Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
73

American Journal of  
Education and Technology (AJET) 

School Culture Typology and Leadership in Ateneo De Iloilo
Herman M. Lagon1*

Volume 1 Issue 3, Year 2022
ISSN: 2832-9481 (Online)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajet.v1i3.676
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received:  September 27, 2022

Accepted: December 20, 2022

Published: December 27, 2022

This descriptive study aims to determine the school culture typology and school leadership 
category of  a Jesuit school, Ateneo de Iloilo. Using stratified random sampling, 76 teachers 
were asked to fill out two standardized instruments of  the ASCD, namely: (a) School Cul-
ture Typology (SCT) worksheet and (b) School Culture Survey (SCS) sheet. Analysis of  data 
was done using central tendencies and standard deviation. The SCT survey showed that the 
most dominant typology in Ateneo is the “collaborative” type of  school culture. However, 
it also has a secondary blend of  “contrived collegiality” and “comfortable collaboration.” 
“Collaborative” culture is found to be prevailing in the following areas: “decision making,” 
“openness,” “communication,” “socialization,” and “organizational history.” But results also 
showed that the school needs to further improve on areas of  “trust” among teachers and 
“parent relations.” Meanwhile, the SCS survey revealed that the teachers “strongly agree” in 
the high level of  “professional development” and “unity of  purpose” in school. However, 
it was also found that teachers still need to develop more their “trust to each other” and to 
be more “open in discussing disagreements over instructional practices.” The administration 
must also be more aggressive in structurally giving space, reward, and recognition to curric-
ular innovators. It is hereby recommended that the results of  this study must cascade down 
to the teachers through school summits, institutional meetings, and PLCs for affirmation, 
dialogue, and reflection. Similar study may also be made with the other stakeholders of  the 
school for triangulation.

Keywords
School Culture, Leadership, 
Typology, Ateneo De Iloilo, 
Collaborative Leadership 

1 Iloilo State College of  Fisheries (ISCOF), Brgy. Tiwi, Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, Philippines
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: hermanlagon1@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION
The Association for Supervision and Curriculum 
Development (ASDC) strongly encourages schools to 
have an outstanding culture that resonates its vision, 
mission, and goals. Scores of  books on school leadership, 
like the St. Ignatius-inspired Heroic Leadership (Lowney, 
2003), affirm this educational principle that even the 
Department of  Education (DepEd) had to structurally 
respond by establishing the National Educators Academy 
of  the Philippines (NEAP) to train administrative culture 
bearers of  educational excellence.
In the same note, Ateneo de Iloilo-Santa Maria Catholic 
School—a Jesuit, Chinese-Filipino educational institution 
in Western Visayas, Philippines—believes that a strong, 
positive, and communal “way of  life” must be distinct, 
explicit, and apparent in schools not just in its manuals 
or posters, but more importantly in its structures, people, 
and “ways of  proceeding.” In effect, it must be imbibed 
by all stakeholders—most especially teachers— with a 
conscious sense of  school leadership so much so that it 
shapes everyone’s disposition academically, professionally, 
socially, emotionally, and even spiritually. Thus, this study 
was conceptualized.

LITERATURE REVIEW
School Culture
For Edgar Schein (1992) of  the Massachusetts Institute of  
Technology (MIT) Sloan School of  Management, school 
culture is a relatively stable pattern of  organizational 
behavior that lies outside the immediate awareness of  
the organization’s members and reflects the shared 

behavioral, emotional, and cognitive learning the group 
has undergone over time. As an organization evolves, 
the behaviors of  the organization develop a consistent 
pattern based upon its shared assumptions. Schein 
believes that espoused values, group norms, habits of  
thinking and acting, and personnel behavior, are among 
the more readily understood elements that represent the 
organization’s culture.
For his part, educational expert Ron Ritchhart, author of  
the book Creating Cultures of  Thinking: The 8 Forces 
We Must Master to Fully Transform the School (2015), 
affirms the importance of  having a strong and positive 
school culture, especially in the area of  creating “cultures 
of  learning.” He builds the case for “enculturation” as 
the key to deep learning and the development of  the 
habits of  the mind and dispositions needed in a changing 
world. He advocates that way of  school life that “enables 
teachers and administrators—as well as anyone interested 
in fostering group learning—to understand and shape 
powerful and efficient communities. “Let us build 
dynamic learning communities that engage students, 
promote deep understanding, and sustain a lifetime of  
inquiry,” Ritchhart suggested. 
In a national seminar for administrators sponsored by 
Phoenix Publishing House in November, 2015, and 
followed up in September, 2016, leading school leadership 
expert Dr. Cynthia Arcadio opined that a school with 
an outstanding culture begets outstanding students and 
teachers. “And it requires an outstanding leadership to 
start with.” Dr. Arcadio, who is also a senior accreditor 
of  the Philippine Accrediting Association of  Schools, 

https://doi.org/10.54536/ajet.v1i3.676
mailto:https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet%0D?subject=


