:

- [Republic Act No. 9155, Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001](https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2001/08/11/republic-act-no-9155/), Section 7(E), Official Gazette.
- [DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2013/09/04/do-36-s-2013-our-department-of-education-vision-mission-and-core-values-deped-vmv/), Our Department of Education Vision, Mission and Core Values (DepEd VMV).
- [DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/06/07/do-35-s-2016-the-learning-action-cell-as-a-k-to-12-basic-education-program-school-based-continuing-professional-development-strategy-for-the-improvement-of-teaching-and-learning/), The Learning Action Cell as a K to 12 Basic Education Program School-Based Continuing Professional Development Strategy.
- [DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2020/09/07/september-7-2020-do-024-s-2020-national-adoption-and-implementation-of-the-philippine-professional-standards-for-school-heads/), National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads.
- [DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/01/26/january-26-2024-do-002-s-2024-immediate-removal-of-administrative-tasks-of-public-school-teachers/), Immediate Removal of Administrative Tasks of Public School Teachers.
- [DepEd Order No. 005, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/04/29/april-29-2024-do-005-s-2024-rationalization-of-teachers-workload-in-public-schools-and-payment-of-teaching-overload/), Rationalization of Teachers' Workload in Public Schools and Payment of Teaching Overload.
- [DepEd Memorandum No. 053, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/09/27/september-27-2024-dm-053-s-2024-implementation-guidelines-for-deped-order-no-005-s-2024-rationalization-of-teachers-workload-in-public-schools-and-payment-of-teaching-overlo/), Implementation Guidelines for DepEd Order No. 005, s. 2024.
- [DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/05/20/may-16-2024-do-007-s-2024-policy-guidelines-on-the-implementation-of-the-revised-school-based-management-sbm-system/), Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the Revised School-Based Management (SBM) System.
- [DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/06/04/june-4-2026-do-016-s-2026-guidelines-on-lesson-planning-and-learning-design/), Guidelines on Lesson Planning and Learning Design.
- [DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2025/08/11/august-11-2025-dm-069-s-2025-administration-of-the-national-assessment-for-school-heads-for-fiscal-year-2025/), Administration of the National Assessment for School Heads for Fiscal Year 2025.
- [DepEd Memorandum No. 073, s. 2025](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2025/08/29/august-29-2025-dm-073-s-2025-allocation-and-release-of-the-school-innovation-and-improvement-fund-to-eligible-public-schools-to-strengthen-decentralization-and-accelerate-literacy-interve/) and [DepEd Memorandum No. 048, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/08/03/august-3-2026-dm-048-s-2026-allocation-and-release-of-the-school-innovation-and-improvement-fund-to-non-implementing-unit-public-schools-to-strengthen-decentralization-practices-in-the-de/), on the School Innovation and Improvement Fund.
- EDCOM II, "EDCOM pushes for 2027 budget to close the gap in school principals nationwide", news release, 18 October 2026, reporting DepEd's testimony at the 16 October Senate hearing.

Research:

- Batista-Foguet, J. M., Esteve, M., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2021). [Measuring leadership: An assessment of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254329). *PLOS ONE, 16*(7), e0254329.
- Bush, T. (2007). [Educational leadership and management: Theory, policy, and practice](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1150205.pdf). *South African Journal of Education, 27*(3), 391–406.
- Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. *Educational Administration Quarterly, 52*(2), 221–258. DOI 10.1177/0013161X15616863.
- Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). [*How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research*](https://doi.org/10.59656/EL-SB1065.001). The Wallace Foundation.
- Hallinger, P. (2007). [Research on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership: Retrospect and prospect](https://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2007/7). ACER Research Conference 2007.
- Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). [*The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school*](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED432035) [Paper presentation, AERA annual meeting]. ERIC ED432035. Published in 2000 in the *Journal of Educational Administration, 38*(2), 112–129.
- Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. *School Leadership & Management, 40*(1), 5–22 (online 2019). DOI 10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077. [Accepted manuscript at the University of Bolton repository](https://ub-ir.bolton.ac.uk/esploro/outputs/journalArticle/Seven-strong-claims-about-successful-school/999446008841).
- Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). [*How leadership influences student learning*](https://wallacefoundation.org/report/how-leadership-influences-student-learning). The Wallace Foundation.
- Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). [*Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning*](https://doi.org/10.59656/EL-SB3935.001). The Wallace Foundation.
- Nohe, C., & Hertel, G. (2017). [Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analytic test of underlying mechanisms](https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01364). *Frontiers in Psychology, 8*, 1364.
- Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). [*School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Best evidence synthesis iteration*](https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2515/60170). New Zealand Ministry of Education.
- Sun, J. (2010). [*A review of transformational leadership research: A meta-analytic approach*](http://hdl.handle.net/1807/32052) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto].

Cited as reported in the sources above: Burns (1978) and Bass (1985), from Robinson et al. (2009) and Sun (2010); Leithwood and Sun (2012), which reports the research in Sun (2010); Marks and Printy (2003), from Robinson et al. (2009); Leithwood and Jantzi (2005), from Robinson et al. (2009), Table 4, and Sun (2010), p. 7; Leithwood and Jantzi (2006) and Barnett, McCormick and Conners (2001), from Robinson et al. (2009), p. 97; and the 1998 Philippine dissertation, from Sun (2010), Table 4.8.

*Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020 and the PPSSH; RA 9155; DepEd Orders No. 36, s. 2013, No. 35, s. 2016, No. 002, No. 005 and No. 007, s. 2024, and No. 016, s. 2026; DepEd Memoranda No. 069 and No. 073, s. 2025, and No. 048, s. 2026; Robinson et al. (2009); Sun (2010); Leithwood et al. (2004, 2020); Day et al. (2016); Grissom et al. (2021).*

---

© 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. All rights reserved. You may quote up to 100 words from this article with the author's name, its title and a link. In research, cite it as: Llego, M. A. (2026, October 30). *Transformational Leadership for DepEd School Heads*. NASH Reviewer. https://nash.com.ph/blog/transformational-leadership-school-heads. Any other reuse of the article, its charts or its data needs written permission: email support@nash.com.ph. Terms of Service: https://nash.com.ph/terms#website-content-and-data