ABSTRACT
This research determined the experiences, challenges, and initiatives the school-based management (SBM) team undertook in preparing for the SBM evaluation. Specifically, it sought answers to the following problems: (1) What are the experiences of the School-Based Management team in preparing for SBM evaluation?; (2) What are the challenges encountered by the School-Based Management Team in terms of a) Document Preparation; (b) Resource Management and (c) Coordination? ; (3) What are the initiatives undertaken by the school to address the challenges encountered by the School-Based Management team? and (4) What measures may be proposed to enhance the process of preparing for SBM evaluation?
This study utilized qualitative research to describe and identify the experiences, challenges encountered, and initiatives undertaken by the SBM team. An unstructured interview guide was used to obtain the necessary data from the 25 pre-determined respondents. The responses were recorded and transcribed. Frequency count was used in organizing the responses by nominal count. Results were analyzed and the commonalities of the responses were identified to determine the recurring themes.
These findings were generated based on the analysis of the gathered data. The SBM team encountered positive and negative experiences in preparing for SBM evaluation. The positive experiences include fostering the culture of collaboration and cooperation; strengthening the partnership between the school and its stakeholders; improving positive work ethics and leadership skills; and enhancing knowledge and skills on SBM practice. The negative experiences include extending work hours; worsening of medical conditions; misunderstanding and clash of ideas; and reconstructing documents. The challenges in document preparation include the lack of records and documents on file; computer-related issues; time-consuming reproduction of documents; and unsystematic filing of documents. Along resource management, the challenges include insufficient human resources to perform the task; financial constraints; and inadequate material resources. The challenges encountered along with coordination include lack of communication and cooperation; poor connectivity; and lack of time. The initiatives undertaken by the school to address the challenges encountered by the SBM team include undergoing mock validation; seeking technical assistance; involving external stakeholders of education; delegating tasks; augmenting resources; systematic filing of documents; team management; and regular updating, monitoring, and feedbacking. The proposed measures consist of 18 recommended actions addressing the challenges encountered along document preparation, resource management, and coordination.
The following conclusions were formulated based on the findings of the study. The SBM team encountered positive and negative experiences in preparing for SBM evaluation. The positive experiences provided ease and worthwhile SBM encounters while the negative experiences posed difficulties and challenges obstructing their SBM preparation. The challenges encountered by the SBM team along document preparation, resource management, and coordination provided them several difficulties hindering their SBM preparation. The initiatives undertaken by the SBM team address the challenges they have experienced. These initiatives are designed to ease the school-based management process. The proposed recommended measures will enhance the process of preparing for SBM evaluation. They offer feasible solutions to address the challenges encountered along document preparation, resource management, and coordination.
In view of the findings of this research, the following recommendations are proposed. School administrators should use the positive experiences of the SBM team in promoting the positive culture of SBM and consider the negative experiences in crafting well-established procedures and mechanisms for SBM. Policymakers should consider the challenges encountered by the SBM team along document preparation, resource management, and coordination in crafting appropriate SBM preparation guidelines to further improve the implementation of SBM. School administrators should formulate well-established rules to provide an efficient process for SBM document preparation. DepEd should allocate sufficient human, financial and material resources to further enhance the SBM process. School heads and SBM Coordinators should strengthen their leadership skills in addressing issues along coordination. The initiatives undertaken by the SBM team may be adopted by other schools in Albay Division and other school divisions in Bicol Region. The proposed policy recommendations for enhancing the process of preparing for SBM evaluation may be adopted by the Schools Division Office of Albay as basis for SBM improvement. Finally, future researchers may conduct similar studies on the challenges, experiences, and initiatives undertaken by the SBM team to formulate well-established policies and mechanisms.
Keywords: School-Based Management, Experiences, Challenges, Initiatives, Document Preparation, Resource Management, Coordination, Proposed Measures
INTRODUCTION
The importance of education in national development can never be underestimated. Education is “a key investment that can break the Filipino’s seemingly endless cycle of poverty and provides the people, particularly the youth, with more opportunities”. Improving the quality of basic education redounds to the development of society in general. Today, education becomes more relevant as living amidst a knowledge-based society demands human capital in the form of knowledge workers who can steer the local as well as the global economy. Since education systems in many societies are not poised to meet the challenges of the times that include the demands of a globalized world, reforming and transforming the educational system has been at the core agenda of national governments worldwide (Abulencia, 2012). Thus, various reforms have been implemented to further improve the educational process.