Pa
ge

 
74

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet

Am. J. Educ. Technol. 1(3) 73-83, 2022

Colleges, and Universities (PAASCU), further advocated 
that in order to achieve this, schools must have: unified 
vision, collaborative decisions, guaranteed curriculum, 
true collaboration, rigorous instruction, data-driven 
analyses, caring attitudes, responsive leaders, ongoing 
support, and fierce resolve.
American school leadership expert Jerry Valentine (2006), 
citing different research studies, agrees with Dr. Arcadio, 
highlighting further that schools must put at premium its 
teachers in this respect since their roles are vital in the 
formation of  a school culture, good or otherwise. In fact, 
he said a school with an effective learning culture:
Maintains the image of  a “professional community,” 
similar to the fields of  law or medicine. Teachers pursue 
a clear, shared purpose, engage in collaborative activity, 
and accept a collective responsibility for student learning 
(Newman & Wehlage, 1995); 
Has a clear mission. Teachers value the interchange of  
ideas with colleagues. Strong values exist that support a 
safe and secure environment. There are high expectations 
of  everyone, including teachers. There is strong, not rigid, 
leadership (Deal & Peterson, 1990); 
Encourages teachers to work collaboratively with each 
other and with the administration to teach students so 
they can learn more with ease (Fullan, 1993); and Is a 
place where both teachers and students learn (Rosenholtz, 
1989). 

School Leadership 
By extension, Valentine linked the positive correlation 
between school culture and school leadership. He said 
that the school leader is also very instrumental in shaping 
the school’s culture and leading reform and the presence 
and sustainability of  reform is highly associated with the 
school’s culture. 
“In essence, the principal [and the associate principals 
and mid-level administrators by extension] is probably 
the most essential element in a highly successful school. 
The principal is necessary to set change into motion, to 
establish the culture of  change and a learning organization, 
and to provide the support and energy to maintain the 
change over time until it becomes a way of  life in the 
school. Over time, the principal’s leadership will  shape 
the school, positively or negatively. Without high-quality 
leadership, high-quality schools cannot exist.” (Valentine 
et al., 2004)
Corroborated by Marzano et al. (2005), as cited by 
Valentine (2006), the close link among school culture, 
leadership, and student achievement was described 
further. They stated: “Fostering school culture that 
indirectly affects student achievement is a strong theme 
within the literature on principal leadership.”
From their comprehensive meta-analysis of  empirical 
studies of  leadership and student achievement, they 
described the following key leadership behaviors: (a) 
promote cohesion and sense of  well-being among all 
staff; (b) develop an understanding of  purpose among all 
personnel, and (c) develop a shared vision of  what school 

should be like. They concluded that each of  these leader 
behaviors directly related to school culture and school 
culture related to student achievement.
In another comprehensive synthesis of  the leadership 
literature associated with student achievement, Cotton 
(2002) described 26 principal behaviors that contributed 
to student achievement. The behaviors fell into five 
categories, one of  which was characterized as school 
culture. 
It is evident that from these two comprehensive studies 
of  the literature (Marzano et al., 2005, and Cotton, 2002) 
that educational leadership influences school culture and 
school culture influences student achievement.
Therefore, school leaders, both formal and informal, help 
shape the nature of  school culture (Leithwood, 2005, as 
cited by Valentine, 2006) and thus the nature of  school 
improvement. Leadership and school culture go hand in 
hand, in both the development and the sustainability of  
school reform.
No less than Dr. Roland Barth (2002), the founder of  the 
Harvard School of  Education, says it more succinctly. 
“When we come to believe that our schools should be 
providing a culture that creates and sustains a community 
of  student and adult learning— that this is the trellis 
[backbone] of  our profession—then we will organize our 
schools, classrooms, and learning experiences differently. 
Show me a school where instructional leaders constantly 
examine the school’s culture and work to transform it into 
one hospitable to sustained human learning, and I’ll show 
you students who do just fine on those standardized tests.” 
This perception was also corroborated by about 70 
school administrations from all the Visayas regions who 
gathered in the School Leadership seminar sponsored 
by Phoenix in SEDA Hotel in Iloilo last November 23, 
2015. Collectively, the group strongly confirmed the value 
of  having a strong school culture that is backed up and 
predicated by a strong school leadership.
With all these in mind, it seems that all school leaders—
here and abroad—agree with these educational viewpoints 
and that they want this sense of  strong school culture 
to be achieved. Many experts on curriculum, human 
psychology, educational management, and even business 
administration apparently agree that the road to success 
is to have an excellent school culture, and that both the 
teachers and school administrators play a vital role in this 
dynamics. 

