Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study examined artificial intelligence (AI) awareness, policy readiness, and ethical leadership practices among public school administrators in the Department of Education Schools Division of Tacurong City, Philippines, and explored their interrelationships and implementation experiences. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design combined a descriptive-correlational survey of 115 administrators selected through complete enumeration with in-depth interviews involving 10 purposively selected participants and a focus group discussion involving four of the interviewees. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlation, while qualitative accounts underwent thematic analysis. Respondents reported very high AI awareness (M = 4.368) and ethical leadership practices (M = 4.283), and high policy readiness (M = 4.127). All three relationships were positive and statistically significant: AI awareness with policy readiness (r = .772), AI awareness with ethical leadership (r = .804), and policy readiness with ethical leadership (r = .769), all p < .001. Participants highlighted the importance of human judgment and verification alongside gaps in practical AI evaluation, stakeholder consultation, monitoring, infrastructure, and policy implementation. The findings indicate that responsible AI integration requires aligned technological competence, institutional preparedness, and ethical governance. The study recommends targeted AI literacy training, school-level guidelines, quality assurance, and participatory monitoring. Its single-division, self-report, cross-sectional design limits generalizability and causal inference. By informing human-centered leadership and accountable policy implementation, the study supports educational and institutional sustainability aligned with SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Monloy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: