DETERMINANTS AFFECTING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN BAGUIO CITY









IRENE P. VILLAREAL








SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL,
BENGUET STATE UNIVERSITY, LA TRINIDAD, BENGUET,
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF








DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Educational Management)







APRIL 2010

---

ABSTRACT


IRENE PINEDA VILLAREAL, April 2010. Determinants Affecting the
Sustainability of the International Schools in Baguio City. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Dominador S. Garin Ph. D.


The mismanagement of schools locally and globally led to the conduct of
the study. The causes of closure of many a school are financial, environment and
social factors. The study analyzed the major and minor determinants affecting the
sustainability of the international schools in Baguio City.

The findings disclosed that the school respondents have an estimated
annual budget of one million pesos. Tuition fees are the main sources of budget.
The schools are situated three to four kilometer radius from the Central Business
District. They have full concrete and permanent structure. They are non-sectarian,
non-exclusive institutions. This means that they do not belong to a particular
religious affiliation or denomination. Moreover, they are co-educational. They
offer elementary and secondary programs.

The study endeavored to find the degrees of sustainability of the
international schools along the categories of survival, relationship, self-esteem,
transformation, internal cohesion, making a difference, and service. Results
yielded moderate sustainability in survival and high sustainability in all the other

v

---

categories. This implies that the more similar the degree of importance of the four
elements of survival, the more similar is the degree of sustainability of the
establishment of the international schools. The differences in the degree of
sustainability is attributed to the variation in the forms of relationship, self-
esteem, transformation, internal cohesion, making a difference, and service. The
more varied the forms of the determinants, the more varied is the degree of
sustainability of the international schools.

In-depth analysis was done by subjecting the determinants to Friedman’s
test to find the differences of the degree of sustainability considering the triple
bottom line dimensions which are financial, environmental, and social. The
findings revealed that the financial dimension which includes annual budget and
sources of budget has a great bearing on the sustainability of the international
schools. It is postulated therefore that the higher the financial level of the
international schools the higher is their degree of sustainability. The findings
revealed further that the degree of sustainability is not affected by the
environmental and social dimensions. This implies that the more similar the
degree of importance of the environmental and social dimensions, the more
similar is the degree of sustainability of the international schools.

To ensure the sustainability of international schools in the country it is
recommended that the government shall establish a Philippine Sustainable
Schools Program patterned on international program and it shall prescribe

vi

---

International Baccalaureate curriculum to have international schools in the
Philippines equally competitive with other schools abroad. Furthermore, it must
exploit all means to have partnership with international entities that assist in
improving and promoting sustainability of schools that can open up access to
grants and funds.































vii

---

1
INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

The management of the international schools in the global sense has been
beset by numerous problems. The Center for Education Reform (2009) disclosed
that the causes of the closure of many schools in the United States included
financial inadequacy, mismanagement, and problems related to facility, academic
and the district. Financial problem covered inadequacy of enrolment; construction
delay; lack of money to pay rent, utilities, and cost of audit; failure to offer
extracurricular activities; and change of amount of funding.
Mismanagement included the use of funds for personal use; misuse of
federal fund; falsification of enrolment number; non-compliance with special
education laws and financial reporting requirements; inflated enrolment estimates;
bankruptcy; failure to provide educational services; failure to recruit certified
teachers by state law; failure to withhold payroll taxes; failure to submit audit on
time and to follow statutory requirements for worker compensation and
retirement; lack of appropriately developed curriculum; and understaffing.
Facility problem refers to the loss of school buildings, leases or students.
Academic problem pertains to the failure to administer mandated state tests;
inaccuracy of test scores; and failure to offer a full range of classes required for

---

2
graduation. Lastly, district problem refers to the conflicts that the school has with
the district.
Robelen (2009) reported that since the first charter school opened its doors
in 1992, 657 of the schools – or nearly 13 percent – have closed, with financial
problems or mismanagement the leading reasons cited, according to a study by a
pro-charter group. The report, by the Washington-based Center on Education
Reform, offers the first-ever state-by-state breakdown of charter school closures.
To date, the most charters have closed in California (103), Arizona (96), and
Florida (82) – the three states with the largest numbers of operating charters.
Meanwhile, no charters have ever been closed in five states: Hawaii, Iowa,
Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Wyoming. While reasons for the charter closures
vary, the report says that 41 percent of them “were a result of financial
deficiencies caused by either low student enrollment or inequitable funding.” The
report says an additional 27 percent of schools were closed because of
“mismanagement,” and 14 percent were shut down for poor academic
performance. At the same time, the report contends, 10 percent were closed “for
reasons that had nothing to do with quality of the charter school, but everything to
do with a hostile policy environment.”
The management of the Philippine schools in Saudi Arabia according to
Ebalita (2003), are not invulnerable to the attacks of these lingering problems
foremost of which is the mismanagement of funds. Nepotism has also been

---

3
pinpointed as a factor that undermines the operation of the international schools in
the Philippines.
In the same token consideration, there has been a proliferation of
international schools in the country. Some failed however to sustain their
existence in the competitive world of international education.
In Baguio City, 12 out of 117 private elementary schools that included
international schools have been closed just recently by the Department of
Education. No school has been closed so far among the 50 private secondary
schools that also included international schools. This is based on the list of
accredited/recognized and with government permit of private elementary and
secondary schools provided by the Department of Education, Cordillera
Administrative Region, Division of Baguio City in October, 2009.
International schools promote international education, either by adopting
international curricula such those of the International Baccalaureate (IB), or by
following national curricula different from those of the countries where the
schools are located. These schools cater mainly to students who are not nationals
of the host country such as the children of the staff of international businesses,
international organizations, foreign embassies, missions, or missionary programs.
Many local students attend these schools to learn the language of the international
school and to obtain qualifications for employment or higher education in a
foreign country. International schools can be either private or public.

---

4
Tangye, et al., (2009) stated that the international schools typically use
curricula based on the school's country of origin. The most common international
schools represent education in the United Kingdom and education in the United
States of America. Many international schools use curricula specially designed for
international schools such as the International General Certificate of Secondary
Education or the IB Diploma Programme.
The International Baccalaureate Organization (IB or IBO) offers high
quality programmes of international education to a worldwide community of
schools. As a recognized leader in the field of international education, IBO is a
non-profit, mission-driven foundation that offers three challenging programmes
for students aged 3 to 19 namely the Primary Year Programme (PYP), the Mid
Years Programme (MYP) and the Diploma Programme (DP).
The PYP is for students aged 3 to 12 developed through the vision and
effort, sustained over ten years, of the former International Schools Curriculum
Project (ISCP). The PYPs purpose was to produce a common international
curriculum and to develop international-mindedness on the part of the students. It
has been offered by 100 institutions since 1997, and continues to promote a
framework of academic challenge and life skills through embracing and
transcending the traditional school subjects.
The MYP began as an initiative of the International Schools Association
(ISA). The aim of MYP was to develop a curriculum encouraging international

---

5
awareness with emphasis on the skills, attitudes, knowledge and understanding
needed to participate in a global society. From 1994, it has been one of the three
IB programmes and has continued to grow in the same spirit of collaboration with
and among schools.
The Diploma Program for students aged 16 to 19 is a demanding two-year
curriculum that meets the needs of highly motivated students, and leads to a
qualification that is recognized by leading universities around the world. It was
established in 1968 to provide students with a balanced education; to facilitate
geographic and cultural mobility; and to promote international understanding.
Since then, innovative and committed teachers and examiners from around the
globe have played a significant role in the development of the programme.
The three programmes form a coherent sequence of education by
promoting the education of the whole person through an emphasis on intellectual,
personal, emotional and social growth. In all three programmes the education of
the whole person is manifested through all domains of knowledge, involving the
major traditions of learning in languages, humanities, sciences, mathematics and
the arts. Furthermore, all three programmes require study across a broad range of
subjects drawing on content from educational cultures across the world. The same
three programmes give special emphasis to language acquisition and
development; encourage learning across disciplines; focus on developing the
skills of learning in varying extent; the study of individual and collaborative

---

6
planning and research; and include a community service component requiring
action and reflection.
IB World Schools which are authorized by the organization may choose to
offer either of the following: only one IB programme, more than one IB
programme, or all three IB programmes in the local or national programmes. IB
World Schools are a mix of international, private and state schools. These schools
range in size from very small number of student population to over a thousand
students.
The International Schools Association (ISA) is another organization that
promotes international and intercultural understanding. It was founded under an
international non-government organization (NGO) and the first educational
association granted with accreditation status at UNESCO. It works with ISA
schools that offer Education for Sustainability which has a curriculum framework
known as K–12 and Education for Peace which is also a curriculum framework of
K–l2.
K – 12 is a designation for the sum of primary and secondary education in
the international level. It is used in the United States, Canada, and some parts of
Australia. The expression is a shortening of Kindergarten (4 to 6 years old)
through 12th grade or grade 12 (16 to 23 years old), the first and last grades of
free education in the United States, Australia, and English Canada. By contrast,

---

7
K-14 education also includes community colleges (first 2 years of university) and
K-16 education adds a four year undergraduate university degree.
The Council of International Schools (CIS) is a non-profit association of
international schools and post-secondary institutions which aims to improve
international education. CIS provides services such as accreditation, teacher and
leadership recruitment, links to higher education, governance assistance, and help
with founding new schools. It works with its member schools around the world,
most of which are co-educational and independent, catering for students aged 3 to
19. CIS schools serve expatriate community, although many also have a
substantial enrolment of local nationals. They vary in size from an enrolment of
50 to over 2,000. In the majority of schools, the language of instruction is English
although not all students are native English speakers. About a quarter of member
schools offer part of their curriculum in a second language. Some schools offer a
standard U.S. college preparatory program of studies, others a traditional British
curriculum, while others combine elements from these and other systems. An
increasing number offers an international curriculum culminating in the
International Diploma, recognized worldwide as a university entrance credential
(Tangye, et al., 2009)

---

8
Nature of Sustainability
Recent studies have been made about the sustainability of international
schools, business schools and related institution of higher learning, as well as for
businesses and other organizations.
Henderson and Tilbury (2004) stated that there are number of nationwide,
whole-school initiatives developing around the world that reflect a range of
innovative approaches to sustainability. The above authors defined a sustainable
school as the focus of learning in the community involves all stakeholders in
contributing to but also gaining from a partnership approach to Education for
Sustainability (EFS). The same authors found out that there is a lack of evaluation
and research findings to address questions regarding implementation and
effectiveness conclusively. However, there is some evidence which points to a
number of critical success factors for whole- school sustainability programs.
These factors include: alignment with national government priorities; access to
expertise in EFS during program design and implementation; significant and
continuous funding; alignment with EFS approaches; investment in professional
development of program team as well as school partners; creating links;
establishment of multi-stakeholder partnerships.
Starik, et al., (2008) contended that sustainability, or multifaceted long-
term quality of life, may be the most complex yet vital phenomenon of this time.
Environmental, social, and economic sustainability changes, from local to global

---

9
scales, appear to be connected to most every significant human action, whether
individual, organizational, or societal.
Barrett (2007) on the other hand, agreed by stating that during the last ten
years the term sustainability has become synonymous with the concept of "triple
bottom line" which refers to the ability of the organization to generate economic,
environmental, and social benefits. Barret stated further that for an organization to
be sustainable and successful over the long term it must do more than embrace the
concept of the triple bottom line. The organization must implement modern
management practices. These management practices according to Barret needs to
focus on the concepts and practices of doing quality management, developing a
learning organization, having continuous renewal, upgrading intellectual capital,
preserving cultural capital, and cultivating emotional intelligence.
The concept of triple bottom line falls short of full spectrum sustainability.
Barrett defines full spectrum sustainability as a powerful and robust concept for
measuring organizational performance. According to the same author, it takes
account of internal factors such as organizational effectiveness, employee
fulfillment, and customer satisfaction, as well as external factors such as
environmental and social responsibility. There are seven dimensions of full
spectrum sustainability. Three of these represent the triple bottom line referring to
the financial perspective, the environmental perspective, and the social

---

10
responsibility perspective. The other four are internal organizational perspectives
(Barrett, 2007).
This study utilized the seven factors as the determinants that affect the
sustainability of international schools which included survival, relationship, self-
esteem, transformation, internal cohesion, making a difference, and service.
Barrett presented below a brief description of each of the above factors. Survival
focuses on profits, organizational growth and the safety of the employees. If there
are underlying insecurities at this level of sustainability, organizations tend to
show up issues to do with territory, exploitation, caution and control. Survival is
the level at which the first concern for the triple bottom line is seen. The second
factor is relationship which focuses on open communication and customer
satisfaction. Organizations operating from this level are concerned about
developing healthy interpersonal relationships between employees and their
customers. If there are underlying insecurities in this level, organizations tend to
show up issues which have something to do with blame, interpersonal conflict,
and discipline. The third factor is self-esteem which focuses on best practice,
organizational effectiveness and performance management. Organizations
operating from the self-esteem level are concerned about results. If there are
underlying insecurities at this level, organizations tend to show up issues having
to do with bureaucracy, arrogance, empire building image and complacency. The
fourth factor is transformation which focuses on the needs of the organization and

---

11
the needs of the larger community. In organizations, transformation is the level
when there are issues of empowerment, employee participation and diversity
being raised. Transformation is also the level of learning organization and
continuous renewal. The fifth factor is internal cohesion which focuses on shared
vision having common meanings and shared values. In internal cohesion level,
there is a strong sense of community in which everyone is working for a common
good. The sixth factor is making a difference which focuses on deeper sense of
connectedness by displaying actions and behaviors that support the common
good. In organizations, making a difference is the level where an organization
begins to recognize that it is a part of local community. Making a difference is
also the level of environmental awareness and environmental stewardship,
considered the second aspect of the triple bottom line. Finally, the seventh factor
is service which focuses on ethics and social responsibility, the third aspect of the
triple bottom line. In this level, the organization begins to recognize that it is not
only a part of the community but it is also a part of the society.
Barrett concluded that the most successful organizations are those that are
able to operate from the full spectrum of sustainability and have a high degree of
value alignment.

---

12
Sustainability and Triple Bottom Line
Barrett (2007) stated that during the past ten years the term
“sustainability” as used in the corporate world has become synonymous with “the
triple bottom line.”
The triple bottom line refers to the ability of a company or an organization
to generate economic, environmental (or ecological) and social benefits. On the
one hand, while shareholders are demanding that companies or organizations
become more profitable; the society on the other hand, is demanding that
companies become more environmentally friendly and more socially responsible.
Initially many companies resisted this notion because these companies saw the
triple bottom line as an “either or” situation. The companies saw society’s
demand for environmental and social responsibility as a cost with no financial
benefits.
As share ownership increases, the differences between these two groups
shareholders and society, are becoming less distinct. As a consequence people are
witnessing a rapid growth in socially responsible investors. People are the
members of society that want to invest in companies that are meeting triple
bottom line requirements. They want to invest in companies that generate profits
“and are also” environmentally and socially responsible. More and more people
want to invest in companies that are “sustainable” of perceived to be long-lasting
successful companies, and “embrace sustainability,” companies perceived that are

---

13
environmentally and socially responsible. In addition to these demands more and
more consumers are making ethical purchasing decisions. The consumers
therefore, are avoiding purchasing items from companies that are being
environmentally and socially irresponsible.
Just as the differences between shareholders and society are becoming less
distinct, so the differences between “being” sustainable and “embracing”
sustainability are diminishing. In other words, companies that do not embrace
environmental and social responsibility are increasingly becoming “at risk”, by
lack of action in these areas hence, are increasing their chances of becoming
unsustainable as corporate entities. Recent experiences have shown that unethical
social or environmental conduct can leave a company with a significantly battered
bottom line.
Even if environmental and social responsibility has not yet become a sine
qua non for corporate success, the absence of an ethical framework that embraces
environmental and socially responsibility is becoming a significant risk factor that
is causing investors to question the long-term viability of a company.
From a socially responsible investors viewpoint, both ‘being” sustainable
and “embracing” sustainability are important. Enlightened investors want to make
money “and” support socially responsible businesses. For a company to be
sustainable and successful over the long term the company must do more than
embrace the concept of the triple bottom line. The company must implement

---

14
modern management practices and needs to focus on concepts such as having
quality management, developing a learning organization, having continuous
renewal, increasing intellectual capital, preserving cultural capital, and developing
emotional intelligence.
The question that an investor wanted to find an answer to is “How can I
obtain information on all relevant aspects of company performance, including the
company’s attitude to environmental and social responsibility, so that I can make
an informed decision whether or not to invest?” The answer to this question
depends on the ability of the corporate organization to measure full-spectrum
sustainability.

Full Spectrum Sustainability
Full spectrum sustainability according to Barrett (2009) is a powerful and
robust concept for measuring corporate performance. It takes account of internal
factors such as organizational effectiveness, employee fulfillment, and customer
satisfaction, as well as external factors such as environmental and social
responsibility. There are seven dimensions to full-spectrum sustainability. Three
of these dimensions represent the triple bottom line that included the financial
perspective, the environmental perspective, and the social responsibility
perspective. The other four are internal organizational perspectives.
The Seven Levels of Consciousness Model as fully described by Barrett
(1998) substantiates the explanation of the full spectrum sustainability.

---

15
The Seven Levels of Consciousness Model has been used to carry out
Culture Assessments in over 150 companies in fourteen countries in the past four
years.
The principal theses of Liberating the Corporate Soul elaborated in the
book are:
a) Individuals and groups of individuals (organizations) grow and evolve,
in consciousness terms, according to specific patterns,
b) The patterns of growth and evolution of individuals and organizations
are the same.
c) Successful individuals and organizations display similar characteristics
of consciousness.
d) Unsuccessful
individuals and organizations display
similar
characteristics of consciousness.
In other words, the beliefs that drive the behaviors of successful
individuals are the same beliefs and behaviors that drive successful organizations.
The reverse is also true. The beliefs and behaviors that cause individuals to be
unsuccessful are the same as the beliefs that cause organizations to fail.
There is no real difference between the way individuals and groups of
individuals with a common purpose (organizations) operate. The only differences
are in the labels they used to talk about their consciousness.