The Ateneo Context 
In the case of  Ateneo de Iloilo-Santa Maria Catholic 
School, having a school culture seems to be a given as 
explicitly stated in the school instruction bible, the 
Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm—A Practical Approach. 
It proposes a “way of  proceeding” that is unique to 
Jesuit schools. It also instills an Ignatian language that 
spells magis (more), cura personalis (care for others), non 
multum sed multa (not many things but much), tantum 
quantum (in so far as it leads you to the Truth) and ad 
majorem Dei gloriam (for the greater glory of  God)—

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet


Pa
ge

 
75

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet

Am. J. Educ. Technol. 1(3) 73-83, 2022

that every Atenean young and old, teacher or student, 
must live by like a code in a secret society. 
The 30-year-old Characteristics of  Jesuit Education 
(CJE) document likewise reinforces this “Ateneo culture” 
principle. For one, it somehow alludes that the way Jesuit 
schools must be run must anchor on how the 450-year-
old, “tested-and-proven” Order of  the Society of  Jesus is 
run. According to Lowney (2003), this includes attention 
to details, constant practice of  self-awareness, allergy 
to mediocrity, discipline to the process of  reflection, 
space for ingenuity, sense of  community, purpose-driven 
processes, premium for institutional identity and “heroic” 
way of  proceeding. 
Ideally, Ateneo education promotes collaboration among 
its leaders and teachers. It also encourages collegial 
support, learning partnership, professional development, 
and unity of  purpose.

The Ateneo ‘Dilemma’
Because of  its Ateneo-Jesuit culture or brand, and 
probably highlighted by its products (students and alumni) 
and new physical structures, many brazenly think that the 
school, with its faculty in the frontline, is already “better 
than others” or assumed to be “among the best.” Some 
may tenuously presuppose that its “school culture” is as 
strong as it shouts “One Big Fight” whenever there is a 
sports competition, or as it robotically answers “Person 
for Others” when asked about its societal responsibility. 
Others in the local teaching world (and even coming 
from some parents) may even exaggerate in saying that 
their impressions to the teachers of  Ateneo include being 
“highly professional,” “intellectual,” “collective,” and 
“solid” in their ways of  doing things inside or outside the 
classroom. 
Such technically unsubstantiated “givens” as to the 
school culture, the investigators believe, might either be 
bordering on “hubris” or “misconception.” Hence, it 
needs to be put on check as it might dangerously mislead 
the school to rest on its laurels that may possibly be 
founded on a soft ground. Because of  the lack of  backed 
up study, there is this hesitant perception to the so-
called Ateneo culture in the school administrative realm. 
There might be an over-calculation or miscalculation in 
the general assessment of  what the school culture and 
leadership really is, due to a biased, “blue-stained” pair of  
lens used by its stakeholders. 
Furthermore, with the understanding of  the importance 
of  school culture and the meaning of  school culture, the 
need to once-and-for-all measure Ateneo’s is vital. The 
school, to note, has not yet comprehensively evaluated 
its school culture and leadership since its foundation 
in 1958. What makes it dicey is the fact the Ateneo 
brand has been there for so long that it has apparently 
preceded any objective and scientific assessment of  what 
it really meant as: “A Jesuit, Catholic, Chinese-Filipino 
Educational Institution in Western Visayas. A community 
committed to forming leaders who pursue excellence that 
is ignited by love and service.”

