Authors : Rowell B. Flores; Dr. Remigilda D. Gallardo

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 7 - July

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/3y9vdk25

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/nbud338m

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25jul1685

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : This qualitative study aimed to explore the lived experiences, coping strategies, and insights of public-school administrators as they navigated the complex task of implementing limited in-person instruction in compliance with national health and safety policies. Guided by a phenomenological approach, the study gathered data through in-depth interviews (IDI) with five school heads and a focus group discussion (FGD) with another group of five administrators. Thematic analysis of the data revealed six core challenges: inadequate learning resources and classroom facilities, overwhelming demands of health and safety compliance, excessive administrative and instructional workload, persistent resistance and anxiety among stakeholders, limited institutional and government support, and widening gaps in technology access and communication. Despite these difficulties, participants demonstrated resilience through strategies such as improvised and community- supported resource solutions, collaborative implementation of safety protocols, strategic task delegation, empathetic stakeholder communication, proactive networking, and flexible communication systems. From these experiences, three key insights emerged: the importance of adaptability and creativity during crises, the value of strong communication in building stakeholder trust, and the role of collaborative and compassionate leadership. Findings may inform future policies and professional development programs for school leaders tasked with crisis-sensitive education delivery.

Keywords : School Leadership, Face-To-Face Learning, COVID-19 Response, Coping Mechanisms, Educational Management, Qualitative Research.

References :

1. Ahmad, I. Rehman, K. Ali, A. Khan, I & Khan, F. A. (2014). Critical Analysis of the Problems of Education in Pakistan: Possible Solutions. University of Malakand. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education 3 (2) 79-84
2. Aydin, H. Ozfidan, B & Carothers, D. (2017). Meeting the Challenges of Curriculum and Instruction in School Setting in the United States. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 8 (3) 76-92.
3. Bridges, E., & Searle, D. (2021). School Leadership Under Pressure: Managing Workload in the Midst of Reform. Journal of Educational Change, 22(1), 89–102.
4. Brunell Thomas L. & Dave Chetan & Morgan Nicholas C., 2009. "Factors Affecting the Length of Time a Jury Deliberates: Case Characteristics and Jury Composition," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 555-578, October.
5. Campbell, P. and Langrall, C., (2011). Making equity a reality in classrooms.The
6. Colina, A. (2022). Davao City allows resumption of face-to-face classes. SunStar Davao.
7. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among fiveapproaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
8. Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
9. Derrington, M. L., & Campbell, J. W. (2021). Principals Navigating Workload Intensification During COVID-19. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(4), 580–597.
10. Education for All. (2014). Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All. UNESCO.
11. Fink, R. (2014). District-led Instructional Improvement in a Remote Town (Doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University).
12. Giorgi, A. (2012). The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 43(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916212X632934.
13. Glass, T., & Franchesni, L. (2007). The state of the American superintendency: A mid-decade study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
14. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Lashway, L. (2003). Inducting school leaders. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED479074
16. Lazarus, R. (1999). A new synthesis: Stress and emotion. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
17. Lincoln, S. Y., Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Lindberg, E. (2014). Principals with and without performance measures means no change? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(3), 520-531. Retrievedfromhttps://search.proquest.com/docview/1660767932?accountid=3774
19. Lingam, G., Lingam, N., & Sharma, A. (2021). School Leadership in Times of Crisis: Balancing Workloads and Well-being. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 9(1), 41–60.
20. Maslach, C. & Jackson, S.E., (1979). Burned-out cops and their families. Psychology Today. 12(12), 59-62.  
21. Mayer, J. D. (2002). MSCEIT: Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
22. Oplatka, I. (2002). Women principals and the concept of burnout: An alternative voice? International Journal of Leadership and Education: Theory and Practice, 5(3), 211-226.
23. Ozer, E. (2021). Building Trust in Schools During Uncertain Times: Lessons from the COVID-19 Transition. Journal of School Leadership, 31(3), 287–303.
24. Pepper, K. (2010). Effective Principal skillfully Balance Leadership Styles to Facilitate Student Success: A Focus for the Reauthorization of ESEA. Planning and Changing, 41(1), 42-56. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/909493024?accountid=37714.
25. Wax, A. & Hales, L. (1984, April). The development of an instrument for measuring burnout in public school administrators. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Lecture conducted from American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.