Decentralization has been a consistent theme in education reform discourse in recent decades. Advocates believe that it leads to greater autonomy and flexibility, organizational effectiveness and productivity, responsiveness to local needs, and less bureaucratic decision-making that brings about greater transparency and accountability (Bucud, 2017). Hence, decentralization is important since people who are directly involved can then make their own decisions about many aspects of policy and practice.
Republic Act No. 9155 or the Governance of Basic Education of 2001 highlights decentralization in education governance. This act states the implementation of shared governance in the administration of public schools. This educational legislation empowers school heads to set the mission, vision, goals and objectives of the school, create an environment within the school that is conducive to teaching and learning, implement the school curriculum and be accountable for higher learning outcomes, develop the school education program and school improvement plan, offer educational programs, projects and services which provide equitable opportunities for all learners in the community, introduce new and innovative modes of instruction to achieve higher learning outcomes, administer and manage all personnel, physical and fiscal resources of the school, recommend the staffing complement of the school based on its needs, encourage staff development, establish school and community networks and encourage the active participation of teachers organizations, non-academic personnel of public schools, and parents-teachers-community associations, accept donations, gifts, bequests and grants for the purpose of upgrading teachers’/learning facilitators’ competencies, improve and expand school facilities and provide instructional materials and equipment. The Department of Education (DepEd) emphasized that this act provides an overall framework for school heads by strengthening their leadership roles within the context of transparency and local autonomy.
The implementation of the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001 (RA 9155) provided the mandate for decentralizing the system of school management and recognized the role of the Local Government Units and other stakeholders as partners in education service delivery. Consequently, in 2005, the Department launched the School First Initiative (SFI) to empower the school and its community stakeholders to effectively address access and quality issues in the basic education system. In 2006, a more comprehensive package of policy reforms dubbed as Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) was launched to sustain and expand the gains of SFI through School-Based-Management (SBM). Along with teacher education development, national learning strategies, quality assurance, monitoring and evaluation, and organizational development, SBM was identified as one of the Key Reform Thrusts (KRTs) envisioned to effect improvements at the school level (DepEd Order No. 83, s. 2012).
DepEd’s continuous quest to improve basic education delivery and accelerate the achievement of Education for All (EFA) goals led to the launching of a comprehensive reform package through the Basic Education Reform Agenda (BESRA). With this, various policies were put in place relative to curriculum reforms, teacher development, information systems, accountability systems, quality assurance, and organizational development to support the institutionalization of school-based management (SBM). Further, SBM was deemed as a key strategy to translate all these policies into relevant interventions which will enable the schools to cater to their learners’ needs (DepEd Order No.20, s. 2013).
School-based management (SBM) is a DepEd thrust that decentralizes the decision-making authority from the Central Office and field offices to individual schools to enable them to better respond to their specific educational needs. SBM provides principals, teachers, students, and parents greater control over the education process by giving them responsibility for decisions about the budget, personnel, and curriculum. Through the involvement of teachers, parents, and other community members in these key decisions, SBM can create more effective learning environments for children (Llego, 2016).
School-based management is equated to school performance. School performance is based on the six dimensions of school-based management which are school leadership, internal stakeholders’ participation, external stakeholders’ participation, school-based resources, and school performance accountability. This management system underscores the empowerment of key stakeholders in school communities to enable them to actively participate in the continuous improvement of schools toward the attainment of higher student learning outcomes.
With the advent of school-based management, schools are given more autonomy in decision-making on the management of human, materials, and financial management. It is school-based governance, school site management and school self-management with shared vision and mission, shared responsibility and accountability with the stakeholders. In line with this, there is a need to monitor and examine the implementation of school-based management in every school to ensure positive school management practices which contribute greatly to the attainment of the desired organizational outcomes.
De La Fuente (2023) emphasized that through school-based management, schools are empowered to manage and appropriately respond to learning needs and issues in their respective communities. SBM addresses improvements in learning outcomes through effective schools. Valdez (2022) highlighted that SBM can result in an improved educational system that will directly benefit learners since it enhances school systems and improves teaching and learning to foster greater student achievement. Additionally, SBM enhances students’ participation as they participate in decision-making processes fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility toward their education. As it features decentralization, learners may benefit from the customized curriculum and teaching methods suited to their learning styles, interests, and abilities. Furthermore, learners can benefit from the efficient allocation of resources that directly addresses their needs.