Meanwhile, the number of  teaching personnel in school 
has ballooned for the past six years right after its expansion 
in terms of  enrollment and learning space. From just 
less than 53, the plantilla is now 99 (43 in GS and 56 in 
HS) paid teaching faculty. The increase in the number of  
teachers apparently has taken its toll in terms of  passing 
on the “culture” of  the school to the younger ones. 
The stretching of  personnel has also caused relational 
and transactional distance between and among teachers, 
supervisors, and administrators. And so, the dynamics of  
arriving at decisions or dissemination of  information—
or of  passing on the “school culture”—may not anymore 
be that efficient, affecting the relational, managerial, 
formative, and administrative dynamics in school. 
Henceforth, the researchers proposed to answer the 
following essential questions: 
What is the school culture typology of  Ateneo de Iloilo-
SMCS? 
What school leadership category does Ateneo de Iloilo-
SMCS perform well or need improvement? 

METHODOLOGY
To answer the above questions, 76 of  the 99 teachers 
of  both grade school and high school departments 
of  Ateneo de Iloilo-SMCS were given the following 
instruments to fill out: (a) School Culture Typology 
(Worksheet) Survey and (b) School Culture a Survey 
using the standardized instrument of  the Association 
for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASDC) 
now called the professional Learning and Community for 
Educators. 
The School Culture Typology (SCT) Worksheet 
(Appendix A) and the School Culture Survey (Appendix 
B) on School Leadership used here were developed in 
2000, and revised in 2006, by Steve Gruenert and Jerry 
Valentine of  the Middle Level Leadership Center in the 
University of  Missouri, United States of  America (USA). 
Through MLLC, the authors also gave permission for the 
use of  their instrument for this purpose. 
The SCT instrument is a worksheet that aims to 
approximate the cultural typology of  the school. It is a 
matrix that is comprised of  12 factors of  school leadership 
namely student achievement, collegial awareness, shared 
values, decision making, risk-taking, trust, openness, 
parent relations, leadership, communication, socialization, 
and organizational history. These are classified into six 
columns representing a typology that describes the culture 
of  the school i.e. toxic, fragmented, balkanized, contrived 
collegiality, and collaboration. Every cell in the 12 x 6 
matrix has a statement that describes the factor vis-à-vis 
its corresponding typology. Using the Point Allocation 
Method, each respondent is then tasked to distribute 10 
points per factor as appropriate in proportion to how 
each statement in the matrix best describes the school 
i.e. if  one statement is exactly accurate, the respondent 
will assign 10 to that box, assign 5 each to two equal 
descriptors, or maybe 5, 3, 2 as appropriate, etc. All 
the points placed by all respondents in every “cell” and 

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet


Pa
ge

 
76

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet

Am. J. Educ. Technol. 1(3) 73-83, 2022

column are summed up as basis for the cultural typology 
of  the school. 
School Culture a Survey (SCS), on the other hand, 
is a 35-item instrument that provides insight about 
school leadership—the shared values or beliefs, the 
patterns of  behavior, organizational dynamics, and 
the relationships in the school. Each factor measures a 
unique aspect of  the school’s collaborative culture. The 
factor definitions— these are collaborative leadership, 

teacher collaboration, professional development, collegial 
support, unity of  purpose, learning partnership—are 
underlined; the additional sentences provide more detail 
about the concepts associated with each factor. Each 
item can be answered “strongly agree,” “agree’” “agree,” 
“neutral,” “disagree,” or “strongly agree.” The summary 
of  responses are then analyzed using the scale shown in 
Table 1.
These instruments (Appendices A and B), to note, were 

Table 1: Scale of  Reponses for School Culture Survey 
Scale Description
4.21-5.00 Strongly Agree
3.41-4.20 Agree
2.61-3.40 Undecided
1.81-2.60 Disagree
1.00-1.80 Strongly Disagree

introduced by Dr. Arcadio in her Phoenix-sponsored 
seminars last 2015 and 2016. With her imprimatur, schools 
that attended in the said summit were encouraged to use 
these in their own schools for whatever purpose they may 
deem fit. Apparently, this study is an offshoot of  such advice. 
Meanwhile, after brief  technical explanation on how to 
use the instrument, the survey sheets were distributed 
early November, 2019. They were eventually collected, 
collated, and analyzed for presentation to the school 
faculty for collective dialogue, reflection, discernment, 
and resolution. 