---

16
An individual expresses who they are through their “personality.” An
organization, or any other group of individuals, expresses itself through its
“culture.” What distinguishes one personality from another, or one culture from
another, are the beliefs, behaviors and values that the personality or culture adopts
and displays.
Relative to the above concepts, Maslow (1954, 1962) argued that each
person has a hierarchy of needs. These needs, starting with the most basic
physiological requirements for survival; clean air, clean water and wholesome
food; progress upwards (in consciousness terms) through safety; belonging; and
self-esteem; ultimately culminating in self-actualization. Self-actualization is a
state of consciousness in which the individual becomes more self-aware, more
creative, more visionary and more focused on the common good.
Each of Maslow’s levels of being represents a state of consciousness with
specific values, beliefs and behaviors that are directed toward meeting the
particular needs of that level of existence. Thus, for example, an individual or a
group of individuals will develop a series of beliefs and behaviors regarding
survival and safety, belonging and relationships, and self-esteem and progress.
Some of these beliefs may serve individuals well throughout their lives. Others
may initially bring positive results, but ultimately cause distress and dysfunction.
Usually, these beliefs are driven by fears.

---

17
Relative to the concept of sustainability, Maslow stated that organizations
operating from the “survival” level focus on profits, organizational growth and the
safety of employees. If there are underlying insecurities at this level, issues they
tend to show up issues which have something to do with territory, exploitation,
caution and control. This is the level at which the people see the first concern of
the triple bottom line.
Organizations operating from the “relationship” level focus on open
communication and customer satisfaction. They are concerned about developing
healthy interpersonal relationships between employees and their customers. If
there are underlying insecurities at this level they tend to show up issues that
have something to do with blame, interpersonal conflict, and discipline.
Organizations operating from the “self-esteem” level focus best practice,
organizational effectiveness and performance management. They are concerned
about results. If there are underlying insecurities at this level they tend to show up
issues having to do with bureaucracy, arrogance, empire building, image and
complacency.
As individuals and groups of individuals become skilled at meeting their
lower level needs their focus automatically shifts to the higher-level needs. Self-
actualization occurs when an individual or group of individuals learn to operate
successfully at the lower levels of consciousness.

---

18
The most important change that occurs during self-actualization according
to Maslow, is the shift from self-interest to the common good. Instead, of focusing
on their own needs, individuals begin to balance their needs with the needs of
others. These individuals begin to reason from the perspective of what is best for
the good of the whole family, community, nation, and the planet. Maslow
described self-actualized individuals in the following way: “self-actualizing
people are without one single exception, involved in a cause outside of
themselves; these type of people are devoted, working at something, which is very
precious to them which could be some calling or vocation; these people are also
working at something that fate has called them to somehow and which they work
at and which they love, so the work-joy dichotomy in them disappears.”
The same phenomenon occurs in organizations according to Maslow.
When organizational self-actualization is reached individuals stop focusing on
their own needs and start focusing on the needs of the organization and the needs
of the larger community.
The first level of self-actualization is “transformation.” It is the level at
which the individual begins to recognize the needs of others and embark on a
journey of self-knowledge. In organizations, this is the level when we begin to see
issues of empowerment, employee participation and diversity being raised. It is
also the level of the learning organization and continuous renewal (Maslow,
1962).

---

19
The next level of consciousness corresponds to “internal cohesion,”
(Maslow). It is the level at which individuals fully blend the needs of the ego with
the needs of the soul. In organizations, this is the level when people come together
around shared vision (common meaning) and shared values. There is a strong
sense of community in level 5 organizations. Everyone is working for the
common good.
The next level of consciousness corresponds to “making a difference.” It is
the place where meaning translates into action. It is the level of making a
difference. Individuals at this level are fully internally connected. The ego of the
individuals has been merged with the soul and they have aligned themselves
behind their soul purpose. The individuals begin to deepen their sense of
connectedness by displaying actions and behaviors that support the common
good. In organizations, this is the level where the organization begins to recognize
it as part of the local community. The organizations focus on win-win
partnerships with the local community and with other companies. It is the level of
environmental awareness and environmental stewardship – the second aspect of
the triple bottom line (Maslow, 1962).
The next level of consciousness corresponds to “service.” It is the place
where making a difference becomes a permanent and pervasive way of life. The
self does not sense any boundaries. The whole focus of the existence of the
individual revolves around the common good. In organizations, this is the level

---

20
where the organization begins to recognize that it is not only part of the local
community but also a part of the society. The focus at this level is on ethics and
social responsibility, the third aspect of the triple bottom line.
From this model the concept of the triple bottom line falls short of full
spectrum sustainability. Focusing only on the financial, environmental and social
dimensions of sustainability is not only risky from a corporate standpoint, but it
could be extremely dangerous. It is not surprising therefore that the triple bottom
line is a difficult concept to sell to business people according to Maslow. It fails to
address some of the more significant internal corporate sustainability issues that
leaders and managers have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. It is quite
unrealistic to expect a leader who is plagued with financial, quality or cultural
issues to give emphasis to environmental and social issues. His or her energies are
focused on the internal sustainability of the organization. He/she is more
concerned with the short-term issue of corporate survival rather than caring about
the impact of the organization on future generations (Maslow, 1962).

Seven Levels of Organizational Consciousness
The seven levels of organizational consciousness according to Barrett
(2007) are as follows:
Level 1, survival. Level 1 focuses on financial matters and organizational
growth. Level 1 organizational consciousness includes values such as profit,
shareholder value, employee health and safety. The potentially limiting aspects of

---

21
this level of consciousness are generated from fears about survival. They include
values such as control, territorial behavior, caution and exploitation.
Level 2, relationships. This level of organizational consciousness
addresses the quality of interpersonal relationships between employees, customers
and suppliers. Level 2 consciousness include values such as open communication,
conflict resolution, customer satisfaction, courtesy and respect. The potentially
limiting aspects of level 2 consciousness arise from fears around loss of control or
personal regard. This leads to manipulation, blame and internal competition.
Level 3, self-esteem. This level of organizational consciousness concerns
best business practices and systems and processes that improve work methods and
the delivery of services and products. Values of level 3 consciousness include
productivity, efficiency, professional growth, skills development and quality. The
potentially limiting aspects of this level of consciousness result from low self-
esteem and being out of control. Potentially limiting values on the other hand,
include status, arrogance, bureaucracy and complacency.
Level 4, transformation. Level 4 organizational consciousness focuses on
continuous renewal and the development of new products and services. It contains
values that overcome the potentially limiting values of levels 1 to 3. Values at this
level include accountability, employee participation, learning, innovation,
teamwork, personal development and knowledge sharing. There are no potentially
limiting aspects to levels 4 through 7.

---

22
Level 5, internal cohesion. Level 5 organizational consciousness focuses
on building internal cohesion and a sense of community spirit inside the
organization. Level 5 consciousness includes values such as trust, integrity,
honesty, values awareness, cooperation, excellence and fairness. The by-products
are enjoyment, enthusiasm, passion, commitment and creativity; in addition to
focusing on internal connectedness. Levels 5, 6 and 7 represent increasing degrees
of connectedness within the organization.
Level 6, inclusion. Level 6 or organizational consciousness’ focuses on the
deepening and strengthening of relationships and employee fulfillment. Inside the
organization, level 6 consciousness includes values such as leadership
development, mentoring, coaching and employee fulfillment. Externally however,
level 6 consciousness includes values such as customer and supplier
collaboration,
partnering,
strategic
alliances,
community
involvement,
environmental awareness and making a difference. Levels 6 and 7 focus on
external connectedness.
Level 7, unity. Level 7 of the organizational consciousness, reflects the
highest order of internal and external connectedness. Inside the organization, level
7 consciousness includes values such as vision, wisdom, forgiveness and
compassion. Externally however, level 7 consciousness includes values such as
social justice, human rights, global perspective and future generations.

---

23
Measuring up to Sustainability
As a concept, sustainability has captured the imaginations and aspirations
of managers or administration. Sustainability, as a tangible and identifiable goal,
it eludes the majority of top managerial posts. Having developed indicators to
measure and monitor economic, social and environmental conditions, top
managements want now to measure sustainability. The emphasis on the physical,
the objective, and the rational on one hand shows the external manifestations of
sustainability. The internal manifestations of sustainability on the other hand,
include the non-material, the subjective, and the experiential which are put to one
side, since these manifestations in the world of mathematics are messy,
interpretive and time-consuming. Sustainability however, is more than a ‘thing’ to
be measured, since sustainability since qua non to ecological integrity, quality of
life and transformation or transcendence. Rather than ask how managers can
measure sustainability, it may be more appropriate to ask how managers can
measure up to sustainability.
Indicators to measuring up to sustainability. Over the past two decades
interest has grown in developing indicators to measure sustainability. According
to Fricker (2001) sustainability is presently seen as a delicate balance between the
economic, environmental and social health of a community, nation and of course
the earth. Measures of sustainability at present tend to be an amalgam of
economic, environmental and social indicators. Economic indicators have been

---

24
used to measure the state of the economy for much of this century. Social
indicators are largely a post-world war 2 (WW2) phenomenon and environmental
indicators are more recent still. Interest in developing these indicators largely
began when their respective theatres became stressed and where the purpose was
to monitor performance and to indicate if any ameliorating action was required.
Whereas economists have no difficulty deriving objective and quantitative
indicators (their relevance is another matter), sociologists had and still have great
difficulty in deriving indicators, because of intangible quality of life issues.
Environmental scientists have less difficulty when limiting themselves to
abundance of single species rather than biodiversity and ecological integrity.
Sustainability however, is more than just the interconnectedness of the
economy, society and the environment. Important though these are, they are
largely only the external manifestations of sustainability. The internal,
fundamental, and existential dimensions are neglected. Sustainability therefore
may be something more grand and noble, a dynamic, a state of collective grace, a
facet of Gaia, even of Spirit. Rather than ask how managers, can measure
sustainability, it may be more appropriate to ask how these managers measure up
to sustainability.

The Concept of Sustainability
Sustainability, at least as a concept, has permeated most spheres of life,
not solely because it is a political requirement but because it clearly resonates

---

25
with something deep within the people even though the people have a poor
understanding of what it is. The concept first emerged in the early 1970s but it
exploded onto the global arena in 1987 with the Brundtland Report (1987) as
cited by Fricker (2001), in which sustainable development is defined as the
development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
This very noble definition however, defines objective interpretation or
operational implementation. Most of the people would see their own personal
needs within the context of their individual circumstances rather than as absolutes.
The peoples’ perceptions of the needs of future generations therefore, begin the
imagination. “How much is enough?” is a question managers have to explore
together but can only answer individually. Yet these managers ask this key
question of themselves individually, let alone collectively.
Once the ecological integrity of the earth is ensured and the peoples’ basic
needs are satisfied, how much is enough? The question should be posed mostly in
the developed countries where, amidst the affluence, there is still inequity.
Increasing and deliberate inequity at that, for it are a necessary feature of a growth
economy and the driver of material self-advancement. Desirable though high
standards of living may be, there are finite global limits. Since the management
concern for the environment decreases as people become more affluent,
management should not expect the peoples’ quest for sustainability to increase as

---

26
they become more affluent. Indeed the few examples of sustainability that people
have are where there is no affluence, for instance, the states of Kerala and Cuba,
and in Amish and Mennonite communities. Here there is greater equity, justice
and social cohesion. The challenge for the affluent developed world is to strive
for equity and justice, while at the same time creating the conditions for
appropriate qualitative development.
There are other definitions of sustainability which sidestep human needs
preferring to talk about ecological integrity, diversity and limits. These too defy
objective interpretation. These deficiencies in the definitions, if that is what they
are, cause much frustration to the rational mind, particularly for those trying to
measure sustainability. Meanwhile, the peoples’ reductionist mentality has
tended to link it in a servile capacity to quantitative and productive activity, such
as sustainable agriculture, forestry, land management, fisheries. In consequence,
sustainable growth and sustainable development have been captured by the
following dominant paradigms as follows. First, sustainable development is
brandished as a new standard by those who do not really wish to change the
current pattern of development. Second, sustainable development alone does not
lead to sustainability. Indeed, it may in fact support the longevity of the
unsustainable path.
Most individuals, have a better understanding of what is unsustainable
rather than what is sustainable. According to Fricker (2001), unsustainability is

---

27
commonly seen as environmental (in its broad sense) degradation, from the
stresses of human population, affluence and technology on ecological and global
limits. Since these stresses are all of human own construction, their control is,
theoretically at least, within the same human capabilities. Human nature being
what it is may push the global physical and biological capacities to their very
limits, which will be survival rather than sustainability. Survival is merely not
dying, whereas people probably think of sustainability in terms of justice,
interdependence, sufficiency, choice and above all, if only people were to think
deeply about it the meaning of life.
Sustainability therefore, is also about the non-material side of life, the
intuitive, the emotional, the creative and the spiritual, for which people need to;
engage in all their ways of learning, to include being and insight as well as doing
and knowing. Perhaps there are indeed some fundamental and universal truths if
meaning and spirituality are components of sustainability. Morals and values
however, are not necessarily absolutes, and can be very difficult to define. Values
for instance are qualities people absorb from their experiences. If the peoples’
experiences confirm the implicit, values, these people are more likely to adopt
those values. When the peoples’ experiences however, continually contradict the
implicit values, these people are more likely to modify their personal values to the
projected values, i.e. people do as they are done by rather than as they are told.
New ways of thinking need to emerge. Even Einstein recognized that individuals

---

28
cannot solve the problems that they have created with the same thinking that
created them. The very etymology of sustainability contains both its appeal and
its paradox, to hold together with tension.
The beauty in humans’ inability to define sustainability means, that
human cannot prescribe it. The future may then unfold according to peoples’
visions and abilities provided they recognize the global limits. Sachs (1996)
presents three perspectives of sustainable development: the contest perspective
that implies growth is possible infinitely in time; the astronaut’s perspective that
recognizes that development is precarious in time; and the home perspective that
accepts the finiteness of development. These three perspectives of sustainability
could be considered, respectively, as the perspectives of the dominant paradigm,
the precautionary principle, and the conservationist. There are, and will be, still
many other perspectives.
For a generation now, human have wrestled with the concept. Human
may have as much difficulty with sustainability as human did with the concept of
evolution 150 years ago. Wilber (1996) suggests that the whole of history, and
thereby evolution and the future, is a collective transcendence or transformation.
People have been ignoring subjective and non-physical dimensions of the
collective self as well as the individual self. In so doing people have both created
the ecological crisis and prevented themselves from transcending it. Thus, any
debate about sustainability is essentially a debate about ultimate meaning; the

---

29
what, who, why and how am I? But human are extremely reluctant to engage in
that debate on a collective basis, not even locally let alone nationally or globally,
partly because it’s messy, interpretive and time-consuming according to the world
of hermeneutics. There is therefore, a crisis of perception. On this side of the
crisis there is mainly banality, whereas on the other side human see only
uncertainty and fear (Fricker and Sculthorp, 1997).

The Social Discourse on Sustainability
There is little dispute that humans’ present path is unsustainable. The
challenge of sustainability is neither wholly technical nor rational. It is one of the
changes in attitude and behaviour. Sustainability therefore must include the social
discourse where the fundamental issues are explored collaboratively within the
groups or community concerned. People do not do that very well, partly because
of increasing populations, complexity, distractions and mobility, but more
because of certain characteristics of the dominant paradigm that are seen as
desirable.
Where the discourse does occur it tends to be structured and rational
where aggressive debate is esteemed and other ways of knowing and experiential
knowledge, particularly of indigenous peoples, and feelings are disregarded. The
process however, of discourse is as important as the analysis of discourse where
knowing and acting could be seen as points on a journey, rather than as an end, as
a start or a new beginning. In sociological terms sustainability is an absent

---

30
referent or the absence of a presence. Viederman (1995) may have come closest
to a definition with sustainability as a vision of the future that provides people
with a road map and helps human focus their attention on a set of values and
ethical and moral principles by which to guide human actions.
People however, will not readily enter into abstract discourse,
particularly where they suspect they will have to get by with less or that their
standard of living will decline, at least not until the need for discourse becomes
inevitable and perhaps too late. Agenda 21 (Tryzana, 1995) requires developed
countries to reduce their use of natural resources and production of wastes while
simultaneously improving human amenities and the environment. That statement
does not necessarily imply a reduction in the standard of living; defined for the
moment as material consumption. Through greater efficiencies it could mean
maintaining the standard while simultaneously improving the quality of life. In
that event human would be more willing to enter into further discourse to see if
further improvements in the quality of life can be achieved, even at the expense of
the standard of living if necessary. Just as human needs are not absolutes, neither
is the standard of living nor the quality of life. The mystics may well indeed be
the enlightened ones. Involuntary simplicity on the other hand, is a form of
poverty. Simultaneously within this social discourse the visions for the future can
emerge.

---

31
Viederman (1995) suggests three principles to underlie the discourse on
sustainability: first, the humility principle, which recognizes the limitations of
human knowledge; the precautionary principle, which advocates caution when in
doubt, and the reversibility principle, which requires human not to make any
irreversible changes.

