SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION IN

SELECTED HIGH SCHOOLS

Joana Paula B. Biñas

BANATE NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

BANATE, ILOILO

Email: joanapaula_baclay@yahoo.com

+639304592278
 Abstract

The implementation of School- Based Management became the beginning of therapid

changes in the department. Through the SBM, decision- makinghas been decentralized and thus,

creating problems to its administrators. TheDepartment of Education therefore came up with a

strategy to help schools maximizetheir resources for development.The School Improvement Plan

was considered as the answer to the continuingcomplexities in school management. Every school

under the Department of Education isrequired to have a School Improvement Plan and work for

its implementation.

This qualitative study explored the way the selected schools prepare their School

Improvement Plan, and how they implement it.

The research literature showed different views of educational institutions on planning for

their schools’ improvement. Five schools werestudied in comparison to the DepEd defined steps

on formulation and implementationofthe School Improvement Plan. Sources of data included

survey-questionnaires,interviews and study of school records.Results showed that the schools

studied prepare its SchoolImprovement Plan in different ways. The preparation

andimplementation of the plan isnot an easy process as there are many issues and problems

which troubles theSPT.Schools prepare their SIP in ashort period of time. The implementation of

the SIP is different from one school toanother due to the different factors in the schools.

Stakeholders are active when they are informed of the school’s plans. In coherence withthe

reviewed literature, it is concluded that school leadership matters the most in the planning and

implementing process.

Keywords:

Improvement Plan, Plan Implementation, School Planning

2
Table of Contents

I. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................3

II. Methodology.......................................................................................................................................8

III. Results.................................................................................................................................................10

IV.Discussion............................................................................................................................................18

V. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................21

3
 I. Introduction

Education is the greatest social equalizer as well as the immediate answer to themany

social problems of the country (Flores, 2012). Though this millennium broughtchallenges and

pressures to educational institutions, schools need to produce graduateswho will strive to rise in

the borderless economy of our country.

To be at pace with the current trends, the Department of Education came up with School-

Based Management (SBM). Self-management of educational institutionamong public schools in

the Philippines is implemented. School-based management has become a necessity and not an

option in the Philippine Educational System. The decentralized decision-making in its

administration has created enormous challenges toschool heads. It also pushes the school

administrators to find strategies to meet theirrespective objectives.

In order for schools to be on track with the pace of global development, everyschool

under the Department of Education is required to have a School ImprovementPlan and work for

its implementation (Handbook on the Preparation of the SchoolImprovement Plan, 2005).

The School Improvement Plan (SIP) outlines how the school can be improvedand the

strategies it needs to do to accomplish its objectives. It is the main vehicle through which school

will proceed down the path to improvement. This plan differentiates the mission from vision and

defines the organization’s objectives. It is a comprehensive presentation which lays out the plans

and targets of the school for thenext years. It describes priority programs and projects of the

school under the different streams and areas of concern such as provision of access which

includes personnel, physical and ancillary services, learning materials and equipment; quality

and relevant basic education which includes student performance, curriculum implementation,

instructional delivery and staff development; school management, administration, parents

4
participation, instructional supervision, resource mobilization/public expenditure and

performance indicators. SIP preparation is a joint activity undertaken by the school

administrator, the school personnel and other stakeholders as represented by its School

Planning Team.

However, due to the complexities in the preparation of the SIP and the numerous

requirements from the Department of Education, schools tend to complete their plan in a short

period of time (Philippine Human Development Report, 2008-2009).

The paper work in the school improvement planning is one very important aspect of

schools’ annual evaluation thus its copy is highly valued. However, most importantly tobe

considered is the putting up of the plan which must include people around theschool.

Stakeholder’s concerns and opinions are devalued for they are neglected in the planning process

and even in its implementation.

Epistemological and Theoretical Framework

The epistemology of constructionism backs up this study (Crotty, 2003). In data

gathering and its interpretation, the theoretical perspective of interpretivism as according to

Crotty(2003) was utilized. In order to fully understand how schools develops and implements

their respective School Improvement Plan, this study is anchored to several specific theories such

as the Modern Management Theory, the System Approach of Katz, Khan and Johnson (Shukla,

2012), and the Open System Theory of Hanson, Yuki, Katz andKhan.