Note that the focus of  the study is the responses of  76 
Ateneo teachers (representing 76.77% of  the population) 
from grade school and high school that aim to approximate 
the present “school culture” in the current educational 
management setting. Using the “fix mode” in the scientific 
calculator, their names were randomly selected and the 
number or respondents per department—following 
data privacy and ethical protocols of  the school–was 
identified using stratified sampling method. The number 
of  respondents and their departmental classification are 
shown in Table 2. 

Table 2: Respondents of  the Survey on School Culture and Leadership 
Department Population Percent Respondents Percent
Grade School 43 43.43 34 44.74
High School 56 56.67 42 45.26
Total 99 100% 86 100%

Analysis of  data was done using frequencies, ratios, 
percentages, and weighted means. 

RESULTS AND ANALYSES
To answer the question: “What is the school culture 
typology of  Ateneo de Iloilo- 
SMCS?” the SCT Survey of  the Middle Level Leadership 
Center of  Gruenert & Valentine (2006) showed that 
the school, through the eyes of  its teachers, is fairly 
having a collaborative type of  school culture (31.5% or 
2873/9120 points). However, it also has a strong blend of  
comfortable (24.6% or 2239/9120 points) and contrived 
collegiality (23.3% or 2128/9120 points) type of  school 
culture. It is worthy to note that the school does not 
significantly show a culture that is toxic, fragmented, or 
balkanized.
A school with collaborative culture, according to Gruenert 
& Velentine  (2006), is that which teacher development 
is facilitated though interdependence and the majority 
agrees on educational values. Furthermore, there is a 
commitment among stakeholders to achieve the mission 
of  the school under the environment of  collaboration, 
trust, collective reflection, innovation, teamwork and 
continued self-development. Note that a collaborative, 

learning culture is essential ingredient in overall school 
success. Successful schools generally have strong set of  
commonly held norms and values, a primary focus upon 
teaching that supports student learning, open dialogue, 
and collaboration among all members of  the organization 
(Louis et al., 1996). 
Meanwhile, comfortable collaboration is a culture that is 
nearing collaborative culture but is somehow less tolerant 
to criticisms and critical questions but are more concerned 
on giving advice or tips and offering comfortable support 
for each other. In the contrived culture, the forms of  
collaboration are determined and structures are created by 
the school leadership. The teachers may become regulated 
and predictable, but such contrivance is necessary for the 
development of  a true collaborative culture. 
Toxic culture, on the other hand, is displayed when 
teachers focus on the negative aspects of  the school’s 
operations and personnel, while a fragmented culture is 
shown where teachers are isolated from other teachers 
and are insulated from outside interference. A balkanized 
culture, on the other hand, is depicted where collaboration 
and sharing occur within like-minded groups, friends, or 
cabals only leading to poor communication, indifference, 
and groups (even the most effective teachers) going 

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet


Pa
ge

 
77

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet

Am. J. Educ. Technol. 1(3) 73-83, 2022

separate directions. 
As to Ateneo de Iloilo-SMCS, the survey revealed that a 
collaborative culture is found to be shown highly in the 
following areas: decision making, organizational history, 
socialization, communication, shared values, collegial 
awareness, openness, student achievement, risk-taking, 
and school leadership.
Meanwhile, the results as shown in detail in Appendix C 
suggested that the school still need to pay attention to 
areas that may need further improvements such as “trust” 
and “parent relations.” Although the school culture is 
shown to be dominantly collaborative, 30.9% (235/760 
points), with elements of  comfortable collaboration, 
16.1% (122/760 points), and contrived collegiality, 
18.0% (137/760 points) in the area of  “trust,” it has 
confirmed a sign of  culture that is toxic, 15.4% (117/760 
points) and balkanized, 17.5% (133/760). In the area 
of  “parent relations,” where it is dominantly classified 
under contrived collegiality of  253/760 (33.3%), there 
is a troubling combined 231/760 points (30.4%) under 
a culture classified as toxic, fragmented, and balkanized. 

It was found further that the specific indicators of  toxic 
or balkanized nature are when teachers start talking 
behind other teachers’ backs or when trust is only given 
or shown arbitrarily to people. Another red flag would 
be when teachers and parents consider each other as 
enemies rather than partners to the development of  their 
child/ward. Meanwhile, the results shown on Table 3 
underscored that Ateneo de Iloilo-SMCS has prevailingly 
high expectation among teachers to participate in 
decisions concerning students with 326/760 or 42.3% 
rating under collaborative culture and a combined 
38.6% or 293/760 rating under contrived collegiality and 
comfortable collaboration cultures. It also showed that 
there is a collective understanding among teachers that 
the school improvement is a continuous issue and that 
they are committed to celebrating the school’s historical 
milestones and identity as noted by its 310/760 or 40.8% 
rating placed in the collaborative culture category alone 
and 360/760 or 47.4% more shared by categories of  
culture under contrived collegiality and comfortable 
collaboration.

Table 3: Statistical Results of  School Culture Typology Survey 
Toxic Fragmented Balkanized Contrived Collegiality Comfortable 

Collaboration
Collaorative

Student Achievement
Collegial Awareness
Shared Values

41
30
29

27
32
31

93
114
86

204
169
146

211
178
228

184
237
240

Decision Making
Risk-Taking

27
51

24
27

89
81

149
197

145
137

326
267

Trust 117 16 133 137 122 235
Openness 31 18 42 233 183 253
Parent Relations
Leadership

71
25

75
36

85
85

253
248

160
235

116
131

Communication 35 19 83 133 205 285
Socialization 45 28 64 131 203 289
Organization History 35 21 34 128 232 310
Total 537 354 989 2128 2239 2873

Meanwhile, as shown in Table 3 and Appendix C, it 
also appeared that most teachers assume responsibility 
in helping new teachers adjust in school while the latter 
are encouraged to share their experiences with other 
faculty members. Almost always, any teacher can talk 
to any teacher about their teaching practice with less 
or no hesitation at all as warm conversations among 
stakeholders permeates in school. 
It was also found out that teachers are dominantly open 
to and looking for new ideas, perhaps some occasionally 
like to experiment with new ideas, and are prevailingly 
interested in the opinions of  their colleagues concerning 
instruction. This shows a satisfactory culture of  trust 
where teacher development is facilitated through 
interdependence and the majority agree on Ateneo’s 
educational values apparently inspired by the Ignatian 
Pedagogical Paradigm (IPP). There is also a commitment 
to change and improvement among teachers. Although 
not exactly perfect, help, support, trust, openness, 
collective reflection, and collective efficacy are found to 
be at the heart of  and are well-defined in the Ateneo de 

lloilo culture. 
Furthermore, it was shown that teachers are aggressively 
curious about teaching and learning. If  need arises, they 
also spend time observing each other (peer observation) 
or doing Professional Learning Community (PLC) 
conversations as a means of  critically analyzing teaching 
methods. 
But the school is not exclusively the collaborative type 
one. As graphically shown in Figure 1, the school 
has somehow showed some blend of  comfortable 
collaboration and contrived collegiality type of  school 
culture. The dominating features suggest that teachers 
are given time to discuss student achievement but most 
of  this time is spent on giving advice and tips. Most, 
but not all, teachers are comfortable when parents want 
to be involved with instructional practices; some also 
aggressively see the involvement of  parents in classroom 
instruction. Likewise, school leaders encourage teachers 
to give each other advice without being too critical and 
school leaders monitor the meetings that are designed for 
teacher collaboration.

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet


Pa
ge

 
78

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet

Am. J. Educ. Technol. 1(3) 73-83, 2022

Figure 1: Overall Result of  School Culture Typology Survey of  Ateneo De Iloilo-SMCS Teachers. See Individual 
Results of  the 12 Educational Factors In Appendix C.