General Indicators of Sustainability
Monitoring and indicators have always been essential components of
closed physical systems. They are integral to the scientific method. In this
context each indicator should have a threshold and a target to guide political and
social action. Their usefulness for closed socio/biophysical systems (e.g. human
well-being, confined eco-systems) and particularly for open physical systems (e.g.
corporations, national economies, regional sustainability) is still really unknown,
in that accommodation of the full impact of the externalities may not be possible.
Ultimately however the earth is a closed system, except for the energy flux. In
that sense accurate measures are theoretically possible at the global scale but it is
local measures that are potentially more meaningful and actionable. The impact
of some issues however may only be evident globally, eg. global warming and
ozone depletion, whereas the solutions may be local.
Henderson (1991) has written extensively on indicators, notably the
concepts on paradigms in progress. The proliferation itself of indicators is

---

32
indicative of the confusion and uncertainty of what is to be measured, and perhaps
the absence of debate and understanding.
Economic indicators. There is much dissatisfaction with economic
indicators, even among economists. Most would claim that they are not indicators
of anything other than the economy. Some do not believe they are even
meaningful measures of economic sustainability (Fulai, Sheng, 1995).
The adherents for the most common indicator, the Gross National
Product (GNP), now replaced by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), are getting
fewer, but it is still widely used. Daly and Cobb (1989) have developed the Index
of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), which has recently been further
refined as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) by Cobb et al., (1995).
Consumption is still the base of the index, but instead of adding negative or
deleterious consumption (e.g. defense, environmental protection) it subtracts them
and adds previously unmeasured positive beneficial consumption (e.g. voluntary
work, care giving, and housework). Whereas the GDP in the United States has
continued to increase since 1950, the GPI shows a steady decline which mirrors
people’s experiences and perceptions of their well-being.
The GPI is a more realistic alternative to the GDP. The proponents of
GPI presumably believe it is more likely to receive establishment endorsement by
starting from the received wisdom. It is worth pointing out however that 50% of
Americans consider themselves to be overweight, that 40% consider they

---

33
consume alcohol in excess of “moderation” that 70% of smokers would like to
stop, and so on with gambling and credit card use. In other words, most of the
people know victims of the consumer society and would like to change.
Therefore it is difficult to conceive how any index which has consumption as its
base can be a measure of sustainability.
Furthermore the GDP and the GPI are single indices. Both are
aggregations of specific economic indicators. Whereas economic indicators may
be equally responsive, in respect to time, to actions of adjustment, or can be
meaningfully weighted in their aggregation, this is not true of social,
environmental and sustainability indicators. Economic indicators are therefore
not particularly useful as measures of sustainability but economic considerations
need to be factored in.
However the very foundation of modern economic theory is suspect.
Firstly, because it determines rather than reflects political and cultural
development. Secondly, because it assumes scarcity of resources, most of which,
until relatively recently at least, are in abundance. An economic theory that goes
beyond greed and scarcity and which reflects human needs as suggested by
Lietaer (1997) is likely to yield much more useful indicators.
Social indicators. There are broadly five types of social indicators namely,
informative, predictive, problem oriented, programme evaluative, target
delineation. Many social indicators are in part economic, environmental and

---

34
sustainability measures too. They can be comparative, between and within socio-
economic and ethnic groupings.
Objective conditions, such as the standard of living, are measured by
analyzing time-series information on observable phenomena. Subjective
conditions, such as quality of life, are measures of perceptions, feelings and
responses obtained through questionnaires with graded scales. It is well known
that there is little correlation in the level of well-being as measured by objective
parameters on the one hand and subjective parameters on the other. There are
considerable difficulties associated with the aggregation of indicators and in the
design of weighting schemes. There can be aggregation of indicators of a similar
nature, but in general aggregation, and certainly a single index, is uncommon.
Henderson (1991) reviews the debate about indicators of progress
suggesting the need to clarify the confusion of means (ie. the obsession with
economic growth) and ends (human development).
Environmental/ecological indicators. Environmental indicators tend to
relate to the environmental sphere closest to human activity and can include
economic, social and sustainability parameters too. The environmental indicators
measure the quality of the living and working environment, usually for the three
spheres namely: air, land and water, and may include measures of human
productive use of resources, like agri-environmental indicators. Ecological
indicators relate more to ecosystems, where in some cases the human impact is

---

35
not so evident. Indicators pertinent to the integrity of ecosystems and biodiversity
are prominent. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) as cited by Fricker (2001) produced a pressure/state/response model
which many countries have used in the preparation of their State of the
Environment Reports, while focusing on their particular environmental/
ecological issues.
Most of the indicators have, or will have, thresholds and targets. There is
little desire or attempt, at present, to aggregate indicators or derive a single index.
Ecological footprint. Wackernagel and Rees (1996) defined the ecological
footprint as a useful measure for urban societies and industrialized countries, as
they have become distanced from and are less aware of their dependence on the
products of the land. It is a method for estimating the area of productive land
required to produce the materials and energy required to support and to absorb the
wastes generated by the present way of life. The average North American needs
around 4 hectares to support his or her lifestyle. Vancouver depends on an area
24 times its size, and the Netherlands (as a small densely populated country) 14
times. If the rest of the world were to support such life styles human would need
a planet with 5 times more productive land than it actually has.
The footprint is an input/output measure of consumption, technological
activity, and trade flows of all biophysical material needed by and produced by
that city or nation expressed in terms of productive land area but using monetary

---

36
conversions. It is a single index. Small cities or countries highly dependent on
external flows (i.e. exports), and with little influence over international currency
fluctuations, such as New Zealand, would have footprints highly susceptible to
factors beyond their control. Footprints put relative numbers on what human
already know or suspect, that cities and small densely populated countries are
unsustainable. The footprint may be useful for internal and temporal reference,
but there could be a tendency to compare performance against other cities or
countries and perhaps provide an excuse not to take appropriate action.
Ecological footprints are therefore not particularly useful measures of
sustainability.
Sustainability indicators. Boswell (1995) believed that the measures of
sustainability at present tend to be an amalgam of economic, environmental and
social indicators. The first two are amenable, but with difficulty, to quantitative
measurement as they can be expressed in biophysical terms. There is a tendency
to express social indicators in such terms too, but with less success. There is
therefore a tendency to see sustainability only in biophysical terms.
Examples of sustainability indicators for a city and which reflect their
origin in other indicators are:
1. income per capita ratio for upper and lower deciles
2. solid waste generated/water consumption/energy consumption per
capita

---

37
3. proportion of workforce in the employment of the top ten employers
4. number of good air quality days/year
5. diversity and population of specified urban fauna (particularly birds)
6. distance traveled on public relative to private transport per capita
7. residential densities relative to public space in inner cities
8. relative hospital admission rates for selected childhood diseases
9. proportion of low birth weights among infants by income groupings
Boswell (1995) advocated a theoretical basis for indicators of sustainable
development based on people knowledge of sociology and ecology. He likened
human stage of development to that of a climax community within an ecosystem
succession. Boswell then presented a system attributes (energy use, community
structure, life history, nutrient cycling, selection pressure and equilibrium) in
terms of goals for sustainable communities. Boswell evaluated these goals
against the indicators selected by Sustainable Seattle and the ranking that Hart
(1995) has given over 500 indicators. Although an approach based on human
ecology is clearly appropriate, Boswell does concede that the communities
themselves should determine the strategy and the indicators. Whereas these are
facets of sustainability, people must look beyond conventional measures to
include a sense of quality of life, well-being, belonging, relatedness, and
harmony. Human may have to be prepared to accept semi-quantitative and even
qualitative indicators.

---

38
Environmental and social indicators are rarely expressed as a single index.
Nevertheless, there is some interest in developing a single index of sustainability
based on a weighting of a selection of economic, environmental and social
indicators. Such an index cannot possibly cater for response times that range
from a few years (e.g. medical intervention) to generations (e.g. global warming).

Criteria for the Selection of Sustainability Indicators
The monitoring of sustainability is a long term exercise. As much as
people would like the criteria for selection and the indicators themselves to be
appropriate over a long time frame people are on a steep, and perhaps long,
learning curve. Human will need to be flexible, for their ideas and preferences
will change with time. The criteria and preferred indicators could be different for
the groups who will choose and use them. Expert systems may be appropriate.
Professionals may prefer quantitative, and if necessary, complex criteria
that are amenable to rigorous statistical analysis. Some may wish to reduce a
large group of indicators to a single index of sustainability. Communities on the
other hand may prefer, or be prepared to accept, qualitative criteria and few
indicators in the interests of simplicity and direct relevance. If people exclude
qualitative criteria because they are not readily amenable to objective analysis we
are likely to exclude some essential features of sustainability.
There are many sets of criteria, like those of Liverman et al., (1988) and
Seattle (1995). They range from the simple (the efficiency, equity, integrity,

---

39
manageability of Opschoor and Rejinders) to the complex. Hart (1995) believes
that the best measures may not have been developed yet but suggests the
following criteria, namely:
1. multi-dimensional, linking two or more categories (e.g.economy and
environment)
2. forward looking (range 20 to 50+ years)
3. emphasis on local wealth, local resources, local needs
4. emphasis on appropriate levels and types of consumption
5. measures that are easy to understand and display changes
6. reliable, accurate, frequently reported data that is readily available
7. reflects local sustainability that enhances global sustainability
Many of these criteria are short on human or social criteria, such as quality
of life, sense of safety and security, sense of relationship to others and human
connectedness with the earth. A criterion that doesn’t appear to be mentioned is
one that reflects the degree of choice an individual has in an action. Most of the
people are locked into systems of their own collective construction within the
dominant paradigm, many of them unsustainable, where the choice to be different
can be socially, economically and practically difficult. Examples included the use
of solar radiation and rainfall upon one’s own house, and the choice not to own a
car. Much more sustainable actions could result where the individual can make
choices free of systemic pressure and economic distortions.

---

40
Risk Analysis and Comparative Risk Assessment
Finkel and Goldina (1994) opined that as in all theatres of qualitative and
insufficient or imprecise quantitative information and uncertainty, where much is
at stake and there may be several options for action, risk analysis can help in
selecting the preferred, the least cost, and/or the least risk option. The poorer the
information and the greater the uncertainty, the more risk analysis may need to be
used. At a time when human are confronted with a whole barrage of different
issues and problems with insufficient resources, a prior analytical stage has
emerged, that of comparative risk assessment which ranks the issues/ problems
according to the urgency, cost and likelihood of success. The proceedings of a
conference to debate, and no doubt advance, the technique presents just as
convincing arguments against comparative risk assessment as it does for.
Sarewitz (1996) stressed that too often human argue about insufficiency of
information, or inappropriate information, upon which to take sound objective
action, particularly action affecting sustainability. Yet in the hearts human know
there are systemic functional deficiencies, both within themselves and in their
organizations. Rather than make a personal, corporate or political decision human
call for more information, for more research. Too often that information or
research adds to the uncertainty or controversy. Valuable time is lost and yet
more unnecessary work is embarked upon. People know the direction of their
action should take even though they do not know precisely what it should be.

---

41
People also lack the collective will to do so because they do not collectively
address and own the problem. Much publicly funded research and development is
a surrogate for social action. Many of the problems and solutions are neither
technical nor entirely rational. A new mythology needs to emerge and that may
be sustainability. They are soluble only through social action, where the populace
as well as the technical experts become informed on the issues and make
informed recommendations to the decision-makers.

Limitations of Measures of Sustainability
Fricker (2001) pointed out that even though human cannot define
sustainability objectively and unambiguously, people should not abandon or defer
attempts to measure it. Even if we come to recognize that there are other equally
valid ways of learning, human have to start where they are, which is within a
highly reductionist, rational, material, and acquisitive world.
Human can define limiting aspects of sustainability (e.g. the sustainable
productive capacity of a specific area of land, or the carrying capacity of the
world) and trends in the direction of sustainability (e.g. greater use of public
transport, more equitable distribution of income) and choose indicators that are
appropriate and meaningful. The former would be thresholds below which human
enter an unsustainable state. The latter would be directions in which human need
to move. Many in fact are really indicators of unsustainability. Many debates and
studies about the measurement of sustainability do not define, or even derive a

---

42
common understanding, about what is to be measured. The context of
sustainability cannot be separated from its measurement.
People should acknowledge at the outset the limitations of quantitative
measures and that any measures are merely the map not the territory (Bateson as
cited by Frcker 2001) or merely the finger pointing at the moon (a Zen saying).
But people must be on their guard to keep well clear of thresholds. Fricker
further stated that surplus ‘capacity’ may be a spur to further inane growth and
consumption, and international trading in sustainability units could mean people
all arrive at global survival (not sustainability) together. The same author said,
biophysical measures are really measures of how close people are to the carrying
capacity of the earth. Thus, biophysical measures are only indirect, partial and
limiting measures of sustainability.
Even though sustainability is about the quality and other intangible non-
physical aspects of life that does not mean people may not be able to derive
measures for them. Just as biological indicators (e.g. trout) are now used to
measure the quality of industrial effluents, in addition to conventional chemico-
physical indicators, people should be able to derive parameters that measure how
well human and the earth are as human swim around within the maelstrom of life
(Fricker, 2001).

---

43
Initiatives to Measure Sustainability
Sustainability indicators are being developed and applied at the grass root
level; the communities themselves, e.g. Jacksonville, Pasadena, Seattle in the
USA, and at the institutional level in Europe, and North America. These
indicators tended initially to be a pot pourri of the three types above and there are
still resemblances. As communities learn from the experience of others more
appropriate and community-specific indicators should emerge.
The most promising of overseas initiatives to monitor sustainability are
those that the public have initiated, and who largely retain ‘ownership’ and
control, e.g. Sustainable Seattle - despite the fact that only eight of the 40
indicators have shown some improvement. Technically they may be flawed, but
the success lies not in the indicators themselves but in the process and the
participation, for it is here that the real debate and the sharing occurs and the
mutual voluntary adjustments can be made. There is a limit, however, to the
extent to which individual voluntary adjustments, or pressure for collective
adjustment, can be made when peoples’ attitudes and behavior may have been
shaped more by the nature of the society (the systems of governance and
organization) than from free choice. In other words, if systemic change (e.g. to
the economic system) is needed, it may be easier and quicker if it is effected by
those with the power and influence.

---

44
The discourse of sustainability is part of the process of working towards
sustainability. People will find, will know, and are becoming more sustainable
without having to measure it. Part of that discourse will be measures of
sustainability, both the relatively easy that measure proximity to thresholds and
directions, and the qualitative. But the initiation to measuring sustainability will
be consequential, for the hard graft of achieving sustainability will have begun.
Therein lies the success of initiatives like those in Seattle (Sustainable Seattle
1995).
Henderson (1993) stated that the commencement of that discourse is the
challenge. It is already in progress within non-government organizations (NGOs),
and environmental and social change groups but they may not see their particular
window of interest as progress towards sustainability. Joss and Durant (1995)
added that the discourse needs to be extended to the community at large, to local
communities, to open debate of the big issues ahead of the people, and to a more
effective and participatory democracy. Local communities need to renegotiate the
meaning of community in the modern world and find avenues for expression.
Citizens’ juries and consensus conferencing are great vehicles for exploring these
deep and wide issues.

Learning for Sustainability
Haenn and Wilk (2001) stated that learning for sustainability develops a
“frame of mind” that requires educators and learners to be open to and engage

---

45
with the complexity of environmental issues. Learning for sustainability
essentially differs from environmental education in that it seeks to address the
systemic causes of environmental problems through holistic and integrated means.
This means that issues are understood in their totality: not just as environmental
issues but also as economic, social and political issues. In addition, learning for
sustainability sees people as agents of change, with the capacity and ability to
bring about change in themselves, rather than have it imposed on them.
According to the Australian Research Institute in Education for
Sustainability (ARIES, 1998), “in the last ten years, a whole-of-school approach
to sustainability, which targets all aspects of the school, not just the curriculum,
has been advocated as the most effective approach to learning for sustainability.”
In other words, schools that practice what they teach lead to values being
reinforced by action, and in this way, values are caught as well as being taught.
However, according to Shallcross and Robinson (1999) as cited by the
same authors, “inconsistencies between a school’s day to day practice and its
operational curriculum are worse than oversights. There is evidence that such
inconsistencies are counter productive research has shown that the failure of
practice, in a school’s grounds, to reflect the environmental concerns expressed in
its classrooms results in children calling into question the integrity of their
teachers and may lead to feelings of both guilt and apathy among young people
about the environment. This evidence raises the prospect that inconsistencies

---

46
between what schools teach and do may be socializing young people to accept
these inconsistencies as cultural and social norms.
There is therefore, a wide range of information on how to incorporate
sustainability in school curriculum.

Indices of Sustainability
Haenn and Wilk (2001) defined an indicator as something that helps
individuals understand where such individuals are, which way these individuals
are going and how far they are from where they want to be. A good indicator
alerts an individual to a problem before it gets too bad and helps that individual
recognize what needs to be done to fix the problem. Indicators of a sustainable
community point to areas where the links between the economy, environment and
society are weak. They allow people to see where the problem areas are and help
show the way to fix those problems. Indicators of sustainability are different from
traditional indicators of economic, social, and environmental progress. Traditional
indicators such as stockholder profits, asthma rates, and water quality measure
changes in one part of a community as if they were entirely independent of the
other parts. Sustainability indicators reflect the reality that the three different
segments are very tightly interconnected, as shown in the Figure 1.

---

47

Figure 1. Communities are a web of interactions among the environment, the
economy and society


The natural resource base provides the materials for production on which
jobs and stockholder profits depend. Jobs affect the poverty rate and the poverty
rate is related to crime. Air and water quality and materials used for production
have an effect on peoples’ health. The above things may also have an effect on
stockholder profits. If a process requires clean water as an input, cleaning up poor
quality water prior to processing is an extra expense, which reduces profits.
Likewise, health problems, whether due to general air quality problems or
exposure to toxic materials, have an effect on worker productivity and contribute
to the rising costs of health insurance.
Sustainability requires this type of integrated view of the world
sustainability therefore, requires multidimensional indicators that show the links
among a community's economy, environment, and society. For example, the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a well-publicized traditional indicator, measures

---

48
the amount of money being spent in a country. It is generally reported as a
measure of the country's economic well-being that is; the more money being
spent, the higher the GDP and the better the overall economic well-being is
assumed to be. However, because GDP reflects only the amount of economic
activity, regardless of the effect of that activity on the community's social and
environmental health, GDP can go up when overall community health goes down.
For example, when there is a ten-car pileup on the highway, the GDP goes up
because of the money spent on medical fees and repair costs. On the other hand, if
ten people decide not to buy cars and instead walk to work, their health and
wealth may increase but the GDP goes down.
In contrast, a comparable sustainability indicator is the Index of
Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW). In order to get a more complete picture of
what is economic progress, the ISEW subtracts from the GDP corrections for
harmful bases or consequences of economic activity and adds to the GDP
corrections for significant activities such as unpaid domestic labor. For instance,
the ISEW accounts for air pollution by estimating the cost of damage per ton of
five key air pollutants. It accounts for depletion of resources by estimating the
cost to replace a barrel of oil equivalent with the same amount of energy from a
renewable source. It estimates the cost of climate change due to greenhouse gas
emissions per ton of emissions. The cost of ozone depletion is also calculated per
ton of ozone depleting substance produced. Additionally, adjustments are made to

---

49
reflect concern about unequal income distribution. The correction for unpaid
domestic labor is based on the average domestic pay rate. Some health expenses
are considered as not contributing to welfare, as well as some education expenses
Like the GDP, the ISEW bundles together in one index tremendous
amounts of information, but the key difference is that the information takes into
account the links between environment, economy and society.
Indicators of sustainable community are useful to different communities
for different reasons. For a healthy, vibrant community, indicators help monitor
that health so that negative trends are caught and dealt with before they become a
problem. For communities with economic, social, or environmental problems,
indicators can point the way to a better future. For all communities, indicators can
generate discussion among people with different backgrounds and viewpoints,
and, in the process, help create a shared vision of what the community should be
(Haenn and Wilk 2001).

Conceptual Framework

The Total Quality Management (TQM), a school of Management Theory
(ISO, 1994) gives underpinning to this study. The International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) defines TQM as a management approach for an
organization, centered on quality, based on the participation of all its members
and aiming at long-term success through customer satisfaction, and benefits to all

---

50
members of the organization and to society. TQM requires that the organization
maintains quality standard in all aspects of its business. This means ensuring that
things are done right at the first time and that defects and waste are eliminated
from operations.
This research ventured getting the data on the degrees of the sustainability
of the international schools in Baguio City as affected by seven determinants such
a survival, relationship, self- esteem, transformation, internal cohesion, making a
difference and service.
Survival which is the first level of sustainability on financial matters and
organizational growth includes values such as profit, shareholder value, employee
health and safety. The potentially limiting aspects of this level are generated from
fears about survival. The aspects include such values as control, territorial
behavior, caution and exploitation.
Relationship addresses the quality of interpersonal relationships between
employees and customers/suppliers. It includes values such as open
communication, conflict resolution, customer satisfaction, courtesy and respect.
The potentially limiting aspects of this level arise from fears around loss of
control or personal regard. This leads to manipulation, blame, and internal
competition.
Self-esteem concerns best business practices and systems and processes
that improve work methods and the delivery of services and products. Values at

---

51
this level include productivity, efficiency, professional growth, skills,
development and quality. The potentially limiting aspects of this level result from
low self-esteem and being out of control. Potentially limiting values include
status, arrogance, bureaucracy and complacency.
Transformation focuses on continuous renewal and the development of
new products and services. It contains values that overcome the potentially
limiting values of survival, relationships and self-esteem. Values at this level
include accountability, employee participation, learning, innovation, teamwork,
personal development and knowledge sharing.
Internal cohesion focuses on building a sense of community spirit inside
the organization. It includes values such as trust, integrity, honesty, values
awareness, cooperation, excellence and fairness. The by-products are enjoyment,
enthusiasm, passion, commitment and creativity. In addition to focusing on
internal connectedness, making a difference and survive, focus on external
connectedness.
Making a difference focuses on the deepening and strengthening of
relationships and employee fulfillment. Inside the organization, it includes values
such as leadership development, mentoring, coaching and employee fulfillment.
Externally, it includes values such as customer and supplier collaboration,
partnering, strategic alliances, community Involvement, environmental awareness
and making a difference.

---

52
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

DETERMINANTS OF
Degrees of
SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainability of

International Schools in
1. Survival
Baguio City:

 Very High
2. Relationship
Sustainability
3. Self-Esteem
 High
Sustainability
4. Transformation
 Moderate
5. Internal Cohesion
Sustainability

 Low
6. Making a Difference
Sustainability
7. Service
 Very Low

Sustainability

DIMENSION S OF
SUSTAINABILITY
Financial:

 Level of annual

budget
 Source of budget

Environmental:
 Location of school

 Physical condition
of the school
Social:

 Type of school
 Level of education

offered




MODERATING VARIABLES

Figure 2. The research paradigm showing the interrelationships of the variables

---

53
Finally, service reflects the highest order of internal and external
connectedness. Inside the organization it includes values such as vision, wisdom,
forgiveness and compassion. Externally, it includes values such as social justice,
human rights, global perspective and future generations.
Barrett (2007) suggested that this study also endeavored in determining
the differences in the degree of sustainability of the international schools along
the triple bottom line dimensions namely financial, environmental and social.
It is presupposed therefore that the degrees of sustainability are dependent
on the seven determinants such as survival, relationship, self-esteem,
transformation internal-cohesion, making a difference, and service. It can be
assumed that the more favorable the seven determinants, the higher the degrees of
sustainability of the international schools. Should the triple bottom line
dimensions be considered however, the degrees of sustainability may be affected.
It means that the financial, environmental, and social status of the international
schools contribute to the differences of the degrees of sustainability vis-a-vis the
determinants of sustainability as shown in Figure 2.
Moreover, Barrett (2007) suggested that to be successful over the long-
term, organizations need to be able to operate from every level of consciousness,
that is the full spectrum sustainability. The beliefs and behaviors associated with
each level must be integrated into the organization’s culture for long-term

---

54
success. Starting at level 1 and moving upwards, each level increases the
organization’s potential for success.
Organizations die for two reasons: either they are unable to meet the
simple financial condition that over the long-term income exceeds expenditure, or
they are absorbed into another organization. The reasons why organizations are
unable to sustain a positive cash flow are manifold.
Basically however Barrett (2007) pointed out that it is because these
organizations either fail to master the first four levels of organizational
consciousness or they do not pay sufficient attention to the upper three levels of
organizational consciousness. Organizations get absorbed by other organizations
because they are unable to realize their full potential. These organizations lack the
talent or ability to shift to a higher level of performance. Barrett summarized the
concepts affecting the unsuccessful corporations vis-à-vis the determinants of
sustainability as follows:
Level 1 failure (survival). Organizations can successfully operate from
level 1 provided that these organizations have a unique product or service in the
territory that defines their market place. In other words, they have created a niche
or a monopoly. The risks and costs of operating from level 1 are high. Because
the organization does not care about its employees or its customers (level 2), it
may have a high turnover in both categories. This is expensive in terms of hiring
and marketing. The company must continue to find new employees and new

---

55
customers. As soon as an organization loses its niche or monopoly, and begins to
face stiff competition, it must shift its focus or die. It must build customer loyalty
(level 2) or reduce costs by increasing productivity (level 3). If the organization
jumps directly to level 3; the productivity strategy, the organization may maintain
its market share because of price. Eventually however, some of the organizations’
competitors will be able to match that price. The organization could then try to
jump to level 4; the new products and services strategy, but this will be difficult.
Because the organization skipped level 2, there will be no employee loyalty.
People will take their ideas for new products and services, leave and set up
competing companies. Eventually, the level 1 company must develop level 2
skills or it will die. Perfecting level 2 therefore, is the only way to successfully
graduate from level 1.
Level 2 failure (relationships). Organizations can successfully operate
from level 2 provided that these organizations can develop a positive cash flow
(level 1) and maintain employee and customer loyalty (level 2). This means
developing strong positive relationships with employees and between employees
and customers. Because the organization is not concerned about productivity and
organizational effectiveness (level 3), it may find it difficult to grow. The
organization will be unable to develop the systems and processes that allow it to
expand. Level 2 organizations or companies are built around relationships.
Typically, these organizations are family run businesses. If these organizations are

---

56
successful they will usually be taken over by a larger organization. If these
organizations try to expand without developing a level 3 consciousness, they will
become increasingly ineffective and fall apart. These organizations will be unable
to streamline their systems and process to manage the expenditures that are
required for expansion. Level 2 organizations or companies fail therefore, because
they are unable to match market place prices or quality, or they do not have the
talent within the family to successfully build a level 3 organization even if these
organizations have string positive relationship among its stakeholders.
Level 3 failure (self-esteem). Organizations can successfully operate from
level 3 provided that the organization develop a positive cash flow (level 1),
maintain employee and customer loyalty (level 2) and constantly improve
productivity, quality, and organizational effectiveness (level 3). Considering that
the organization is not concerned about the development of new products and
services (level 4), it may find it difficult to maintain its growth over a long period.
Level 3 organizations are well-managed production machines. If these
organizations are to remain successful over the long-term, they must reinvest a
significant part of their profits in research and development of new products and
services (level 4). Level 3 failures will most likely happen if organizations are
unable to develop the entrepreneurial spirit that will allow them to adapt to the
changing market place. These organizations either develop a short-term focus,

---

57
milking their cash flow for all it is worth, or they develop an internal focus and
fall into the trap of taking organizational effectiveness to the level of bureaucracy.
Level 4 failure (transformation). Organizations can successfully operate
from level 4 provided that these organizations develop a positive cash flow (level
1), maintain employee and customer loyalty (level 2), improve productivity,
quality and organizational effectiveness (level 3), and constantly adapt their
products and services to the changing market place (level 4). If the organization
however, is focused on adapting to the external environment and not concerned
about internal cohesion (level 5), the organization may find it difficult to fully tap
the creativity of its employees. Level 4 organizations are focused on innovation,
learning and knowledge management. Because these organizations know how to
adapt to a changing market place, they can remain successful for long periods of
time. If these organizations however, want to become market leaders they must
develop the commitment and enthusiasm of all employees by creating a strong
corporate culture and an inspiring vision for the organization. Level 4 companies
do not generally fail unless they invest heavily in a product for which there is no
demand. Level 4 organizations that are unable to develop the commitment and
enthusiasm of their employees (level 5) are like racehorses that always come in
second or third. These organizations never quite make it to the winner’s
enclosure.

---

58
Level 5 failure (internal cohesion). Organizations can successfully operate
from level 5 provided that these organizations can develop a positive cash flow
(level 1), maintain employee and customer loyalty (level 2), improve productivity,
quality and organizational effectiveness (level 3), constantly adapt their products
and services to the changing market place (level 4), and develop the commitment
and enthusiasm of employees by creating a strong culture (level 5). If the
organization however, is focused on developing strong internal cohesion it may
find it difficult to develop external alliances and partnerships (level 6). Level 5
organizations are great places to work. These organizations are full of enthusiasm
and creativity. Employees are aligned with the organization’s vision and share the
same values. If level 5 organizations want to consolidate their position as a market
leader over the long-term these organizations must develop external partnerships
and strategic alliances. Level 5 organizations do not generally fail. The
organizations’ biggest danger is that they lose their vitality and fall back to level
4.
Level 6 failure (making a difference). Organizations can successfully
operate from level 6 provided that these organizations can develop a positive cash
flow (level 1), maintain employee and customer loyalty (level 2), improve
productivity, quality and organizational effectiveness (level 3), constantly adapt
their products and services to the changing market place (level 4), develop the
commitment and enthusiasm of employees by creating a strong culture (level 5),

---

59
and build mutually beneficial strategic alliances with likeminded partners and the
local community (level 6). Because level 6 organizations are focused on
protecting their long-term financial interests through mutually beneficial alliances
theses organizations however, may find it difficult to focus on their long-term
societal obligations. Level 6 organizations are not just great places to work they
provide opportunities for all employees to find personal fulfillment. Level 6
organizations want their employees to be successful at everything they do. To
consolidate their position and become a global market leader, level 6
organizations must focus on ethics and social responsibility. Level 6 organizations
do not generally fail; their biggest danger however, is that they do not build
alliances that are strong enough to support them during difficult market
conditions.
Level 7 failure (service). Organizations can successfully operate from
level 6 providing they can develop a positive cash flow (level 1), maintain
employee and customer loyalty (level 2), improve productivity, quality and
organizational effectiveness (level 3), constantly adapt their products and services
to the changing market place (level 4), develop the commitment and enthusiasm
of employees by creating a strong culture (level 5), build mutually beneficial
strategic alliances with like-minded partners and the local community (level 6),
and take a strong stand on ethical standards and social responsibility. Level 7
organizations are successful because they protect their long-term interests by

---

60
being good global citizens. These level 7 organizations are recognized as being
exemplary organizations. Employees, customers and partners support them
because they care about people, the planet and the society. These organizations
want to create a better world for all. Level 7 organizations never fail. They simply
regress to level 6 or 5 if these organizations are unable to sustain their social
vision.

Statement of the Problem


This study determined the factors affecting the sustainability of the
international schools in Baguio City. Specifically, it answered the following
questions:

1. What is the profile of the international school - respondents?
2. What are the degrees of sustainability of international schools along the
following determinants?
a. Survival
b. Relationship
c. Self-Esteem
d. Transformation
e. Internal Cohesion
f. Making a Difference
g. Service

---

61
3. What are the differences in the degrees of sustainability of the
international schools if financial, environmental, and social dimensions are
considered?

Hypotheses of the Study



1. There are significant differences on the degrees of sustainability when
compared to the average degree along the following determinants:
a. Survival
b. Relationship
c. Self-Esteem
d. Transformation
e. Internal Cohesion
f. Making a Difference
g. Service
2. The degrees of the sustainability are affected by the financial,
environmental, and social dimensions of the international schools.

---

62
METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study employed combination of descriptive research and expost-facto
designs to describe the determinants that affect the sustainability of the
international schools in Baguio City. Specifically, the degrees of sustainability of
the international schools along the seven categories were described. Relatively,
the expost-facto was used to find out the differences of the degrees of
sustainability along the three dimensions of measuring sustainability of the
international schools in Baguio City.
The international school-respondents are as follows:
1. Academia De Sophia International Inc.
# 8 South Drive, Baguio City

2. Baguio International Academy
118 Surong, Guisad, Baguio City

3. Daily International School Inc.
NLAD, New Site, Bakakeng, Baguio City
4. Disciple for Christ International School
Purok 4, Brgy. Lucnab, Baguio City

5. Logos International School in Luzon
#32 Gibraltar Road, Baguio City

---

63

6. Monticelle International School
Mary Heights, Camp 7, Kennon Road, Baguio City

7. Remnant International School-Baguio
193 Parisas St., Camp 7, Baguio City

8. Shalom International School
29 Sgt. Floresca St., Aurora Hill, Baguio City

9. Sontown International Christian Academy
26 Sunflower St., Polo Field, Baguio City

10. Union International School
15 Bukaneg St., Legarda Road, Baguio City

11. Wisdom International Academic, Inc.
26 Camp 8, Kennon Road, Baguio City

12. Yale IL International School, Inc.
156 Puliwes, Kennon Road, Baguio City

Population and Locale of the Study


The research was conducted in Baguio City starting the second semester
of the current school year 2009-2010. Only the international schools in the
secondary level which have been recognized by the Department of Education
(DepEd) were taken as samples from the population of all the private schools
operating in the City. Figure 3 shows the location of the study area.

---

64




Figure 3. The map of Baguio City showing the locale of the study

---

65
Data Collection Procedure

The following steps were undertaken to get the relevant data needed in the
study:
1. Secured permission from the Schools City Division Superintendent of
the Department of Education in Baguio City to get the list of all private schools
operating in the City;
2. Communicated with school authorities to grant the permission for the
conduct of the study;
3. Distributed questionnaires to directors or principals of the international
schools to elicit the necessary details; and
4. Retrieved the answered questionnaires.

Data Collection Instrument

A questionnaire composed of two parts was utilized in obtaining the data
needed in the study. Part I deals with the background information the international
schools. Part II covers the factors or determinants that affect the degree of
sustainability of the international schools. Data on the degree of sustainability was
taken using the scale from very low to very high sustainability see attachments
copy along survival, relationship, self-esteem, transformation, internal cohesion,
making a difference and service.

---

66
Treatment of the Data

Descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentages, weighted
means and ranking were used to describe the data taken from the actual sample of
the study. Inferential statistics like F-test and F-test were also used to determine
the differences of the degrees of sustainability as affected by the triple bottom line
dimensions namely financial, environmental and social. The financial dimension
was further sub-categorized into level of annual budget and sources of budget;
environmental, location and physical condition; and social, type of school and
levels, of education offered.
For specificity, the sub-categories are operationally defined as follows:
Level of annual budget. Level of annual budget refers to the category of
budget either as below one million, one to two million, or three million and
above.
Source of budget. The source of budget is either from tuition fees,
donations, loans, and admission fees.
Location of school. The location of school refers to the category of the
school being located near the central business district (NCBD) with one to two
kilometer from the CBD; middle the central business district (MCBD), three to
four kilometer from the CBD; and far from central business district (FCBD), five
and above kilometer from the CBD.

---

67
Physical condition of the school. The physical condition of the school
refers to the categories of the school being full concrete and with permanent
structure (FCPs); with moderate natural landscape (WMNL); and with full natural
landscape (WFNL).
Type of school. The type of school is categorized into sectarian/exclusive;
sectarian/non-exclusive; and non-sectarian/non-exclusive.
Level of education offered. The level of education offered is categorized
into elementary and secondary; pre-elementary, elementary and secondary; and
complete level.
All the sub-categories of the variables are allotted a score of one for every
sub-category exposed to.
The variable of the degrees of sustainability of the international schools is
likewise operationalized as follows: very high sustainability, when the area of
concern is attained by the school by as much as 91% to 100%; high sustainability
81% to 90%; moderate sustainability; 71% to 80%; low sustainability, below
70%; and very low sustainability, when the area of concern is not attained at all
by the school.

---

68
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of the data gathered
from the twelve international schools of Baguio City. It focuses on the degrees of
sustainability of the international schools along the determinants of survival,
relationship, self-esteem, transformation, internal cohesion, making a difference
and service, and the differences in the degrees of sustainability of the international
schools in consideration to financial, environmental, and social dimensions.

Profile Respondents of the International
Schools in Baguio City


Level of Annual Budget

The data in Table 1 reveal that six international schools have level of
annual budget below one million. The budget of the other four schools ranges
from one to two million pesos.

Table 1. Estimated annual budget
AMOUNT
NUMBER
PERCENT
Below 1,000,000
6
50.00
1,000,00 – 2,000,00
4
33.33
3,000,000 and above
2
16.67
Total
12
100

---

69
Only two among the twelve international school-respondents have annual
budget of three million and above. Within the sustainability framework, this
financial aspect needs to be seen as the real economic benefit enjoyed by any
international school when compared later in the study. The finding has a bearing
on Robelen (2009) report disclosing that schools have closed with financial
problems as the leading reason. The author revealed that 41 percent of the school
closures were a result of financial deficiencies caused by inequitable funding.

Sources of Budget

The findings shown in Table 2 reveal that most of the international schools
depend on tuition fees for their annual budget. Five schools have donations as
their source of budget. Three schools make loans to ensure their economic
sustainability. Two international schools depend on admission fees. Only one
school relies on investments. It can be inferred from the data that for a school to
be sustainable it must have many sources of the budget. This supported by
Robelen (2009) who stressed out school that 41 percent of closures were a result
of financial deficiencies caused by low student enrollment indicating low
collection on tuition fees as a source of budget.