5
 Table 1

Overview of the Epistemological and Theoretical Framework of the Study

Epistemology Theoretical Perspective Specific Theories

Constructionism (Crotty, Interpretivism (Crotty, Open System Theory

2003; Faux, 2008; 2003; Lyon, 2003; Strauss Hanson, (Katz and Khan,

Papert, 1980) & Corbin, 1990) 1978)

Modern Management

Theory, the System

Approach (Shukla, 2012)

Strategic Planning

Constructionism.Crotty (2003) and Faux (2008) points out that the meaningsof objects

perceived are constructed on the basis of human consciousness. It focuses onthe art of learning or

‘learning to learn’. Therefore, knowledge is acquired through engagement with the objects being

dealt with or with the world itself (Faux, 2008).

When interactions happen in schools, knowledge is formed and meanings emerge. Inthis

study, the researcher studied how the school prepared and implemented its school improvement

plan. In this study, recorded interviews, observations and photos served asbases inunderstanding

how schools prepares their school improvement plan and howthey implemented them.

Interpretivism. This theoretical perspective gains insights by discoveringmeanings and

improving the comprehension of the whole (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Italso explores the

richness, depth, and complexity of phenomena. According to thisperspective, knowledge of the

world is based on ‘understanding’, which arises fromreflecting on what happens, not just from

having had particular experiences (Kant,2001).

6
 The open system theory of Hanson, Yuki, Katz and Khan (1978) also guided this

study as it emphasized that the leader is concerned with compromise and the effectiveuse of

human and financial resources. In this theory, the leader is regarded as acomprehensive planner,

who concentrates on forming networks inside and outside ofthe school, attempting to anticipate

as much as possible, and striving to be proactiverather than negative. Stakeholders’ participation

are also given high priority.

Communication is open and continuous; community resources are utilized; decision-

making is collaborative, and changes feedback are welcomed.

A school is a system. Participants of the school are constantly involved in theprocess of

forming and re-forming people. All sectors of the educational system mustwork together to

achieve their common goal. Effort of coordination and collaborationwith every aspect affecting

the school may be harnessed.

To realize this end, strategic planning, a disciplined effort which set priorities,defines

focus on energy and resources, strengthen operations and establish agreementsis needed. Most of

the processes involved in educational planning to optimize resourcesand meet its goals are

supported by the processes in strategic planning. In planning,the system approach views the

school as a complete organism which will have tosurvive, stabilize and grow or die. It also

makes use of inputs through processes toensure outputs. School Improvement Planning process

involves several steps asmandated by the Department of Education. It has to be consistent with

the law, nationaleducational policies, and plans through its regional memorandum. As a

component of asystem, the school planning team must work together and follow the concrete

steps inthe preparation of the School Improvement Plan.

7
 School-Based Management in the Philippines pointed out that schools are taskedto

prepare a School Improvement Plan in partnership with parents and the communityusing data

such as student achievement and students’ learning needs assessments, withtheschool principal

or head teacher leading the process.

DepEd published a manual to assist the School Planning Team by providingrelevant and

appropriate input and suggestions covering both the process of SIPformulation(Handbook on the

Preparation of the School Improvement Plan, 2005).

How the School Improvement Plan is made and the manner it is implementedwill be

explored in this study.

Statement of the Problem

The aim of this study is to determine how the school improvement plan ofthe selected

schools are made and implemented.In order to approach the overall aim, four objectives were

formulated.

1. To determine the processes involved in the preparation and implementationof the

school improvement plan.

2. To identify the issues encountered in the preparation and implementation ofthe school

improvement plan.

3. To determine how the stakeholders are empowered in the preparation

andimplementation of the school improvement plan.

4. To come up with measures to empower the school planning team andstakeholders

participation in the preparation and implementation of the schoolimprovement plan.

8
 II. Methodology

This is a qualitative study on the school improvement planning of selected highschools in

Iloilo. It described how these selected schools formulated their plans andimplemented them. It

also tried to take up issues affecting its preparation andimplementation and explained factors

related to the problem that may exist. Theresearch design selected was appropriate in theconduct

9
of the study as it discussedhow schools made an improvement plan and how did they

implemented it.