It is worthy to note, however, that the SCT results showed 
that the school needs to work more on the issue of  trust 
as some teacher-respondents still gave weight to it under 
the Toxic (117) and Balkanized (133) types of  school 
cultures. This item has to do with teachers talking behind 
each other and teachers who only trust certain teachers. 
The same is true in the factor on collegial awareness 
where the weight for balkanized (114) culture can cause a 
red flag. This area concerns on teachers being aware only 
of  what their friends in the school are teaching. 
Although in the factor of  parent relations, there seems to 
be a spike in the points earned under contrived collegiality 
(253) as opposed to the low turnout in the collaborative 
(116) part, the disparity is quite reasonable since going 
into collaborative level may mean involvement of  parents 
in classroom instruction which is a tall order to achieve 
as of  the moment. Instead, the dominant culture is 
that the school leaders simply require teachers to be in 
contact with parents regularly through Parent-Teacher 
Conferences (PTC) or in other forms of  communication 
such as direct phone call, short message service (SMS), 
email or social media network. 
Meanwhile, decision making and organizational history 
are two of  the items in the survey that really showed 
overwhelmingly positive results in the contrived 
collegiality (149-decision making/128-organizational 
history), comfortable collaboration (145/232), and 
collaboration (326/310) culture columns with the least 
points given to toxic (27/35), fragmented (24/21), and 
balkanized (89/34) culture columns. This means that 
the teachers recognize that decisions in school follow a 
certain judicious protocol which they participate into, and 
that they not just care but also own the decision for they 
know that they are part of  the process. Also, the results 
showed that it is not the culture of  the Ateneo that its 
teachers are quick to share negative stories about school, 
instead teachers see themselves as ambassadors of  the 
institution. 
To answer the question: “What school leadership 
category does Ateneo de Iloilo-SMCS perform well or 
need improvement?” 
Results from the School Culture Survey (SCS) revealed 

that the respondents strongly agree in the level of  
professional development in Ateneo. This means 
that teachers highly value the continuous personal 
development and school-wide improvement in school as 
they seek ideas from seminars, colleagues, organizations, 
and other professional sources to maintain current 
knowledge, particularly current knowledge about 
instructional practices. 
The survey also showed that the teachers strongly agree 
that there is this high sense of  unity of  purpose in school. 
Ateneo teachers believe that there seem to be a collective 
effort to work toward a common mission for the school 
as they understand, support, and perform in accordance 
with that mission. Here they also affirm that the school 
mission statement reflects the values of  the community. 
As shown in Table 4 and graphically explained by 
Appendix D, the results also note that the teachers agree 
in the optimistic level of  collegial support, learning 
partnership, teacher collaboration, and collaborative 
leadership is shared by the school’s stakeholders.
However, although all teachers agree on the items in the 
survey, the degree of  agreement in some areas under 
the categories of  collaborative development, teacher 
collaboration, learning partnership and collegial support 
are found to be areas for improvement. It was revealed 
(see Appendix E) that there is still a need for teachers to 
be more informed on current issues in school (weighted 
mean=3.954), to take extra time to observe each other 
teaching (3.755), to be more aware of  what other 
teachers are teaching (3.690), to trust each other (3.684) 
better, to be more open in discussing disagreements 
over instructional practices (3.677), and to spend added 
considerable time planning together (3.944) as a form of  
teacher collaboration. 
The survey results also highlighted that the parents and 
teachers should enhance their communication line to 
work together (3.953) and to have common expectations 
for student performance (3.887). While this happens, the 
results suggested that the parents must trust more the 
teachers’ professional judgments (3.880) and apparently 
let the Ateneo way of  education take its course in the 
spirit of  a stronger learning partnership. On the other 

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet


Pa
ge

 
79

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet

Am. J. Educ. Technol. 1(3) 73-83, 2022

Table 4: Overall Result of  School Culture Survey (SCS) 
Culture Category Total Weighted Mean Description
Professional Development 4.229 Strongly Agree
Collaborative Leadership 3.982 Agree
Teacher Collaboration 3.991 Agree
Collegial Support 4.173 Agree
Unity of  Purpose 4.310 Strongly Agree
Learning Partnership 3.988 Agree

