School Property Monitoring and Accountability Practices in Public Schools: Basis for a Proposed Property Management Framework
Jessa M. Boado *
Graduate School, Polytechnic College of La Union, Agoo, La Union, Philippines.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Background: Effective management of school property is essential for safeguarding public resources and supporting transparent, efficient, and accountable school operations. However, inconsistencies in property monitoring, documentation, maintenance, and accountability practices may hinder the effective management of school assets.
Aims: This study examined school property monitoring and accountability practices in public elementary and secondary schools in the Tubao District, Division of La Union, Philippines, and used the findings as the basis for a proposed property management framework.
Study Design: This study employed a quantitative descriptive-predictive research design.
Place and Duration of Study: The study was conducted across 21 public elementary and secondary schools in the Tubao District, Division of La Union, Philippines, during the 2025–2026 school year.
Methodology: A total of 38 respondents (21 school heads and 17 administrative officers) participated through total enumeration. Data were collected using a validated researcher-developed survey questionnaire with a reliability coefficient of 0.94. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics (weighted mean and standard deviation) and inferential statistics (multiple regression analysis) at α = 0.05.
Results: Property monitoring practices were generally Implemented (overall M = 2.70), with Property Disposal and Turnover rated Partially Implemented (M = 2.43), the lowest among six dimensions. Accountability practices were High overall (M = 2.71), with Responsiveness to Property Issues rated lowest (M = 2.56). Multiple regression analysis showed that monitoring practices explained 55.5% of the variance in accountability (R² = .555, p < .001), with Property Recording and Tagging (β = .312, p < .001), Inventory Management (β = .285, p = .001), and Property Acquisition (β = .225, p = .005) emerging as significant predictors. The most pressing challenges were insufficient budget for maintenance (78.9%) and competing administrative demands (71.1%). A perception gap was observed, with school heads rating practices higher than administrative officers.
Conclusion: Accurate records and regular physical verification are the most critical drivers of accountability, though systemic constraints significantly impede effective implementation. A four-component property management framework is proposed to address identified gaps in recording systems, capacity building, maintenance and disposal practices, and stakeholder engagement.
Keywords: School property monitoring, accountability practices, property management, public schools, inventory management, property recording and tagging, asset accountability, maintenance and disposal, school governance