To validate data collected, the researcher made use of triangulation. This wasdone to

check and establish the validity of the research question from multiple perspectives. Data

triangulation involves using different sources in order to increase thevalidity of a study (Guion,

Diehl, & McDonald, 2012). The questionnaire and interviewguide added depth to the results,

increased the validity and provided a clearer view ofthe phenomenon.NarrativeAnalysis was also

used in answering the research questions. Review ofthe schools’ School Improvement Plan was

done. This helped the researcher understandsocial reality in a subjective but scientific

manner(Patton, 2002).

Procedure of the Study

In Phase I, the researcher: (1) identified qualified respondents for the study, (2)secured

approval from the DepEd Division Superintendent and school principals toconduct the research,

(3) negotiated with the administrators on class schedules andoverview of the research process,

(4) requested from the school administrators the copyof their School Improvement Plan and (5)

set dates for data collection such as thesurvey-questionnaire, interviews, school visitation and

observations.

Phase II of the study was the research proper. In this phase, there was a (1)getting-to-

know the participants, (2) conduct of the survey through the questionnaireprepared for the key

stakeholders, (3) conduct of the interview with the schooladministrator and the school planning

team. During this phase, the researcher alsoobserved the school and looked into their school’s

School Improvement Plan.

10
 Phase III of the study was on the analysis of the collected data with the use ofthe survey

results, interview records and notes on observations of the schools.

Participants

The study was conducted with thefifty school planning team members purposively

selected from thefive selected National High Schools in the 4th District of the Province of Iloilo

during theschool year 2015-2016.

Context and Setting of the Study

Six different high schools were identified by the researcher to serve as thesetting of the

study. Since high schools under the Department of Education arecategorized according to their

population, the researcher chose schools in each of thethree levels categorized by the DepEd.

Instruments

The researcher used a survey questionnaire to gather information from key stakeholders

of the participating school. Interview questionnaireswere also prepared for the school planning

team and the school administrator.The survey-questionnaire has two parts. The first part includes

personalinformation about the respondent. The second part is the questionnaire on

thestakeholders’ idea of the SIP and their participation in its preparation andimplementation.

A scheduled interview for the School Administrators and their School PlanningTeam was

another instrument used in the study. Two languages were utilized in the conduct of the study

namely: English and“Sina” which is the localities’ native language.

An interview guide was prepared for the interview with the Administrator and the

School Planning Team. The interview guide consisted of questions pertaining to thesteps in

11
formulating the School Improvement Plan. Also, for a smooth flow and easier conduct of

interviews, the researcherprepared interview guides. However, not all the interview questions

were equally askedof the participants.

III. Results

This chapter explores the different aspects for every public high school identifiedas

respondents in this study. The three fundamental factors being evaluated todetermine every

school’s preparation and implementation of its SIP were the interview,School Improvement Plan

(SIP), and survey forms with relevant questions. It wasdivided into several sections, each

highlighting the SIP of each school.The narratives served as the central point in (a) determining

the vitalcomponents of each school’s SIP, (b) understanding the whole process of preparingtheir

SIP, and (c) evaluating each school’s implementation of their SIPs. In each of thenarratives that

follow, the researcher tried to use the interviewees’ words (verbatim) asa primary source.

However, in order to maintain a coherent presentation of the datagathered, this was not always

possible.

In every School Implementation Plan of each high school being investigated inthis study,

the focus was on the components of the SIP. The researcher used the SIPrapid appraisal form, a

form provided by the DepEd for schools to have their ownassessment of their SIP, in reviewing

the school plan.

The Results of the Survey on Issues Encountered During the Preparation and

Implementation

12
 The items intable 2 are composed of problems and issues that have confrontedthe

respondents in the preparation and implementation of the SIP. The findings showthat

Administrators, School Planning Team and stakeholders of the selected schools inDistrict 4 of

Iloilo encountered more problems during the implementation of the plan ascompared to its

preparation. This is also true in the study of Cooper (1998) which emphasized that in the

implementation of the plan,the supportive and non-supportive culture of the stakeholders affects

the results.