---

70
Table 2. Sources of budget
SOURCE
NUMBER*
PERCENT
Tuition Fees
11
50.00
Donations
5
22.73
Loans
3
13.64
Admission Fees
2
9.09
Investments
1
4.55
Total
22
100
* Multiple response

Location of the School

As reflected in Table 3, three international schools are situated near the
Central Business District (NCBD). Six of the school-respondents are in the
middle location that is, they are located three to four kilometers away from the
Central Business District (MCBD); three schools are five and above kilometers
away from the Central Business District (FCBD). This result manifests the sixth
and seventh levels of the full spectrum sustainability as suggested by Barrett
(2007) which focus on external connectedness. It can be inferred from the data
that the international school-respondents value customer and supplier
collaboration
partnering,
strategic
alliances,
community
involvement,
environmental awareness and making a difference. They also value social justice,
human rights, global perspective, and future generations.

---

71
Table 3. Location of school
LOCATION
NUMBER
PERCENT
Central Business District (CBD)
3
25.00
Middle Location
6
50.00
Far from CBD
3
25.00
Total
12
100


Physical Condition of the School

As perceived by the international school heads, seven of the twelve
educational institutions covered in the study have full concrete and permanent
structures (FCPS) as shown in Table 4. Nine of the schools have moderate natural
landscape (MNL). Only one of them has full natural landscape (FNL).
This finding is supported by Fricker (2001) who painted out that the
emphasis on the physical, the objective, and the rational shows the external
manifestations of sustainability.

Table 4. Physical condition
CONDITION
NUMBER*
PERCENT
Full Concrete/Permanent Structure
7
41.18
With Moderate Natural Landscape
9
52.94
With Full Natural Landscape
1
5.88
Total
17
100
* Multiple response

---

72
Type of School

As indicated in Table 5, two international schools are sectarian exclusive,
four are non-sectarian exclusive, five are non-sectarian non-exclusive, and one
claims to be an open Christian school that is sectarian non-exclusive.
In general, the international school-respondents do not belong to any
religious affiliation or domination. They provide student co-education. This result
is in consonance with the aim of the International Schools Association (ISA) to
provide student with a balanced education. To facilitate geographic and cultural
mobility and to promote international understanding needed to participate in a
global society.

Table 5. Type of school
TYPE
NUMBER
PERCENT
Sectarian/Exclusive
2
16.67
Non-Sectarian/Exclusive
4
33.33
Non-Sectarian/Non-Exclusive
5
41.67
Others
1
8.33
Total
12
100

---

73
Levels of Education Offered

The results showed in Table 6 states those six international schools offers
pre-elementary education and ten offer secondary education. One provides
complete education. Three other schools provide K1-G12, English Proficiency
Program (TESDA Accredited) and ESL (Vocational) aside from the other levels
of education offered. It can be inferred from the data that some international
schools offer high quality programmes of international education as mandated by
the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO).
This finding is in agreement with Tangye et al., (2009) who stressed out
that many international school use curricular programs specially designed for
international schools such as the International General Certificate of Secondary
Education (IGCSE) or the IB Programme.

Table 6. Level of education offered
LEVEL
NUMBER*
PERCENT
Pre-Elementary
6
20.00
Elementary
10
33.33
Secondary
10
33.33
Complete
1
3.33
Others
3
10.00
Total
30
100
* Multiple response

---

74
Degrees of Sustainability of International
Schools in Baguio City

Survival
Table 7 shows that the degree of sustainability as regards survival is
moderate with a general weighted mean of 3.50 . The specific components
however show that profit and shareholder value have 3.17 and 2.83 weighted
means respectively, described as moderate while employee health, and safety with
weighted means of 3.67 and 4.39 respectively are highly sustainable. When
compared the t-test shows a non-significant finding which means that the degree
of sustainability as regard to survival does not differ significantly. The hypothesis
therefore that there are significant differences on the degree of sustainability is
rejected as regard to this aspect.

The finding implies that the degree of sustainability in terms of survival
along profit, shareholder value, employee health and safety is the same. The
similarities of degree of sustainability along four elements is attributed to the
degree of importance. The more similar the degree of importance of the four
elements of survival, the more similar is the degree of sustainability of the
establishment of the international schools.
This finding is supported by Barrett (2007) who stressed that to be
successful over the long-term, organization need to be able to operate from every
level of consciousness of the full spectrum sustainability starting ay level 1 which

---

75
is survival with full consideration about profit, shareholder value, employee
health and safety.

Table 7. Degree of sustainability along survival
DETERMINANT
DEGREE OF SUSTAINABILITY


Very High Mode-
Low
Very
WM
DE
High
rate
Low
Survival







Profit

5
5
1
1
3.17
MS

Shareholder value

3
5
3
1
2.83
MS

Employee health

8
4
0
0
3.67
HS

Safety
5
6
1
0
0
4.33
HS
Average





3.50
MS
t = 1.595ns

t.05 = 1.796

ns- not significant

Relationship
As gleaned in Table 8 the degree of sustainability as regard to relationship
is high with a general weighted mean of 4.83. The specific elements show that
conflict resolution with a weighted mean of 3.16 is described as moderate while
open communication, customer satisfaction, and courtesy/ respect with weighted
means of 3.92, 3.92, and 4.33 respectively are described as high. When compared,
the t-test shows a significant result which means that the degree of sustainability
as regard to relationship differs significantly. The hypothesis therefore, is
accepted as regard to this aspect.

---

76
Table 8. Degree of sustainability along relationship
DETERMINANT
DEGREE OF SUSTAINABILITY


Very High Mode-
Low
Very
WM
DE
High
rate
Low
Relationships








Open
4
3
5
0
0
3.92
HS
communication

Conflict resolution
2
1
7
1
1
3.16
MS

Customer
3
5
4
0
0
3.92
HS
satisfaction

Courtesy/respect
5
6
1
0
0
4.33
HS

Average





4.83
HS
t= 3.077*


t.05= 1.796


* - significant

The result implies that the degree of sustainability in terms of relationship
along the four elements varies. The differences in the degree of sustainability is
attributed to the variation in the forms of communication, conflict resolution,
customer satisfaction and courtesy and respect. The more varied the forms of
communication, conflict resolution, customer satisfaction, and courtesy/respect,
the more varied is the degree of sustainability along relationship.
This result is in agreement to Barrette (2007) who pointed out that
organizations can successfully operate from level 2 which is built around
relationships provided that they develop a positive cash flow (level 1) and
maintain employee and customer loyalty (level 2). This means developing strong

---

77
positive relationships with employees and between employees and customers.
Such positive relationships according to Barrett can be done with use of various
forms of communication, conflict resolution, assessing customer satisfaction and
courtesy respect.

Self-esteem

Table 9 reveals that the degree of sustainability as regard to the self-
esteem is likewise high with a general weighted mean of 4.03. The specific
elements which are productivity (4.17), efficiency (4.08), professional growth
(4.08) skills development (3.75) and quality (4.08) all yield high sustainability.
When compared, t-test shows a significant result which means that the degree of
sustainability as regard to the self esteem differs significantly therefore, the
hypothesis is accepted.

Table 9. Degree of sustainability along self-esteem
DETERMINANT
DEGREE OF SUSTAINABILITY


Very High Mode-
Low
Very
WM
DE
High
rate
Low
Self-esteem







Productivity
4
6
2
0
0
4.17
HS
Efficiency
4
5
3
0
0
4.08
HS
Professional
3
7
2
0
0
4.08
HS
growth
Skills development
2
65
5
0
0
3.75
HS
Quality
3
7
2
0
0
4.08
HS
Average





4.03
HS
t= 6.126ns


t.05= 1.796

* - significant

---

78

The finding implies that the degree of sustainability as regard to self-
esteem along productivity, efficiency, professional growth, skills development
and quality vary. The differences in the degree of sustainability in terms of self-
esteem along the fire elements vary. The difference in the degree of sustainability
is attributed to the variation in the forms of productivity, efficiency, professional
growth, skills development and quality. The more varied the forms of productivity
efficiency, professional growth, skills development and quality. The more varied
the forms of productivity, efficiency, professional growth, skills development and
quality, the more varied is the degree of sustainability along self-esteem.
This is best explained by Barrette (2007) who suggested that organizations
should constantly improve productivity, quality and organizational effectiveness
(level 3) for them to successfully operate. Level 3 organizations are well-managed
production machines. Barrett further suggested that the organization must reinvest
a significant part of their profits in research and development for new products
and services (level 4).

Transformation
Table 10 highlights the degree of sustainability determined along
transformation with a general weighted mean of 3.95 describe as high.
Accountability (4.00) employee participation (4.00), learning (4.17), innovation
(3.92), teamwork (4.08), personal development (3.67) and knowledge sharing
(3.83) specifically all yield to high sustainability.

---

79
Table 10. Degree of sustainability along transformation
DETERMINANT
DEGREE OF SUSTAINABILITY


Very High Mode-
Low
Very
WM
DE
High
rate
Low
Transformation







Accountability
3
6
3
0
0
4.00
HS
Employee
3
6
3
0
0
4.00
HS
participation

Learning
4
6
2
0
0
4.17
HS
Innovation
2
7
3
0
0
3.92
HS
Teamwork
4
5
3
0
0
4.08
HS
Personal
0
8
4
0
0
3.67
HS
development

Knowledge
2
6
4
0
0
3.83
HS
sharing

Average





3.95
HS
t= 5.06*


t.05= 1.796


* - significant

When compared, the t-test shows a significant finding which means that
the degree of sustainability in terms of transformation differ significantly
therefore, the hypothesis is accepted as regard to this aspect.

The result implies that the degree of sustainability when transformation is
considered along its seven elements varies. The differences in the degree of
sustainability is attributed to the variation in the forms of accountability,
employee participation, learning innovation, teamwork, personal development and

---

80
knowledge sharing. The more varied the forms of accountability, employee
participation, learning, innovation, teamwork, personal development and
knowledge sharing, the more varied is the degree of sustainability along
transformation.
Such findings corroborate to what Barrett’s (2007) statement that level 4
organizations are focused on innovation, learning and knowledge management.
Because organizations know how to adapt to a changing market place, they can
remain successful for long periods of time. Barrett concluded that if these level 4
organizations want to become market leaders they must develop the commitment
and enthusiasm of all employees by creating a strong corporate culture and an
inspiring vision for the organization envisioning the concepts of accountability
employee participation, learning, innovation, teamwork, personal development
and knowledge sharing.

Internal Cohesion
As shown in Table 11 the degree of sustainability on internal cohesion
with a general weighted mean of 4.22 is high. Trust (4.33), integrity (4.33),
honesty (4.33), values awareness (4.25), cooperation (4.25), excellence (4.25),
and fairness (3.83) all yield high sustainability. When compared, the t-test shows
a significant result which means that the degree of sustainability as regard to
internal cohesion differs therefore, the hypothesis is accepted in this aspect.

---

81
Table 11. Degree of sustainability along internal cohesion
DETERMINANT
DEGREE OF SUSTAINABILITY


Very High Mode-
Low
Very
WM
DE
High
rate
Low
Internal Cohesion







Trust
5
6
1
0
0
4.33
HS
Integrity
4
8
0
0
0
4.33
HS
Honesty
4
8
0
0
0
4.33
HS
Values awareness
4
7
1
0
0
4.25
HS
Cooperation
5
5
2
0
0
4.25
HS
Excellence
3
9
0
0
0
4.25
HS
Fairness
2
6
4
0
0
3.83
HS
Average





4.22
HS
t= 6.254*

t.05= 1.796

* - significant

This finding implies that the degree of sustainability on internal cohesion
along its seven elements varies. The differences in the degree of sustainability is
attributed to the variation in the forms of trust, integrity, honesty, value
awareness, cooperation, excellence and fairness. It is presupposed therefore, that
the more varied the forms of trust, integrity, honesty, value awareness,
cooperation, excellence and fairness, the more varied is the degree of
sustainability along internal cohesion.

---

82
The findings along internal cohesion support Barrette’s (2007) statement,
that the level 5 organizations are great places to work because they are full of
enthusiasm and creativity. Employees of these organization are aligned with the
organization’s vision and share the same values because of trust, integrity,
honesty, values awareness, cooperation, excellence and fairness.

Making A Difference
As reflected in Table 12, the degree of sustainability with a general
weighted mean of 4.00 on making a difference is high leadership development
(4.08), mentoring/coaching (4.00) employee fulfillment (3.75), partnering (4.00),
strategic environment awareness (4.17) specifically, yield high sustainability.
When compared the t-test shows a significant result which means that the degree
of sustainability on making a difference differ significantly hence, the hypothesis
is accepted.
The finding implies that the degree of sustainability on making a
difference along its eight elements varies. The differences in the degree of
sustainability is attributed to the variation in the forms of leadership development,
mentoring/coaching, employee, customer/supplier collaboration, partnering,
strategic alliance, community involvement and environmental awareness.

---

83
Table 12. Degree of sustainability along making a difference

DETERMINANT
DEGREE OF SUSTAINABILITY


Very High Mode-
Low
Very
WM
DE
High
rate
Low
Making a Difference







Leadership
4
5
3
0
0
4.08
HS
development
Mentoring/coaching
4
4
4
0
0
4.00
HS
Employee fulfillment
2
5
5
0
0
3.75
HS
Customer/supplier
3
4
5
0
0
3.83
HS
Partnering
3
6
3
0
0
4.00
HS
Strategic alliances
3
5
4
0
0
3.92
HS
Community
3
7
2
0
0
4.25
HS
involvement
Environmental
4
6
2
0
0
4.17
HS
awareness
Average





4.00
HS
t= 5.097*


t.05= 1.796


* - significant

The
more
varied
the
forms
of
leadership
development,
mentoring/coaching, employee fulfillment, customer/supplier collaboration,
partnering, strategic alliance, community involvement and environmental
awareness, the more varied is the degree of sustainability along making a
difference.
The findings likewise, support the exposition of Barrett (2007), that level
6 organizations are focused on protecting their long-term financial interest
through mutually beneficial alliances with likeminded partners and the local

---

84
community. Barrett firmly believed that the level 6 organizations want their
employees to find personal fulfillment and to be successful in everything they do
hence, Barrett emphasized that organizations must have varied avenues for
leadership
development;
mentoring/coaching;
employee
fulfillment;
customers/supplies; partnering; strategic alliances; community involvement and
environmental awareness. Barrett suggested that to consolidate their positions and
become global markets leaders, the organization must likewise focus on ethics
and social responsibility.

Service
As revealed in Table 13 the degree of sustainability on service is high with
a general weighted mean of 4.04. Vision (408), wisdom (4.08) forgiveness (3.92),
compassion (400), social justice (3.92), human rights (3.92), global perspective
(4.16) and future generation (4.25) specifically, all yield high sustainability.
When compared, the t-test shows significant result which means that the
degree of sustainability on service differs significantly therefore, the hypothesis is
accepted.

The finding implies that the degree of sustainability on service along its
eight elements varies. The differences in the degree of sustainability is attributed
to the variation in the forms of vision, wisdom, forgiveness, comparison, social
justice, human rights, global perspective, and future generation.

---

85
Table. 13. Degree of sustainability along service
DETERMINANT
DEGREE OF SUSTAINABILITY


Very High Mode-
Low
Very
WM
DE
High
rate
Low
Service







Vision
3
7
2
0
0
4.08
HS
Wisdom
3
7
2
0
0
4.08
HS
Forgiveness
3
5
4
0
0
3.92
HS
Compassion
3
6
3
0
0
4.00
HS
Social justice
3
5
4
0
0
3.92
HS
Human rights
3
5
4
0
0
3.92
HS
Global perspective
4
6
2
0
0
4.16
HS
Future generations
5
5
2
0
0
4.25
HS
Average





4.04
HS
t= 6.171*


t.05= 1.796


* - significant
It is presupposed therefore, that, the more varied the forms of vision,
wisdom, forgiveness, compassion, and future generation, the more varied is the
degree of sustainability along service.
The above findings support the claimed of Barrett (2007) level 7
organizations are successful because they protect their long-term interest by being
good global citizens. These organization recognized as being exemplary
organizations. Employees, customers and partners support them because they care
about people, the planet and the society. These organizations create a better world
for all. Barrett further claimed that level 7 organizations never fail because
generally, they have varied visionary perspectives; promotions wisdoms; schemes

---

86
of forgiveness; styles of compassion; forms of social justices; consideration of
human rights; global perspectives; and foresights of future generations.


Differences in the Degrees of Sustainability According to Financial,
Environmental and Social Dimensions of the
International Schools in Baguio City


Financial Dimensions

Level of budget. The level of budget as one of the financial dimensions is
categorized into small with a budget of below one million pesos, medium, one to
two million pesos; and large, above three million pesos. Along the components on
survival, the degree of sustainability is highest within the large budget followed
by small and then medium. Within the components, however, the fourth element
which is safety on survival is highest at very high sustainability along the large
budget and the lowest is the second element, shareholder value, along the small
budget (Table 14).

On the relating component, the degree of sustainability is highest within
the large budget on the third and fourth elements which are costumer satisfaction
and courtesy/respect. It is lowest on the second element, conflict resolution along
the small budget.

---

87
Table 14. Degree of sustainability according to level of budget


LEVEL OF BUDGET
COMPONENT
Below IM
IM – 2 M
3 M & above

WM
DE
WM
DE
WM
DE







1. Survival



a. Profit
3.17
MS
2.75
MS
4.00
HS
b. Shareholder value
2.67
MS
2.75
MS
3.50
MS
c. Employee health
3.5
MS
3.75
HS
4.00
HS
d. Safety
4.50
HS
3.75
HS
5.00
VHS
Mean
3.46

3.25

4.125








2. Relationship



a. Open communication
4.00
HS
3.75
HS
4.00
HS
b. Conflict resolution
3.50
MS
2.75
MS
3.50
MS
c. Customer satisfaction
4.17
HS
3.25
MS
4.50
HS
d. Courtesy/respect
4.33
HS
4.00
HS
4.50
HS
Mean
4.00

3.44

4.125








3. Self-esteem



a. Productivity
4.17
HS
3.75
HS
4.50
HS
b. Efficiency
4.17
HS
3.75
HS
4.50
HS
c. Professional growth
3.38
HS
4.00
HS
4.50
HS
d. Skills development
3.38
HS
3.25
MS
4.50
HS
e. Quality
4.17
HS
3.75
HS
4.50
HS
Mean
4.03

3.7

4.4








4. Transformation



a. Accountability
3.38
HS
4.0
HS
4.50
HS
b. Employee
4.00
HS
3.75
HS
4.50
HS
participation
c. Learning
4.00
HS
4.25
HS
4.50
HS
d. Innovation
3.38
HS
4.00
HS
4.00
HS
e. Teamwork
4.00
HS
4.25
HS
4.00
HS
f. Personal development
3.67
HS
3.75
HS
3.50
HS
g. Knowledge sharing
3.38
HS
3.75
HS
4.00
HS
Mean
3.88

3.39

4.14

---

88
Table 14. Continued…


LEVEL OF BUDGET
COMPONENT
Below IM
IM – 2 M
3 M & above

WM
DE
WM
DE
WM
DE







5. Internal Cohesion



a. Trust
4.17
HS
4.5
HS
4.5
HS
b. Integrity
4.33
HS
4.25
HS
4.5
HS
c. Honesty
4.17
HS
4.5
HS
4.5
HS
d. Values awareness
4.17
HS
4.25
HS
4.5
HS
e. Cooperation
4.33
HS
4.25
HS
4.0
HS
f. Excellence
4.33
HS
4.00
HS
4.5
HS
g. Fairness
6.37
HS
3.75
HS
4.5
HS
Mean
4.17

4.21

4.43





6. Making a Difference



a. Leadership
4.17
HS
3.75
HS
4.5
HS
development
b. Mentoring/coaching
4.17
HS
3.75
HS
4.0
HS
c. Employee fulfillment
3.83
HS
4.5
HS
4.0
HS
d. Costumer/supplier
4.17
HS
3.25
MS
4.0
HS
collaboration
e. Partnering
4.33
HS
3.25
MS
4.5
HS
f. Strategic alliances
4.17
HS
3.25
MS
4.5
HS
g. Community
4.17
HS
3.25
MS
4.5
HS
involvement
h. Environmental
4.33
HS
3.25
MS
4.5
HS
awareness
Mean
4.17

3.53

4.31





7. Service



a. Vision
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
b. Wisdom
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
4.5
HS
c. Forgiveness
3.83
HS
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
d. Compassion
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
e. Social justice
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
f. Human rights
4.0
HS
3.75
HS
4.0
HS
g. Global perspective
4.33
HS
3.75
HS
4.5
HS
h. Future generations
4.33
HS
4.0
HS
4.5
HS
Mean
4.06

3.94

4.18

Fr=20.29*


X2.05 = 5.991


*- Significant

---

89

Along the elements of self-esteem, the degree of sustainability is highest
on productivity, efficiency, professional growth, skills development and quality
within the large budget. The fourth element, skills development is the lowest
within the medium budget.
On the transformation component the degree of sustainability is highest on
accountability, employee participation, and learning within the large budget.
However, it is lowest on the sixth element which personal development within the
same category.

The degree of sustainability is highest on all elements of internal cohesion
within the large budget except on the fifth element which is cooperation.
Moreover the degree of sustainability on the first element, trust is also highest
within the medium budget. The last element, fairness is the lowest in the small
budget category.

On the making a difference component, five elements within the large
budget yield the highest degree of sustainability and these are leadership
development, partnering, strategic alliances, community involvement, and
environmental awareness. Another set of five elements along the medium budget
has the lowest degree of sustainability. This consists of customer/supplier
collaboration, partnering, strategic alliance, community involvement and
environmental awareness.

---

90

Along the elements of service, the degree of sustainability is highest on
vision, wisdom, global perspective and future generations within the large budget.
It is lowest on human rights and global perspective within the medium budget.

When the above data were subjected to the Friedman test, the result shows
a significant difference indicating a higher computed value as compared to the
tabulated value. The hypothesis that the degree of sustainability of the
international schools are affected by the financial dimension as to level of budget
is accepted. The finding implies that the degree of sustainability of the
international schools vary. It is presupposed therefore, that when the level of
budget is considered the degree of sustainability differs. For instance, the higher
the level of budget, the higher is the degree of sustainability of the international
schools.
The findings is in consonance to the finding of Henderson and Tilbury
(2004) who claimed that there is the same evidence which points to a number of
critical factors for whole-school sustainability programs. These factors included
significant and continuous finding.

Moreover, Haenn and Wilk (2001) stressed that the more money being
spent, the better the overall economic well-being of the international schools is
assumed to be.
Sources of budget. The sources of budget as another financial dimension
include tuition fee, donation, loan and admission fee. Along the components of

---

91
survival, the degree of sustainability is highest within admission for category on
the last element which is safety and lowest on the second element, shareholder
value along loan category (Table 15).

Table 15. Degree of sustainability according sources of budget


SOURCE OF BUDGET
COMPONENT
Tuition Fee
Donation
Loan
Admission
(11)
(5)
(3)
Fee (2)

WM
DE
WM
DE
WM
DE
WM
DE
1. Survival








a. Profit
3.18
MS
3.20
MS
3.67
MS
3.5
MS
b. Shareholder value
2.81
MS
3.20
MS
2.33
MS
3.5
MS
c. Employee health
3.81
HS
3.80
HS
3.67
HS
4.0
HS
d. Safety
4.36
HS
4.20
HS
4.33
HS
4.5
HS
Mean
3.54

3.60

3.25

3.88

2. Relationship








a. Open communication
4.00
HS
3.60
HS
3.33
MS
4.00
HS
b. Conflict resolution
3.31
MS
3.40
MS
3.00
MS
4.00
HS
c. Customer satisfaction
4.00
HS
3.80
HS
3.67
HS
4.00
HS
d. Courtesy/respect
4.36
HS
4.20
HS
4.00
HS
5.00
VHS
Mean
3.72

3.75

3.50

4.25

3. Self-esteem








a. Productivity
4.0
HS
4.20
HS
3.67
HS
5.0
VHS
b. Efficiency
4.0
HS
4.00
HS
3.67
HS
5.0
VHS
c. Professional growth
4.0
HS
4.00
HS
4.00
HS
4.5
HS
d. Skills development
3.81
HS
3.40
MS
4.00
HS
4.5
HS
e. Quality
4.09
HS
4.00
HS
4.00
HS
4.5
HS
Mean
3.98

3.92

3.87

4.70

4. Transformation








a. Accountability
4.09
HS
4.20
HS
4.00
HS
5.0
VHS
b. Employee participation
4.0
HS
4.00
HS
4.00
HS
4.5
HS
c. Learning
4.09
HS
4.40
HS
4.67
HS
5.0
VHS
d. Innovation
4.09
HS
4.00
HS
4.00
HS
4.5
HS
e. Teamwork
4.09
HS
4.00
HS
4.00
HS
4.5
HS
f. Personal development
3.81
HS
3.60
HS
3.00
MS
4.0
HS
g. Knowledge sharing
3.81
HS
3.80
HS
4.00
HS
4.5
HS
Mean
4.00

4.0

3.95

4.77

---

92
Table 15. Continued . . .


SOURCE OF BUDGET
COMPONENT
Tuition Fee
Donation
Loan (3)
Admission
(11)
(5)
Fee (2)

WM
DE
WM
DE
WM
DE
WM
DE
5. Internal Cohesion








a. Trust
4.27
HS
4.20
HS
4.33
HS
4.5
HS
b. Integrity
4.36
HS
4.00
HS
4.00
HS
4.00
HS
c. Honesty
4.27
HS
4.20
HS
4.33
HS
4.5
HS
d. Values awareness
4.27
HS
4.00
HS
4.00
HS
4.00
HS
e. Cooperation
4.27
HS
3.80
HS
4.00
HS
4.00
HS
f. Excellence
4.27
HS
4.00
HS
3.67
HS
4.00
HS
g. Fairness
4.09
HS
3.00
MS
2.67
MS 3.50
MS
Mean
4.26

3.89

3.86

4.07










6. Making a Difference








a. Leadership
4.09
HS
3.8
HS
4.33
HS
4.5
HS
development
b. Mentoring/coaching
3.54
HS
3.8
HS
3.67
HS
5.0
VHS
c. Employee fulfillment
3.72
HS
3.4
HS
4.33
HS
4.0
HS
d. Costumer/supplier
3.81
HS
3.4
HS
3.67
HS
4.0
HS
collaboration
e. Partnering
4.09
HS
3.6
HS
3.33
MS
3.5
MS
f. Strategic alliances
4.0
HS
3.6
HS
3.33
MS
3.5
MS
g. Community
3.91
HS
4.2
HS
3.0
MS
4.5
HS
involvement
h. Environmental
4.27

3.8

3.0
MS
5.0
VHS
awareness
Mean
3.93

3.70

3.58

4.25










7. Service








a. Vision
4.0
HS
4.2
HS
4.33
HS
5.0
VHS
b. Wisdom
4.0
HS
4.2
HS
4.33
HS
5.0
VHS
c. Forgiveness
3.81
HS
4.0
HS
4.33
HS
4.5
HS
d. Compassion
4.09
HS
4.0
HS
4.33
HS
5.0
VHS
e. Social justice
3.54
HS
3.8
HS
3.67
HS
4.5
HS
f. Human rights
3.54
HS
3.8
HS
3.67
HS
4.5
HS
g. Global perspective
4.18
HS
4.0
HS
3.00
MS
4.5
HS
h. Future generations
4.18
HS
4.20
HS
4.33
HS
5.0
VHS
Mean
3.92

4.03

4.00

4.75

Fr = 12.90*
X2.05 = 7.814
*-Significant

---

93

On the relationship component, the degree of sustainability is highest
within the admission on the fourth element which is courtesy or respect. It is
lowest on the second element, conflict resolution along the loan category.
Along the elements of self-esteem the degree of sustainability is highest
on productivity and efficiency within the admission category. The fourth element,
skills development is the lowest within the donation category.
On the transformation component, the degree of sustainability is highest
on accountability and learning within the admission category. However, it is
lowest on the sixth element which is personal development within the loan
category.

The degree of sustainability is highest on the first and third elements of
internal cohesion along the admission fee category. The last element, fairness is
the lowest along the loan category.

On the making a difference component, two elements within the
admission category yield high degree of sustainability. These are the second and
eight elements which are mentoring on coaching and environmental awareness of
along the admission category. Two elements within the loan category have the
lowest level of sustainability and these are community involvement and
environmental awareness.

---

94

Along the elements of service, the degree of sustainability is highest on
vision, wisdom, compassion, and future generation within the admission fee
category. It is lowest on global perspective within the loan category.

When the above data were subjected to Friedman test, the result shows a
significant difference indicating a higher computed value as compared to the
tabular value. The hypothesis that the degree of sustainability the international
schools are affected by the financial dimension as to sources of budget is
accepted. The finding implies that the degree of sustainability of international
schools vary. It is presupposed therefore, that when the sources of budget are
considered, the degree of sustainability differs. For instance, the more sources of
budget, the higher is the degree of sustainability of the international schools.
This finding is in agreement with Henderson and Tilbury (2004) who
found out that one key feature which characterizes a sustainable school is whole-
school participation with extensive school-community partnerships and that one
critical success component of a sustainable school is effective multi-stakeholder
partnerships. The authors stressed that there is a need to engage a wide range of
stakeholder and community support.

Environmental Dimensions
Location of the school. Table 16 shows that the location of the school as
one of the environmental dimensions is categorized into Near Central Business
District (NCBD), middle location from CBD (MCBD) and far from CBD

---

95
(FCBD). Along the elements of survival the degree of sustainability is highest
within the NCBD on the last element which is safety. It is lowest on the second
element, shareholder value within the same category.
On the relationship component, the degree of sustainability is highest
within the NCBD category which includes open communication, customer
satisfaction and courtesy and/or respect. It is lowest on the second element along
the MCBD.

Along the elements of self-esteem, the degree of sustainability is highest
on four elements which are within NCBD such as productivity, efficiency, and
skills development. The fourth element which is skills development has the lowest
sustainability along the FCBD.

On the transformation component, the degree of sustainability is highest
on employee participation, learning, teamwork, and knowledge sharing along
NCBD. The last element within the MCBD, knowledge-sharing have the lowest
degree of sustainability as well as the other two elements within the FCBD which
are learning and knowledge-sharing.
The degree of sustainability is highest on the fourth element of internal
cohesion which is values awareness along NCBD. The second element on the
same category which is integrity has the lowest degree of sustainability.

---

96
Table 16. Degree of sustainability according to location of school


LOCATION OF SCHOOL
COMPONENT
NCBD (1-2)
MCBD (3-4)
FCBD (5&above)

WM
DE
WM
DE
WM
DE







1. Survival



a. Profit
3.0
MS
3.33
MS
3.00
MS
b. Shareholder value
2.67
MS
3.17
MS
3.00
MS
c. Employee health
3.67
MS
4.00
HS
4.00
HS
d. Safety
4.67
HS
4.17
HS
4.30
HS
Mean
3.50

3.67

3.58








2. Relationship



a. Open communication
4.67
HS
4.0
HS
3.33
MS
b. Conflict resolution
4.00
HS
3.0
MS
3.33
MS
c. Customer satisfaction
4.67
HS
3.5
MS
3.67
HS
d. Courtesy/respect
4.67
HS
4.17
HS
3.67
HS
Mean
4.50

3.67

3.50








3. Self-esteem



a. Productivity
4.67
HS
4.17
HS
3.33
MS
b. Efficiency
4.67
HS
4.17
HS
3.33
MS
c. Professional growth
4.07
HS
3.67
HS
3.67
HS
d. Skills development
4.67
HS
3.33
MS
3.00
MS
e. Quality
4.0
HS
4.17
HS
3.33
MS
Mean
4.54

3.90

3.33








4. Transformation



a. Accountability
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
3.67
HS
b. Employee participation
4.33
HS
4.0
HS
3.67
HS
c. Learning
4.33
HS
4.0
HS
3.33
MS
d. Innovation
4.00
HS
4.0
HS
3.67
HS
e. Teamwork
4.33
HS
3.67
HS
3.67
HS
f. Personal development
3.67
HS
3.67
HS
3.67
HS
g. Knowledge sharing
4.33
HS
3.33
MS
3.33
MS
Mean
4.14

3.81

3.57

---

97
Table 16. Continued…


LOCATION OF SCHOOL
COMPONENT
NCBD (1-2)
MCBD (3-4)
FCBD (5&above)

WM
DE
WM
DE
WM
DE







5. Internal Cohesion



a. Trust
3.33
MS
4.17
HS
4.07
HS
b. Integrity
3.0
MS
3.83
HS
4.07
HS
c. Honesty
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
4.67
HS
d. Values awareness
5.0
VHS
4.17
HS
4.67
HS
e. Cooperation
4.67
HS
4.0
HS
4.67
HS
f. Excellence
4.67
HS
4.17
HS
4.17
HS
g. Fairness
4.67
HS
3.33
HS
4.67
HS
Mean
4.19

3.95

4.53





6. Making a Difference



a. Leadership
4.33
HS
4.0
HS
4.33
HS
development
b. Mentoring/coaching
4.67
HS
4.0
HS
4.33
HS
c. Employee fulfillment
4.67
HS
3.67
HS
4.33
HS
d. Costumer/supplier
4.67
HS
3.67
HS
4.33
HS
collaboration
e. Partnering
4.33
HS
3.67
HS
4.33
HS
f. Strategic alliances
4.67
HS
3.67
HS
4.33
HS
g. Community
4.33
HS
3.5
MS
4.0
HS
involvement
h. Environmental
4.67
HS
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
awareness
Mean
4.54

3.77

4.25








7. Service



a. Vision
4.67
HS
3.67
HS
4.67
HS
b. Wisdom
4.67
HS
3.67
HS
4.67
HS
c. Forgiveness
4.67
HS
3.0
MS
4.67
HS
d. Compassion
4.67
HS
3.0
MS
4.67
HS
e. Social justice
4.67
HS
3.17
MS
4.37
HS
f. Human rights
4.67
HS
3.67
HS
4.37
HS
g. Global perspective
4.33
HS
3.83
HS
4.67
HS
h. Future generations
4.33
HS
4.00
HS
4.67
HS
Mean
4.58

3.50

4.60

Fr = 3.714ns
X2.05 = 5.991
ns- not significant

---

98

On the making of difference component, five elements within the NCBD
yield the highest degree of sustainability and these are mentoring or coaching,
employee fulfillment, customer and supplier collaboration, strategic alliances and
environmental awareness. The seventh element within the MCBD which is
community involvement has the lowest degree of sustainability.

Along the elements of services, the degree of sustainability is highest on
vision, wisdom, forgiveness, compassion, social justice and human right within
NCBD. It is also highest along the six elements within the FCBD. However, the
degree of sustainability is lowest along the elements of forgiveness and
compassion within the MCBD.

When the above data were subjected to the Friedman test, the result shows
no significant difference indicating a lower computed value as compared to the
tabular value. The hypothesis that the degree of sustainability of the international
schools as affected by the environmental dimensions as to the location of the
school is rejected. The finding implies that the degree at sustainability of the
international schools does not vary. It is presupposed therefore, that when the
location of the school is considered the degrees of sustainability does not differ.
Regardless of location results will yield to the same degree of sustainability.
The above findings are in consonance with the findings of Henderson and
Tilbury (2004) stating that the greening of school grounds and extensive use of
outdoor classrooms is a key feature that characterizes a sustainable school.

---

99
However, a critical success component of a sustainable school is expertise in
environmental education or education for sustainability, focusing on socio-
cultural dimensions of sustainability rather than a restricted focus on green
agenda.
Physical condition of school. The physical condition of the school as one
of the environmental dimensions is categorized in to the full concrete and
permanent structure (FCDS), with moderate natural landscape (WMNL), and with
full natural landscape (WFNL). Along the components on survival, the degree of
sustainability is highest within the FCPS category on the fourth element which is
safety. It is lowest on the second element, shareholder value within the WMNL
(Table 17).

On the relationship component, the degree of sustainability is highest
within the WMNL on the fourth element, courtesy/respect. It is lowest on the
second (conflict resolution) and fourth (courtesy/respect) elements within the
WMNL and FNL categories, respectively.

Along the elements of self-esteem, the degree of sustainability is highest
on the first (productivity), second (efficiency) and fourth (quality) elements
within the WMNL category. It is lowest however, along professional growth,
skills development and quality within the FCPS.

---

100
Table 17. Degree of sustainability according to physical condition of school


PHYSICAL CONDITION OF SCHOOL
COMPONENT
FCPS
MNL
FNL

WM
DE
WM
DE
WM
DE







1. Survival



a. Profit
4.0
HS
2.8
MS
3.25
MS
b. Shareholder value
3.33
MS
2.4
LS
3.25
MS
c. Employee health
4.0
HS
3.6
HS
3.75
HS
d. Safety
4.67
HS
4.4
HS
4.00
HS
Mean
4.0

3.3

3.56








2. Relationship



a. Open communication
3.67
HS
4.2
HS
3.75
HS
b. Conflict resolution
3.33
MS
3.6
HS
3.75
HS
c. Customer satisfaction
4.33
HS
3.6
HS
3.75
HS
d. Courtesy/respect
4.00
HS
4.6
HS
3.33
MS
Mean
3.83

4.0

3.64








3. Self-esteem



a. Productivity
3.33
MS
4.0
HS
3.75
HS
b. Efficiency
3.33
MS
4.0
HS
3.33
MS
c. Professional growth
3.0
MS
3.8
HS
3.33
MS
d. Skills development
3.0
MS
3.8
HS
3.75
HS
e. Quality
3.0
MS
4.0
HS
3.75
HS
Mean
3.13



3.58








4. Transformation



a. Accountability
3.33
MS
3.6
HS
3.75
HS
b. Employee
3.33
MS
3.6
HS
3.75
HS
participation
c. Learning
3.00
MS
4.0
HS
4.25
HS
d. Innovation
3.67
HS
3.6
HS
4.25
HS
e. Teamwork
3.00
MS
3.6
HS
4.25
HS
f. Personal development
3.00
MS
3.8
HS
3.75
HS
g. Knowledge sharing
3.33
MS
3.8
HS
3.75
HS
Mean
3.24

3.71

3.96

---

101
Table 17. Continued…


PHYSICAL CONDITION OF SCHOOL
COMPONENT
FCPS
MNL
FNL

WM
DE
WM
DE
WM
DE







5. Internal Cohesion



a. Trust
4.33
HS
4.6
HS
3.75
HS
b. Integrity
4.33
HS
4.4
HS
4.00
HS
c. Honesty
4.00
HS
4.6
HS
3.75
HS
d. Values awareness
4.33
HS
4.4
HS
3.75
HS
e. Cooperation
4.00
HS
4.6
HS
3.75
HS
f. Excellence
4.33
HS
4.0
HS
4.00
HS
g. Fairness
3.33
MS
3.8
HS
3.33
MS
Mean
4.09

4.34

3.76





6. Making a Difference



a. Leadership
4.0
HS
4.2
HS
3.75
HS
development
b. Mentoring/coaching
3.33
MS
4.0
HS
3.33
MS
c. Employee fulfillment
4.00
HS
4.0
HS
4.00
HS
d. Costumer/supplier
4.00
HS
3.8
HS
4.00
HS
collaboration
e. Partnering
4.33
HS
3.6
HS
3.75
HS
f. Strategic alliances
4.33
HS
3.8
HS
3.33
MS
g. Community
4.00
HS
4.0
HS
3.75
HS
involvement
h. Environmental
4.33
HS
4.2
HS
3.00
MS
awareness
Mean
4.04

3.95

3.61








7. Service



a. Vision
4.0
HS
4.2
HS
3.75
HS
b. Wisdom
4.0
HS
4.2
HS
4.00
HS
c. Forgiveness
3.33
MS
4.2
HS
3.33
MS
d. Compassion
3.33
MS
4.2
HS
3.75
HS
e. Social justice
3.67
HS
3.8
HS
3.75
HS
f. Human rights
3.67
HS
3.8
HS
3.75
HS
g. Global perspective
4.33
HS
3.33
MS
3.33
MS
h. Future generations
4.33
HS
4.2
HS
3.75
HS
Mean
3.83

3.99

3.68

Fr = 0.86ns
X2.05 = 5.991
ns- not significant

---

102
On the transformation component, the degree of sustainability is highest
on the third fourth and fifth elements within the WFNL. These are learning,
innovation and teamwork. It is lowest on learning, teamwork and personal
development elements within the same category.

The degree of sustainability is highest on trust, honesty, and cooperation
elements of internal cohesion within the WMNL category. It is lowest on fairness
within the FCDS category. The last element within the WFNL category yields
also the lowest degree of sustainability.

On the making a difference, the degree of sustainability is highest along
partnering, strategic alliance, and environmental awareness along the FCDS
category. It is lowest however, in environmental awareness along the WFNL
category.
Along the elements of service the degree of sustainability is highest on
global perspective and future generations within the FCDS category. It is lowest
on the third (forgiveness) and fourth (compassion) elements within the same
category. Similarly, the degree of sustainability is lowest on the seventh (global
perspective) element within the WMNL category and on the third (forgiveness)
and seventh (global perspective) elements within the WFNL.

When the above data were subjected to the Friedman test, the result shows
a no significant difference indicating a lower computed value as compared to the
tabulated value. The hypothesis that the degrees of sustainability of the

---

103
international schools as affected by the environmental dimensions as to the
physical condition of the schools is rejected. The finding implies that the degree
of sustainability of the international schools does not vary. It is presupposed
therefore, that when the physical condition of the school is considered the degree
of sustainability does not differ. For instance, whether a school has a full
concrete/permanent structure or with full natural landscape, the degree of
sustainability is not affected. The finding is attributed to the management
approach for an organization along the Total Quality Management (TQM) which
emphasizes that things should have a quality. TOM requires that the organization
maintain a quality standard in all aspects of its business as given focus by ISO
(1994).

Social Dimensions
Type of school. The type of school as one of social dimensions is
categorized into sectarian/exclusive, non-sectarian/exclusive, and non-sectarian/
non-exclusive. Along the elements of survival, the degree of sustainability is
highest on safety within the non-sectarian/non-exclusive category. It is lowest on
shareholder value within the non-sectarian/exclusive category.

On the relationship component, the degree of sustainability is highest on
courtesy/respect element within the
non-sectarian/exclusive and
non-
sectarian/non-exclusive categories. It is lowest on conflict resolution and
customer satisfaction within the sectarian/exclusive category.

---

104
Table 18. Degree of sustainability according to type of school


TYPE OF SCHOOL
COMPONENT
SEC/Exclusive
Non Sec/
Non Sec/
Exclusive
Non Exclusive

WM
DE
WM
DE
WM
DE







1. Survival



a. Profit
3.5
MS
3.2
MS
2.8
MS
b. Shareholder value
3.5
MS
2.8
MS
2.6
MS
c. Employee health
3.5
MS
3.4
MS
3.8
HS
d. Safety
4.0
HS
4.2
HS
4.4
HS
Mean
3.62

3.4

3.4








2. Relationship



a. Open communication
3.5
MS
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
b. Conflict resolution
3.0
MS
3.0
MS
3.6
HS
c. Customer satisfaction
3.0
MS
4.2
HS
4.2
HS
d. Courtesy/respect
3.5
MS
4.6
HS
4.6
HS
Mean
3.25

3.95

4.1








3. Self-esteem



a. Productivity
3.0
MS
4.2
HS
4.4
HS
b. Efficiency
3.0
MS
4.2
HS
3.8
HS
c. Professional growth
3.5
MS
4.0
HS
4.2
HS
d. Skills development
3.5
MS
3.4
MS
4.0
HS
e. Quality
4.0
HS
4.4
HS
4.0
HS
Mean
3.4

4.04

4.08








4. Transformation



a. Accountability
3.0
MS
4.0
HS
4.2
HS
b. Employee
3.0
MS
4.0
HS
4.4
HS
participation
c. Learning
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
4.4
HS
d. Innovation
4.0
HS
3.8
HS
4.0
HS
e. Teamwork
3.5
MS
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
f. Personal development
3.0
MS
3.6
HS
4.0
HS
g. Knowledge sharing
3.0
MS
3.6
HS
4.4
HS
Mean
3.36

3.86

4.2

---

105
Table 18. Continued…


TYPE OF SCHOOL
COMPONENT
SEC/Exclusive
Non Sec/
Non Sec/
Exclusive
Non Exclusive

WM
DE
WM
DE
WM
DE
5. Internal Cohesion



a. Trust
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
4.6
HS
b. Integrity
4.0
HS
4.4
HS
4.4
HS
c. Honesty
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
4.6
HS
d. Values awareness
4.0
HS
4.2
HS
4.4
HS
e. Cooperation
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
4.4
HS
f. Excellence
3.5
MS
4.2
HS
4.2
HS
g. Fairness
4.0
HS
3.8
HS
3.8
HS
Mean
3.93

3.51

4.34

6. Making a Difference



a. Leadership
3.0
MS
4.0
HS
4.2
HS
development
b. Mentoring/coaching
3.0
MS
4.4
HS
4.4
HS
c. Employee fulfillment
3.0
MS
4.0
HS
3.8
HS
d. Costumer/supplier
3.0
MS
4.2
HS
4.0
HS
collaboration
e. Partnering
3.0
MS
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
f. Strategic alliances
3.5
MS
4.2
HS
4.0
HS
g. Community
3.0
MS
3.8
HS
4.2
HS
involvement
h. Environmental
2.5
LS
3.8
HS
4.4
HS
awareness
Mean
3.0

4.05

4.12

7. Service



a. Vision
3.0
MS
4.2
HS
4.6
HS
b. Wisdom
3.0
MS
3.8
HS
4.6
HS
c. Forgiveness
3.0
MS
3.8
HS
4.4
HS
d. Compassion
3.0
MS
3.8
HS
4.6
HS
e. Social justice
3.0
MS
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
f. Human rights
3.5
MS
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
g. Global perspective
3.5
MS
4.4
HS
4.0
HS
h. Future generations
3.5
MS
4.0
HS
4.6
HS
Mean
3.19

4.0

4.35

Fr = 3.07ns
X2.05 = 5.991
Ns- not significant

---

106
Moreover, the degree of sustainability is also lowest on conflict resolution within
the non-sectarian/exclusive category.

Along the elements of self-esteem, the degree of sustainability is highest
on quality within the non-sectarian/exclusive category. It is lowest on productivity
and efficiency elements within the sectarian/exclusive category (Table 18).

On the transformation component, the degree of sustainability is highest
on employee participation, learning, and knowledge sharing within the non-
sectarian/ non-exclusive category. However, it is lowest on the first
(accountability), second (employee part), sixth (personal development) and
seventh (knowledge sharing) elements within the sectarian/exclusive category.

The degree of sustainability is highest on trust and honesty within the non-
sectarian/non-exclusive and lowest on excellence element of internal cohesion
within the sectarian-exclusive.

On the making-difference component, two elements within the non-
sectarian/non-exclusive category yield the highest degree of sustainability, and
these are mentoring/coaching and environmental awareness. The second element,
mentoring/coaching within the non-sectarian/ exclusive also yields the highest
degree of sustainability. The last element, environmental awareness within the
sectarian/exclusive category yields the lowest degree of sustainability.

Along the elements of service, the degree of sustainability is highest on
wisdom, compassion and future generation within the non-sectarian/non-exclusive

---

107
category. It is lowest on the first five elements within the sectarian/exclusive
category namely, vision, wisdom, forgiveness, compassion and social justice.

When the above data were subjected to the Friedman test, the result shows
a no significant difference indicating a lower computed value as compared to the
tabulated value. The hypothesis that the degrees of sustainability of the
international schools as affected by the social dimensions as to the type of school
is rejected. The finding implies that the degree of sustainability of international
schools does not vary. It is presupposed therefore, that when the type of school is
considered, the degree of sustainability does not differ. For instance, whether a
school is sectarian/exclusive, non-sectarian/exclusive or non-sectarian/non-
exclusive, the degree of sustainable is not affected.
This finding is in congruence to the finding of Henderson and Tilbury
(2004) stating engaged school leadership that practices sustainability through
democratic decision-making is a key feature that characterizes a sustainable
school. The critical success components include program support professional
exchanges and networking opportunities. They suggest that a key first stage in
whole-school approaches to sustainability requires a focus on school governance,
especially the active engagement of school management, and decision-making
processes, particularly the inclusion of students of varying cultural background.
Level of education offered. The level of education offered as one of the
social
dimensions
is
categorized
into
elementary/secondary,
pre-

---

108
elementary/elementary/secondary and complete. Along the elements of survival,
the degree of sustainability is highest on safety within the complete category and
lowest on shareholder value within the pre-elementary/elementary/secondary
category (Table 19).

On the relationship component, the degree of sustainability is highest on
courtesy/respect within the pre-elementary/elementary/ secondary category. It is
lowest on conflict resolution within the complete category.
Along the elements of self-esteem, the degree of sustainability is highest
on efficiency within the pre-elementary/elementary/secondary category. It is
lowest however, on skills development within the complete category.

On the transformation component, the degree of sustainability is highest
on learning and innovation within the elementary/secondary category. It is lowest
on the other hand, on innovation within the complete category.

The degree of sustainability is highest on four elements of internal
cohesion within the elementary/secondary category and these are trust, integrity
values awareness and cooperation. Moreover, it is also highest on the third
element, honesty within the pre-elementary/ elementary/ secondary category. The
degree of sustainability is lowest on three elements within the complete category
and these are values awareness, excellence and fairness.

---

109
Table 19. Degree of sustainability according to level of education offered


LEVEL OF EDUCATION OFFERED
COMPONENT
Elem/Sec
Pre-/Elem/Sec
Complete

WM
DE
WM
DE
WM
DE







1. Survival



a. Profit
3.5
MS
2.67
MS
4.0
HS
b. Shareholder value
3.25
MS
2.5
LS
3.0
MS
c. Employee health
3.5
MS
3.5
MS
4.0
HS
d. Safety
3.75
HS
4.0
HS
5.0
VHS
Mean
3.5

3.17

4.0








2. Relationship



a. Open communication
4.5
HS
4.0
HS
3.0
MS
b. Conflict resolution
3.25
MS
3.67
HS
2.5
LS
c. Customer satisfaction
3.5
MS
4.17
HS
4.0
HS
d. Courtesy/respect
4.0
HS
4.67
HS
4.0
HS
Mean
3.81

4.13

3.38








3. Self-esteem



a. Productivity
3.75
HS
3.75
HS
4.0
HS
b. Efficiency
3.75
HS
4.33
HS
4.0
HS
c. Professional growth
4.0
HS
4.00
HS
3.5
MS
d. Skills development
3.5
MS
3.83
HS
3.0
MS
e. Quality
4.25
HS
4.0
HS
3.5
MS
Mean
3.85

3.98

3.6








4. Transformation



a. Accountability
3.75
HS
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
b. Employee
3.75
HS
4.0
HS
4.0
HS
participation
c. Learning
4.25
HS
4.17
HS
3.5
MS
d. Innovation
4.25
HS
3.83
HS
3.0
MS
e. Teamwork
3.5
MS
4.0
HS
3.5
MS
f. Personal development
3.5
MS
3.67
HS
3.5
MS
g. Knowledge sharing
3.25
MS
3.83
HS
3.5
MS
Mean
3.75

3.93

3.57

---

110
Table 19. Continued …


TYPE OF SCHOOL
COMPONENT
Elem/Sec
Pre-l/Elem/Sec
Complete

WM
DE
WM
DE
WM
DE
5. Internal Cohesion



a. Trust
4.5
HS
4.33
HS
4.0
HS
b. Integrity
4.5
HS
4.33
HS
4.0
HS
c. Honesty
4.25
HS
4.5
HS
4.0
HS
d. Values awareness
4.5
HS
4.17
HS
3.5
MS
e. Cooperation
4.5
HS
4.17
HS
4.0
HS
f. Excellence
4.25
HS
4.33
HS
3.5
MS
g. Fairness
3.75
HS
4.0
HS
3.5
MS
Mean
4.32

4.26

3.79

6. Making a Difference



a. Leadership
3.75
MS
4.0
HS
3.5
MS
development
b. Mentoring/coaching
3.5
MS
4.33
HS
3.5
MS
c. Employee fulfillment
3.5
MS
4.5
HS
3.0
MS
d. Costumer/supplier
3.5
MS
4.17
HS
3.5
MS
collaboration
e. Partnering
3.75
HS
4.17
HS
4.0
HS
f. Strategic alliances
3.5
MS
4.17
HS
4.0
HS
g. Community
3.25
MS
4.17
HS
4.0
HS
involvement
h. Environmental
3.5
MS
4.33
HS
4.0
HS
awareness
Mean
3.53

4.23

3.81

7. Service



a. Vision
3.5
MS
4.5
HS
4.0
HS
b. Wisdom
3.5
MS
4.5
HS
4.0
HS
c. Forgiveness
3.5
MS
4.5
HS
3.0
MS
d. Compassion
3.5
MS
4.5
HS
3.5
MS
e. Social justice
3.75
HS
4.17
HS
3.5
MS
f. Human rights
3.75
HS
4.17
HS
3.5
MS
g. Global perspective
3.75
HS
4.33
HS
4.0
HS
h. Future generations
3.75
HS
4.33
HS
4.0
HS
Mean
3.62

4.38

3.69

Fr = 3.714ns
X2.05 = 5.991
ns-not significant

---

111

On the making a difference complement, the third element which
employee fulfillment within the pre-elementary/elementary/secondary category
yield’s the highest degree of sustainability. On the other hand, the same element
within the complete category yields the lowest degree of sustainability.

Along the elements of service, the degree of sustainability is highest on
the first four within the pre-elementary/elementary/secondary category and these
are vision, wisdom, forgiveness, and compassion. The degree of sustainability is
lowest on the third element, forgiveness within the complete category.

When the above were subjected to the Friedman test, the result shows a no
significant difference indicating a lower computed value as compared to the
tabulated value. The hypothesis that the degree of sustainability of the
international schools as affected by the social dimensions as to the level of
education offered is rejected. The finding implies that the degree of sustainability
of the international schools does not vary. It is presupposed therefore, that when
the level of education offered is considered the degree of sustainability does not
differ. For instance, whether the school offers elementary education or complete
education, the degree of sustainability is not affected.
This finding is in agreement with the finding of Henderson and Tilbury
(2004) that points to transdisciplinary approaches to curriculum as a key feature
which characterizes a sustainable school. A critical success component of a

---

112
sustainable school is curriculum practices that are seen as part of care
commitments and professional priorities.

Summary

The salient findings of this study are as follows:
The profile of the international school respondents is as follows: six
international schools have level of annual budget below one million. The budget
of the other four school ranges from one to two million pesos. Only two among
the twelve international school-respondent have annual budget of three million
and above.
Most of the international schools depend on tuition fees for their annual
budget. Five schools have donations as their source of budget. Three other schools
make loans to ensure their economic sustainability. Two international schools
depend on admission fees. Only one school relies on investment.
Three international schools are situated near the Central Business District.
Six of the school-respondents are in the middle location that is, they are located
three to four kilometers away from the Central Business District. Three schools
are five and above kilometers away from the Central Business District.
Seven of the twelve international school-respondents have full concrete
and permanent structure. Nine of the schools have moderate natural landscape.
Only one has full natural landscape.

---

113
Two international schools are sectarian exclusive, four are non-sectarian
exclusive, five are non-sectarian non-exclusive and one sectarian non-exclusive.
Six international schools after pre-elementary education and ten of them
secondary education. One provides complete education. Three other schools
provide K1-G12 English Proficiency Program (TESDA Accredited) and English
as a Second Language (Vocational)aside from other levels of education offered.
The degrees of sustainability of the international school-respondent along
the categories of the full-spectrum sustainability are moderately sustainable along
survival but highly sustainable along relationship, self-esteem, transformation,
internal cohesion, making a difference, and services.
There are differences in the degrees of sustainability of the international
schools along the financial, dimensions on both level of budget and source of
budget. There are no differences however, along the environmental dimensions
namely location of school and physical condition of the school; and the social
dimension, type of school and level of education offered.

---

114
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions


Based on the findings, the following conclusions are drawn:

1. The international school-respondents have a level of annual budget of
below one million pesos. Their source of budget is mainly tuition fees and
situated three to four kilometer radius from the Central Business District hence
they are in the middle location. As for their physical condition, the international
schools have moderate natural landscape. These international schools are non-
sectarian non-exclusive thus they do not belong to any religious affiliation or
denomination and offer pre-elementary, elementary, secondary and complete
levels of education.
2. The degrees of sustainability of the international schools along survival
are moderately sustainable and highly sustainable along the categories of
relationship, self-esteem, transformation, internal cohesion, making a difference
and services.
3. There are significant differences in the degrees of sustainability of the
international school if the financial dimension is considered along level of budget
and source of funds. On the contrary, there are no significant differences of the
level of sustainability of the international schools if environmental and social

---

115
dimensions are considered particularly along location and physical conditions of
the schools and type and level of education offered.

Recommendations


In the light of the findings and the drawn conclusions, the following
recommendations are proposed:

1. International schools should allot larger annual budget to ensure their
sustainability. This can be done by sourcing out financial supporters like banks
and other lending institutions that have easy installments loan assistance
programs.

2. The international schools should continue to uphold the triple bottom
line and full spectrum sustainability to ensure long-term success. It is likewise
recommended along this line that to increase the return of investments of the
international schools, there is a need to review the guidelines for expenditures and
come up with more realistic scheme. The principle of frugality should be
observed in spending where only essential goods, and services should be
purchased and maximizing the values of the peso as well as time.

3. The Department of Education (DepEd) should educate superintendents,
supervisors, principals and teachers on the sustainability of international schools
to encourage investors, local and international, to establish international schools.

---

116

4. These institutional schools should prescribe International Baccalaureate
curriculum to have international schools in the Philippines equally competitive
with other schools abroad. This can be done by requesting the ISO to evaluate the
existing programs of the international schools.

5. It is suggested that the DepEd must exploit all means to have
partnership with international entities that assist in improving and promoting
sustainability of schools that can open up access to grants and programs from
government and non-government organizations.

6. The government must establish a Philippine Sustainable Schools
Program patterned on international program to in the establishments and
accreditation of international schools. In the same token, other educational
programs of international liking should be offered to increase the degree of
sustainability of the international schools.
7. Future researchers of sustainability should conduct comprehensive
studies using other indicators or determinants of successful long-term
organizational operations. The models of measurements such as the Stochastic
Frontier Analysis (SFA), Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and the International
Coordination Committee (ICC) measurements are highly recommended.

---

117
LITERATURE CITED

BARRET, R. 2007. The Seven Levels of Corporate Sustainability Barret Values
Centre.

BERNARD, et al. 2007. Indicators for Sustainability. The International Schools
Association, Switzerland.

BERSAMINA, C. R. 2000. Administrative Practices in the Public Secondary
Schools of the Cordillera Administrative Region. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.

BOSWELL, M. R. Establishing Indicators of sustainable development, Ann.
Conf. Assoc. Collegiate Planning Schools, Detroit, Mich.

BLANFORD, et al. 2001. Managing International Schools. London: Routledge
Falmer.

COBB, C. T. HALSTEAD, and J. ROWE. 1995. If the GDP is up, why down?,
Atlantic Monthly, 276, 4, Oct., 59-78.

CLOTHIER, et al. 2009. Seven Levels of National Consciousness. Barret Values
Centre LLC North Carolina, USA.

DAFT, R. L. 2005. Management, 7th ed. Australia: Thomson South-Western.

DALY, H. and COBB, J. 1989. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy
Toward Community, the Environment and Sustainable Future, Beacon
Press, Boston, Mass, 1989.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 2009. List of Accredited/Recognized and
with Government Permit of Private Elementary and Secondary Schools.
Dep-Ed, Cordillera Administrative Region, Division of Baguio City.

DOLENDO, R. B. 2008. The Practices of Management Roles at Benguet State
University. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Benguet State University,
La Trinidad, Benguet.

EBALITA, 2003. R. P. Consul to Jeddah Under Fire. Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia.

---

118
FINKEL, A. M. and GOLDING D. (eds) 1994. Worst Things First?: The Debate
over Risk-Based Environmental Priorities, Resources for the Future,
Wash., DC.

FRICKER, A. G. and B. SCULTHORP. 1997. Sustainability: A Crisis of
Perception, XV World Futures Studies Federation Conference, Brisbane.

FRICKER, A. 2001. Measuring up to Sustainability. New York University Press:
New York.

FULAI SHENG. 1995. In Tryzana (ref. 3), p. 18.

GEORGATOS, G. 2010. The First Seven Years of Schooling, Life, and
Sustainability. Murdock University, Perth, Australia.

HAENN N. and R. WILK 2001. Learning for Sustainability. New York:
University Press.

HART, M. 1995. Indicator of Sustainability, Sustainable Measures, West
Hartford, CT.

HART, M. 1995. Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators, Ipswich, Maine;
QLF/Atlantic Center for Environment.

HENDERSON, H. 1991. Paradigms in Progress: Life Beyond Economics, Chap.
6, The Indicators Crisis, Knowledge Systems Inc, Indianapolis.

HENDERSON, H. 1993. Social Innovation and Citizen Movements, Future,
1993, 25 (3), 322-338.

HENDERSON, K. AND D. TILBURY. 2004. Whole- School Sustainability
Programs. Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability
(ARIES), Australia.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION, 1994.
Total Quality Management. ISO: USA.

INTEL CORPORATION 2010. International General Grant Information. Intel
Education Program, Heredia, Costa Rica.

JOSS, S. and DURANT, J. (eds). 1995. Public Participation in Science: The Role
of Consensus Conferences in Europe, British Science Museum, London.

---

119
KERR, G. 2001. Building Sustainability into Your Development Plan. Human
Resources Development Canada, Ontario, Canada.

LIATAER, B. 1997. Beyond greed and scarcity. Yes! J Positive Futures, Spring,
37-39.

LIVERMAN, et a., 1988. Environmental Management. 12(2) 133-43.

LORENZANA, C. C. 2003. Management: Theory and Practice, Revised ed.
Philippines: REX Book Store.

MCFARLANE, J. 2009. Whose Business is Sustainability? Barett Values Centre,
Lancashire, UK.

MCMILLAN, T. 2009. Leadership for Global Sustainability. The White
Mountain School, Bethlehem, New Hampshire, USA.

MCLAIN, C. 2005. Goldman Sachs Foundation Prizes for Excellence in
International Education. The Center School District, USA.

NORTON, et al. 2008. Relationship Sustainability Community Analytics,
Baltimore.

NOVGOROD, N. 2010. International Grants. Russia: Intel Corporation and Intel
Foundation.

PASCUA, J. S. 2008. Integration and Implementation of Environmental
Education in the Public Elementary Curriculum in Baguio City.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet.

ROBELEN, E. W. 2009. The Accountability Report Charter Schools. Center for
Education Reform, Washington, D.C.

SACHS, W. 1996. What Kind of Sustianbility?, Resurgence, Nov/Dec, No. 180,
20-22.

SAVITZ, A. W. and K. WEBER. 2009. Triple Bottom Line. Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc. USA.

SCHERMERHORN, J. R. Jr. 2005. Management, 8th ed. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

---

120
SEREWITZ, D. 1996. Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology and the Politics
of Progress, Temple Univ. Press, Arizona, p. 194.

STARIK, et. al. 2008. International Baccalaureate World Schools. George
Washington University, USA.

SUSTAINABLE SCHOOLS INTERNATIONAL. 2008. Sustainability Colorado,
USA.

SUSTAINABLE SCHOOLS NSW. 2010. Grants and Funding. Australian
Science Teachers Association, Australia.

SUSTAINABLE,
SEATTLE,
INDICATORS
OF
SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITY, 1995. Metro Center YMCA, 909 Fourth Avenue, Seattle
WA 98104.

TANGYE, R. et al. 2009. The International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO).
Council of International School, Hampshire, UK.

THE CENTER FOR EDUCATION REFORM, 2009. Accountability Report on
Charter School Closures. CER: USA.

TRYZANA, T. (ed). 1995. A Sustainable World: Defining and Measuring
Sustainability, IUCN, 1995.

VIEDERMAN, S. 1995. Knowledge for Sustainable Development: What do we
need to know? In Tryzana (ref. 3) Pp. 37 and 40.

WACKERNAGEL, M. and REES W. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing
Human Impact on the Earth, Gabriola Island, BC, New Society Publishers.

WILBER, K. 1996. A Brief History of Everything, Shambhala, Boston and
London.

---

121
APPENDIX A


Letter to the Respondents

Benguet State University
GRADUATE SCHOOL
La Trinidad, Benguet

November 25, 2009
__________________
__________________
__________________

Sir/Madam:

I am Irene Pineda Villareal, a PhD-Educational Management student of Benguet
State University who is currently working on my dissertation titled Determinants
Affecting the Sustainability of the International Schools in Baguio City.

Your school is in the list of accredited, recognized and with government permit
issued by the Department of Education in Baguio City hence it is included in the
population of my study. Please provide me with all the necessary data needed in
my research. Rest assured that all your responses to the questionnaire will be
treated with strict confidentiality.

I am looking forward to your utmost consideration and assistance.

Thank you very much.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd) IRENE PINEDA VILLAREAL
Researcher

Noted:
(Sgd) DOMINADOR GARIN, PhD
Adviser

(Sgd) JOEL V. LUBRICA, PhD
Dean

---

122
APPENDIX B


Survey Questionnaire


PART I. SCHOOL BACKGROUND

1. Name of School_________________________________________________

2. Address of School_______________________________________________

3. Estimated Annual Budget (Pesos) _________________________________

4. Sources of Budget
___________a. Tuition Fees
___________b. Donations
___________c. Loans
___________d. Others, please specify

5. Location of School
___________a. Central Business District (CBD)
(1 - 2 kin radius)
___________b. Middle Location from CBD (3 - 4 kIn radius)
___________c. Far from CBD (5 and above kIn radius)
___________d. Others, please specify

6. Physical Condition
___________a. Full Concrete and Permanent Structure
___________b. With Moderate Natural Landscape
___________c. With Full Natural Landscape
___________d. others, please specify

7. Type of School
___________a. Sectarian/Exclusive
___________b. Sectarian/Non-Exclusive
___________c. Non-Sectarian/Exclusive
___________d. Non-Sectarian/Non-Exclusive
___________e. Others, please specify

---

123
8. Level of Education Offered
___________a. Pre-Elementary
___________b. Elementary
___________c. Secondary
___________d. Tertiary
___________e. Combination, please specify.
___________f. Complete (pre-Elementary to Tertiary)
___________g. Others, please specify



Part II. DEGREE OF SUSTAINABILITY

Using the scale below and putting a check mark on the appropriate
column, please rate honestly your school on its degrees of sustainability along the
seven determinants and their specific areas of concern, To protect the privacy of
your responses, you are absolutely assured that the data you will furnish will be
kept strictly confidential,

For you to fully give viable data, consider analyzing the operational usage
of the scales before rating your school. If there is/ are item(s) you would like to
suggest, please feel free to indicate them on the spaces provided for and also rate
your school along such. Kindly fill-in all what are asked for.

Very High Sustainability (VHS-5) - when qeterli1inant and area of
concern IS attained by the school by as much as 91 % - 100%

High Sustainability (HS4) - When detem1h1ant and area of concern is
attained by the school by as much as 81 % - 90%

Moderate Sustainability (MS- 3) - when determinant an .the area of
concern is attained by the school by as much as 71 % - 80%

Low Sustainability (LS-2) – When determinant and the area of concern is
attained by the school by as much as below 70%

Very Low Sustainability (VLS-I) – when the determinant and area of
concern is not attained at all by the school

---

124


DEGREE OF SUSTAINABILITY
DETERMINANT
Very
High
Moderate
Low
Very
High
Low
1. Survival





1.1. Profit
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





1.2. Shareholder Value






1.3. Employee Health






1.4. Safety






1.5. Others, please
specify_________






__________________
_____
_____
________
______
_____






2. Relationship
2.1. Open Communication






2.2. Conflict Resolution






2.3. Customer Satisfaction






2.4. Courtesy/Respect






3. Self-Esteem
3.1. Productivity






3.2. Efficiency






3.3. Professional Growth






3.4. Skills Development






3.5. Quality






3.6. Others, please
specify_________






__________________
_____
_____
________
______
_____

---

125






4. Transformation
4.1. Accountability
4.2. Employee





participation






4.3. Learning






4.4. Innovation






4.5. Teamwork






4.6. Personal Development






4.7. Knowledge Sharing






4.8. Others, please
specify_________






__________________
_____
_____
________
______
_____






__________________
_____
_____
________
______
_____






5. Internal Cohesion
5.1. Trust






5.2. Integrity






5.3. Honesty






5.4. Values Awareness






5.5. Cooperation






5.6. Excellence






5.7. Fairness






5.8. Others, please
specify_________






__________________
_____
_____
________
______
_____

---

126






6. Making Difference
6.1. Leadership
Development






6.2. Mentoring/
Coaching






6.3. Employee
Fulfillment






6.4. Customer/
Supplier
Collaboration






6.5. Partnering






6.6. Strategic
Alliances






6.7. Community
Involvement







6.8. Environmental
Awareness






6.9. Others, please
specify_________






__________________
_____
_____
________
______
_____






__________________
_____
_____
________
______
_____






7. Service
7.1. Vision






7.2. Wisdom






7.3. Forgiveness






7.4. Compassion

---

127






7.5. Social Justice






7.6. Human Rights






7.7. Global Perspective






7.8. Future
Generations






7.9. Others, please
specify_________






__________________
_____
_____
________
______
_____






__________________
_____
_____
________
______
_____

---

128
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH



The author is the second child of Mr. Daniel
Capuno Pineda and Mrs. Arsenia Espiritu Pineda who
both hailed from Concepcion, Tarlac. She was named
Irene which means peace on July 20, 1963. She has lived
by her name being a peacemaker to people in conflict
here and abroad.

She has been blessed by the Almighty Father giving her loving, caring and
responsible parents who sent her to private institutions. She finished her
elementary and secondary education at Holy Spirit Academy in Concepcion,
Tarlac. She spent three semesters taking Bachelor of Science in Education major
in English at the College of Holy Spirit in Tarlac, Tarlac. Her love for numbers
led her to pursue and finish Bachelor of Science in Education major in
Mathematics at the University of the Assumption, San Fernando, Pampanga in
March 1985. She obtained her Master of Science in Development Communication
from the Central Luzon State University, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija in November 2001.
She spent a year at St. Louis University, Baguio City taking Doctor of
Philosophy, major in Educational Management and minor in Special Education.

The former Dean of BSU Graduate School, Dr. Dominador S. Garin was
her professor then at SLU who advised her to transfer to Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet because there were a lot of subjects offered

---

129
every semester. Charmed by the down-to-earth attitudes of BSU professors, she
transferred in the second semester of SY 2002-2003.

On October 15, 2004 she was called by God to be baptized by immersion
in Al-Khabar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. She had been a Christian sister and
mother to Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians Bengalis, Pakistanis, Africans
and Americans.

From August to November 2005 she had been taught virtues in life when
she went to Macau, Hongkong and China.

On June 7, 2006 her faith was tested in Riyadh, KSA. She had challenging
moments with Princess Mishael and family, Sudanis, Moroccans, Tunisians, and
Co-Filipinos.

Life for the author is not what she makes it but what the Lord permits for
her to experience.

She has had great valuable experiences to wit:

Somascan Fathers Seminary, Lubao, Pampanga

* College Instructor

San Sebastian School, Muñoz Nueva Ecija

* High School Teacher

Department of Agrarian Reform Region III San Fernando, Pampanga

* Statistician, Staff Writer

Benigno S. Aquino National High School, Concepcion Tarlac
* Secondary School Teacher
Central Luzon State University- NEPG, Talavera, Nueva Ecija

*English Instructor

---

130
Muñoz National High School, Science City of Muñoz Nueva Ecija

*Secondary School Teacher III
Ideal International School, Al-khobar, KSA
*Mathematics High School Teacher
FARSH- Princess Mishael Al-Saud, Riyadh, KSA

*Private Teacher
CNN- International Language School, Diliman Quezon City

*English Teacher
Montessori Professional College, Guadalupe, Makati City

*English Instructor
Our Lady of Fatima University, Greater Lagro, Quezon City

*Professor (current position)


God has transformed the author into a person full of strength, courage and
determination to do good things for his glory. May she be both a light and salt to
others by the mighty name of Jesus Christ, so shall it be.


“I your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash
one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done
for you” John 13:14-15.

---

Document Outline

• DETERMINANTS AFFECTING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THEINTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS IN BAGUIO CITY
  • ABSTRACT
  • INTRODUCTION
  • METHODOLOGY
  • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  • CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • LITERATURE CITED
  • APPENDICES

---