The Department of Education issued DepEd Order No. 83, series 2012 or the Implementing Guidelines on the Revised School-Based Management Framework, Assessment Process and Tool (APAT). This DepEd Order introduced the revised SBM framework, assessment process, and tool for assessing the school’s SBM practice. In view of the SBM review and revision, A Child and Community-Centered Education System (ACCESSs) served to clarify the guiding principles derived from the concepts of “rights-based” education and community as “stewards or rights-bearer” in education. ACCESSs espoused four principles of the school system that guide the SBM process. These include the principle of collective leadership and governance, the principle of community-based learning, the principle of accountability and performance of result, and the principle of convergence to harness resources for education. Each ACCESSs principle has its corresponding indicators measured on a scale of 1-3 in terms of child and community-centeredness forming a rubric. The SBM practice is ascertained by the existence of structured mechanisms, processes, and practices in all indicators. The unit of analysis in the school system, the resulting level may be classified as Level 1-Developing, Level 2- Maturing, or Level 3-Advanced (Accredited Level). A team of practitioners or experts from the district, division, region, and central office validates the self-assessment before a level of SBM practice is established.
In scoring, the four principles were assigned percentage weights on the basis of their relative importance where Leadership and Governance weigh 30%, Curriculum and Learning 30%, Accountability and Continuous Improvement 25%, and Management of Resources 15%. Each principle has several indicators. There are points earned by the school for specific indicators where 0 means no evidence, 1- evidence indicates early or preliminary stages of implementation, 2- evidence indicates planned practices and procedures are fully implemented, and 3- evidence indicates practices and procedures satisfy quality standards. To come up with the level of practice, the validated practices represent 40% and the remaining 60% will be based on the improvement of learning outcomes. The resulting SBM Level of Practice would be Level 1: Developing with a rating of 0.5-1.4, Level II: Maturing with a rating of 1.5-2.4, and Level III: Advanced with a rating of 2.5-3.5.
The assessment tool is based on the “Framework and Standards for Effective_School-Based Management Practice towards Improved Learning Outcomes” carried out by the DepEd. Specifically, the tool is evidence-based and provides a baseline for those who are just starting a culture of SBM or for those schools progressing toward the next level of SBM practice. Awareness of the status of the school serves as a sound basis for the establishment of a plan of action to address certain gaps or challenges.
As stated in DepEd Order No. 83 series of 2012, the resulting SBM levels are described accordingly. For Level I (Developing), the school develops structures and mechanisms with acceptable levels and extent of community participation and impact on learning outcomes. For Level II (Advanced), the school introduces and sustains a continuous improvement process that integrates wider community participation and significantly improves performance and learning outcomes. Meanwhile, the high level of SBM, Level III (Advanced or Accredited Level), school ensures the production of intended outputs or outcomes meeting all standards of a system fully integrated into the local community and is self-renewing and self-sustaining.
Guided by the Regional Memorandum No. 101, s. 2021, DepEd Region V (Bicol) issued guidelines on the assessment and validation of the SBM level of practice. This directed every Schools Division Office to proceed with the activities related to the implementation of SBM assessment. In line with it, DepEd Albay released an unnumbered memorandum announcing the conduct of validation of the SBM level of practice to the different schools in the division. The municipality of Manito, consisting of three (3) secondary schools and sixteen (16) elementary schools, successfully underwent the SBM assessment process during the School Year 2021-2022. This is the first time the entire schools in the district have undertaken this validation.
Based on the results of the assessment, only one elementary school in the municipality obtained the Accredited Level of SBM practice. The remaining schools garnered a numerical rating of 1.50 – 2.49 making them achieve the Level II (Maturing) SBM practice. Therefore, there is a need to record their experiences as a basis for improvement for the next SBM evaluation. It is in this manner, that the researcher identified the school-based management experiences, challenges, and initiatives undertaken by the elementary schools in the municipality of Manito.
This research will be highly beneficial to the field of education as the experiences including the challenges and initiatives undertaken during the school-based management process and validation will serve as the basis for the enhancement of SBM practice. As a result, improved school performance and student achievement will be attained.
see PDF attachment for more information