Gina Q. Betito

Early literacy and numeracy assessment can help Kindergarten teachers identify learning needs and review classroom instruction. This study described changes in assessment scores following nine instructional sessions aligned with the MATATAG Curriculum at Ligao West Central Elementary School–Binatagan, Philippines, during School Year 2025–2026. A quantitative action research approach used a single group assessed before and after instruction. The reported participants were 208 learners from five Kindergarten sections, included through total enumeration. Researcher developed instruments assessed letter recognition, initial sound awareness, vocabulary recognition, number recognition, counting, and quantity comparison. The same instruments were administered at both assessment points. Reported numeracy means increased from 18.84 (SD = 4.56) to 28.47 (SD = 3.89), a difference of 9.63 points. Literacy means were reported as 21.36 (SD = 4.18) and 30.92 (SD = 3.74), but the latter exceeds the instrument’s stated maximum of 30 points and requires reconciliation before interpretation. Although the original study proposed paired samples testing, no completed test statistics or paired learner records were available for verification. Accordingly, the findings are presented descriptively, without claims of statistical significance or curriculum effectiveness. The numeracy pattern warrants further examination, while the literacy result remains unresolved. Repeated testing, development, classroom differences, and the absence of a comparison group limit attribution of change to instruction. The study highlights the need for accurate scoring, documented assessment procedures, and continued monitoring of foundational skills. Verified learner records and a stronger evaluation design are needed before drawing conclusions about learning gains associated with MATATAG implementation in this school.

Curriculum reform depends on how school leaders support its everyday implementation. This study examined the relationship between curriculum leadership practices and perceived curriculum implementation effectiveness among public school heads in Albay, Ligao City, and Iriga City, Philippines. Guided by Hallinger and Murphy’s instructional leadership model, a cross-sectional descriptive-correlational design was used. Fifty school heads voluntarily completed a questionnaire containing 60 items across six subscales. Analyses included descriptive statistics, internal consistency estimates, Pearson correlation, and simultaneous multiple regression, supplemented by rank-based correlation, robust standard errors, and influential-case checks. Respondents reported very high leadership practices (M = 4.702, SD = 0.375) and implementation effectiveness (M = 4.678, SD = 0.359). However, 71.2% of item responses received the highest rating, indicating a ceiling effect. Overall leadership and implementation scores were strongly associated (r = .804, p < .001). The regression model explained 66.8% of the observed variance. Positive learning climate was the only dimension with a significant unique association (B = 0.535, β = .595, p = .002), a finding retained in sensitivity analyses. Mission definition and instructional management did not contribute significant additional variance after their overlap with learning climate was considered. Findings suggest that collaboration, recognition, inclusion, and professional learning deserve attention in curriculum support. Nevertheless, the voluntary sample, common source of measurement, unverified content validity, and overlapping predictors limit interpretation. The results describe perceptions rather than independently demonstrated effectiveness and cannot establish causation. Larger studies using validated instruments, teacher reports, observations, and documentary evidence are needed to test these relationships.