hand, the significant message of  the survey among school 
leaders was that they must trust the professional judgments 
of  their teachers more (3.937), and invest further in 
giving forms of  affirmation or reward to teachers who 
perform well (3.837) and o those who do innovations e.g. 
experimenting with new ideas, techniques, or any forms 
of  instructional advances (3.525) in school. 
Meanwhile, the survey also showed that the respondents 
have high agreement in items that cover categories on 
collaborative development, collegial support, professional 
development, teacher collaboration, and unity of  purpose. 
The results revealed that in Ateneo de Iloilo-SMCS, teachers 
dominantly work cooperatively (4.216), understand 
the mission of  the school (4.242), values professional 
development (4.343) and school improvement (4.461), are 
encouraged to share ideas (4.370), have opportunities for 
dialogue and planning across grades and subjects (4.403), 
support the mission of  the school (4.462), and are very 
much willing to help out whenever there is a problem 
(4.492). The school vision also provides a clear sense of  
direction for teachers (4.314) and reflects the values of  
the community (4.340). 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The result of  the study necessitates a programmatic 
initiative that will cascade down to the teachers all the 
things to improve in the workplace. Perhaps, such can 
start with the presentation of  the results this January, 2017 
to the respective stakeholders for collective reflection 
and resolution. A more comprehensive form of  sharing 
may be done during in-service training in May, 2016, this 
time revealing in detail the elements and items where the 
school fare well and must improve on. 
Meanwhile, the areas of  concern such as trust (teacher-
teacher and teacher- administrator dynamics), parent-
teacher collaboration, and reward system for teachers (re: 
innovations and good performance) may already be shared 
to the specific individuals, subject areas coordinators, 
human resource officers, administrators, and heads of  
formation programs so they can be unpacked and studied 
upon in a more contextual manner. The same may be 
shared and done on areas that affirm positive school 
culture especially on matters pertaining areas under shared 
values, communication, decision making, and strong 
sense of  organizational history, among others. From this 
sharing may arise some resolutions that will improve the 
school leadership, relational, and instructional dynamics.
Further analysis on the data gathered may be done 
focusing more on the “culture” of  the different 

departments and subject areas in school. This may lead 
to clinically identifying “lights,” ”shadows,” “red,” and 
“checkered” flags for immediate feedback, resolution, 
and action. 
A survey of  the same nature may be conducted for 
the staff, administrators, and heads of  offices, for 
triangulation. There may surface either a consistency or 
variation of  perception to school culture vis-à-vis that 
of  the faculty. Either way, such may be germane to the 
administrative dynamics of  the school. 
Aside from the administrators and staff, this whole nature 
of  investigation— perhaps using another contextualized 
instrument—may be extended to the other stakeholders 
i.e. alumni, parents, and benefactors if  deemed necessary, 
especially if  the inquiry will transcend from the realm of  
“school culture” to the question of  “school spirit” which 
is another interesting universe in itself.

REFERENCES
Arcadio, C. (2016). Talk on school culture. Quezon City: 

Phoenix Publishing House, Inc. Association for 
Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASDC) 
now called the professional Learning and Community 
for Educators Ateneo de Iloilo-SMCS Revised 
Administrative and Faculty Manual (2016).

Barth, R. (2002). The culture builder. Educational 
Leadership.

Cotton, K. (2002). Principals and student achievement: 
What the research says. Alexandria, VA: Association 
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1996). Shaping school culture. 
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Department of  
Education Millennium Goals.

Fullan, M. (1993). Changing forces. Bristol, PA: Falmer 
Press.

Gruenert, S., & Valentine, J. (2006). Cultural typologies 
worksheet. USA: Middle Level Leadership Center.

Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational leadership: A 
review of  the research. Philadelphia, PA: The Mid-
Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory at Temple 
University.

Louis, K., Marks, H., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ 
professional community in restructuring schools. 
American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798.

Lowney, C. (2003). Heroic leadership. Chicago, USA: 
Loyola Press.

Marzano, R., Walters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School 
leadership that works: From research to results. 
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and 

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet


Pa
ge

 
80

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet

Am. J. Educ. Technol. 1(3) 73-83, 2022

Curriculum Development.
National Educators Academy of  the Philippines (NEAP) 

Mandate.
Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating cultures of  thinking: The 8 

forces we must master to fully transform the school. 
New Jersey, USA: Jossey-Bass Publications.

Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership, 
5th Edition. New Jersey, USA: Jossey-Bass 
Publications.

The International Commission on the Apostolate of  
Jesuit Education (1986). The characteristics of  Jesuit 
education. Vatican: Jesuits Order.

The Jesuits (1993). Ignatian pedagogy—A practical 
approach. The Vatican: Society of  Jesus.

Valentine, J. (2006). A collaborative culture for 
school improvement: Significance, definition, and 
measurement. Middle Level Leadership Center.

Appendix A: School Culture Typology Worksheet

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet


Pa
ge

 
81

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet

Am. J. Educ. Technol. 1(3) 73-83, 2022

Appendix B: School Culture Survey (SCS)

Appendix C: School Culture Survey (SCS) Table Form

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet


Pa
ge

 
82

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet

Am. J. Educ. Technol. 1(3) 73-83, 2022

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet


Pa
ge

 
83

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet

Am. J. Educ. Technol. 1(3) 73-83, 2022

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajet