Review of Educational Administration, Leadership, and Management

Editor’s Note

It is with great pride and a deep sense of scholarly purpose that we present the inaugural issue of the Review of Educational Administration, Leadership, and Management. As an open-access, peer-reviewed journal of Jose Maria College Foundation, this publication is founded on the conviction that rigorous inquiry into educational governance is essential for the sustained improvement of learning institutions. Our mission is to serve as a platform where researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers can engage with the theoretical, empirical, and practical dimensions of leading and managing education—in the Philippines, across Asia, and around the world.

The foreword to this maiden issue anchors our collective reflection in the theme of accountability in educational governance. Accountability is not a monolithic concept; it operates across multiple registers. It is the professional responsibility of the individual teacher, the institutional obligation to students and communities, the systemic duty of governments to ensure equitable access, and the ethical imperative to deploy powerful new technologies in ways that serve human flourishing. Each article in this volume illuminates a distinct facet of accountability, and together they offer a rich, multi-layered understanding of what it means to govern education responsibly.

The study by Fragio and Kintanar examines teacher autonomy through the lens of motivational factors, self-directed learning, and technological competence. Rather than positioning autonomy as freedom from oversight, their work reveals it as the internalization of accountability—teachers who are motivated, self-regulating, and technologically fluent are better equipped to exercise professional discretion in ways that enhance student learning. This reframes accountability as a practice rooted in professional empowerment, not bureaucratic constraint.

Ramos and Murcia, in their conjoint analysis of student preferences for business administration programs, foreground institutional accountability to the learners themselves. Their findings remind us that higher education institutions are answerable to a discerning public; school reputation, faculty expertise, and the practical applicability of curricula are not merely marketing assets but indicators of genuine educational quality. Accountability here is relational, measured by the alignment between what institutions promise and what they deliver.

The systematic review by Roy engages with one of the most urgent governance challenges of our time: the integration of artificial intelligence and learning analytics in higher education. While AI-driven tools promise greater personalization and efficiency, Roy’s analysis makes clear that their benefits are unevenly distributed. Institutional accountability demands that we confront the digital divide, algorithmic bias, and gaps in educator readiness. Technology cannot be a substitute for equity; it must be governed by transparent ethical frameworks if it is to fulfill its pedagogical promise.

Gonzales and his colleagues offer a path analysis linking quality management to student loyalty within a PACUCOA-accredited Philippine college. Accreditation is a formal mechanism of external accountability, but their study moves beyond compliance to explore how perceptions of curriculum quality, social environment, and administrative systems shape student trust, satisfaction, and commitment. The chain from quality to loyalty underscores a fundamental truth: sustainable institutional success is built on consistent, demonstrable accountability to those we serve.

Finally, Goswami and Biswas provide a comparative analysis of AI adoption across six countries, with particular attention to India’s policy trajectory. Their work highlights the accountability of governments and education systems to invest in infrastructure, teacher training, and regulatory safeguards that ensure the benefits of AI-enhanced education are accessible to all, not only to the technologically privileged. The comparative lens reinforces that while tools and contexts differ, the imperative of equity-centered governance is universal.

As this inaugural issue demonstrates, accountability in educational governance is both a lens and a practice. It asks us to examine who benefits from our policies, who bears the costs, and how we might build systems that are not only efficient but just. We hope the articles gathered here will inspire further research, critical dialogue, and courageous leadership in the pursuit of education that is worthy of the trust placed in it.

On behalf of the editorial board, I extend our gratitude to the authors who entrusted their work to this new journal, to our reviewers who gave generously of their expertise, and to the leadership of Jose Maria College Foundation for their unwavering support. We invite the scholarly community to join us in this ongoing conversation—by reading, citing, and contributing to future issues.

The Editor-in-Chief
Review of Educational Administration, Leadership, and Management
December 2025