Most of the problems encountered during the SIP preparation and updating arecaused by

incomplete SIPs and worse, schools having no SIP at all. One probable cause of this problem is

the turn-overof principals. There are schools that have an SIP yet lacks important parts. A

missing SchoolReport Card means a missing set of important data. When one part of the SIP is

notdone, it could not be considered a complete SIP because each segment of the plan isequally

important. It was also found out that some stakeholders organizations were notorganized before

SIP was done. In an interview with a stakeholder of Mahilway NationalHigh School, he said that

there are times that when they are called for a meeting theycould not easily leave their jobs. “In

the beginning, I admit, I had so many queriesregarding the money of the PTA, but now, we are

okay. We are better.”, commentedthe PTA President of Banaag National High School when

asked of the problems. Secondto this problem would be that communication with stakeholders is

not regularly done.The School Planning Team’s passiveness towards the work as a member of

theteam could be attributed to the lack of empowerment. “From the background of the SIP,

from the 3 year wall plan to the annual improvement plan , akotanan nag-ubra. I justask for their

ideas.”, said one of the school planning team. On the other hand, one big problem in the

implementation of the plan is theinadequate fund to realize the projects.One administrator

13
expressed:“I’m just happy baladumdumankoangcommentar sang [that Iremember one comment

of] division personnel that the SIP katahom-tahum[very nice]. Amogid man kitasina day, [But

we are really like that] we are verygood in this plan but when it comes to implementation, we

cannot perfect theimplementation because of several factors like time and the financials.”

Another problem stressed out by the school of Mahilway National High School isthe poor

internet connection in the area. “Sometimes...if there are some reports whichneed to be encoded

online, we borrow the globe tattoo of one of our teachers, load itand that’s the time we can

encode our reports,” stated the administrator.

Empowerment of Stakeholders

Empowerment of stakeholders is evident at Kasanag National High School. The

school administration has worked collaboratively with its planning team and the school

governing council. Meanwhile, external stakeholders are encouraged to join BrigadaEskwela and

other activities conducted by the PTA. The results also showed that theschool did not fail to

Table 2

The Most Impending Issues in the Schools During Preparation andImplementation of the Plan.

Respondents During Preparation During Implementation

KASANAG NHS Previous SIP was incomplete:
No Annual Improvement Plan
and
Evaluation and Monitoring plans
The communication of the plan
to
the students were not followed
up
No Hard Copy of the SRC
BANAAG NHS No SRC and Evaluation Tool
School performance indicator
is not easily measured as it is
affected by various factors.
Valuation of school facilities
is
time consuming
Inadequate budget for
projects
Inadequate budget for

14
 projects
Limited time in preparation Student's attitudes:
indifference, tardiness, cutting
of classes
MAPISAN NHS NO SIP School facilities are not
sufficient to serve the students
Delayed preparation because of
typhoon Yolanda.
NO SGC involved in planning
NO School Report Card to get
data from
Clerical problems
Only two planning team
members
are active
MAUSWAG NHS Some members of the planning NAT Results does not reach
team has no participation in the the target.
making of the SIP
MAHILWAY NHS The Administrator did not No stable internet connection
receive
any training regarding SIP
preparation
Some members of the planning Lack of support from the
team has no idea on how to stakeholders
make the SIP.
The past SIP have unattainable Low enrolment rate
goals which need to be replaced.
There was no SGC organized. Alumni Association does not
function yet
orient students, teachers and members of the PTA with its plansand how these plans will

be implemented.

Banaag National High School also showed an indication of stakeholders’ support

to the school. Since the school conducts an actual planning workshop, stakeholders are convened

and involved in the SIP preparation. The school also organized the SchoolGoverning Council

and the school task force or committee responsible of the differentactivities in the school. In its

way of achieving their defined objectives, the schoolmaximizes the use of the MOOE for the

repairs of the school. Through this, the externalstakeholders will know where they are needed

and support will come to the school. Theschool’s alumni also showed their support through their

15
assistances. When the PTAPresident of Banaag National High School was interviewed, she

discussed things relatingto their management of funds in the school in order to support the school

with theirprojects.

“This is our system, in releasing the support fund, when the student orthe teacher has a

need, they need to write a request and have it signed by thestudent or the one who requests it.

Then they need to submit it to the principalfor approval and to us in the office. Then, we will

check if we have enoughfunds. Afterwhich, our treasurer will prepare the withdrawal slip and

have itsigned by our signatories. Then we release the money. Then, no liquidation ofthe previous

fund provided to them, no liquidation.”

During the interview, the school planning team shared that Mapisan NationalHigh

School’s stakeholders are yet to be involved in the school activities as their SGCofficers were

newly elected. However, in order to strengthen their bonds with theirstakeholders, the school

invited members of various groups in the community like thefarmer associations, peddlers,

drivers and the professionals.

Mauswag National High School though confronted with problems in achieving its

academic goals has elaborated their way of empowering their stakeholders. The school

was able to inform the current PTA of the projects started by the previousadministration. Said the

principal about their stakeholder:

“This transition will be of great help to the school as unfinished work willhave a chance

to be done. Makibotlangako may naga-mention, may adtona tomaam. And may makitaakoisa pa

ka span saamoneskwelahan. [I was surprisedthat someone mentioned that there is already

another span of wall in ourschool.] That’s how they support us.

16
 The school conducts regular meetings with the SGC and its PTA. The

schooladministrator also took time to re-echo her learned knowledge from her trainings aboutthe

SIP to her planning team. In identifying the rules of the school on students, the SSGwas

encouraged to participate in the process; through this the students were alsoinformed of the part

performances of the school.

The implementation of the school’s plan needed support from the stakeholders of

the school. In order to achieve its objectives in the plan the school will need to updatethe

President of the PTA for the pending projects and inform the students of their plansand their

corresponding responsibilities, update the stakeholders of the students’ pastperformances, and

seek donations from the alumni and invite local and barangayofficials to continually give the

school their attention.

In Mahilway National High School however, stakeholders are invited to be a part

of the planning process. Though some comes out and show support, most members ofthe PTA

are not into putting their minds in the plans of the school. The school hasorganized its PTA and

its support is felt but the SGC’s support is not visible in the school.

The emergent results of the study are as follows:

1. How each participating school in the study prepares their SIP varies in manyways. Some

schools have followed what the Department of Education has defined yetsome schools may have

neglected steps and processes significant in its preparation.Through this study, the researcher

learned that all School Planning Team members areaware of their basic roles and responsibilities

in the school improvement planning butnot all of them have a clear understanding of their SIP. It

was also found out that schools usually prepare their schoolimprovement plan barely two months

before the evaluation of schools. The schoolevaluation is normally done every February to

17
March of the school year. The focusduring the preparation therefore, is not on the effectiveness

and achievability of theplan, but with the time frame they work with in finishing their plan.

Administratorsconvene and collaborate with their SPT to work on their plan. However, how the

work isdistributed among the planning team varies from one school to another. One of

theadministrators interviewed stated that she ‘forced’ one of members of the planning teamto

work on the SIP.

Another significant finding in this study is the fact the school administrators aremobile.

Their assignment in the different schools in the Department of Education undermines the

planning process.There are respondents who missed some important steps in the preparation of

their SIP. The survey-questionnaire answered by the respondents showed that means of

verification, 3-year plan, situational analysis, financial plan and setting of performanceindicators

were some of the missed steps.

2. The ways the SIPs are implemented have resemblances but differs in someaspects.All schools

taken up in this study adhere to one set of core values, vision andmission. In line with its

implementation, these guiding principles are displayed at thestrategic areas in the school

including classrooms and offices. School Governing Council andother stakeholders’organization

were organized to help in the school matters. Studentsare involved in the planning and

implementation of the plan as conferences are set withthem to set the rules and regulations of the

school.

3. School Planning Teams encountered different issues and problems whilepreparing and

implementing their respective SIPs. Collectively, the result on the surveyquestionnaire on the

questions about issues and problems in the preparation andimplementation of the plan showed

that issues and problems were actually encountered.

18
Problems encountered would count from schools having an incomplete SIP, delay intarget dates,

not organized stakeholder organizations, no communication plan, inactiveSPT members and lack

of training.

Another problem observed in themanagement of school is how the school can sustain

leadership with the constant change of administrators. The transfer of one principal from one

school to another may cause the school to have a new manager every time there is a change in

administration.

4. Stakeholders are empowered as they take active roles in the preparation andimplementation of

the SIP.

5. The schools share one set of core values, vision and mission. The SIP ofschools being studied

showed the school-based core values, vision and mission of theschools. However, theDepartment

of Education came out with its National guidingprinciples that schools need to adopt.

IV. Discussion

Implications to Theory, Practice and Literature

For Theory.The presentation of the findings is quite challenging as differenttheoretical

and practices have to be considered in preparing the plan for schoolimprovement much more its

implementation.The study is anchored in the Modern Management Theory, the Systems

Approach of Katz, Khan and Johnson. A school’s mission statement bonds itscomponents in

achieving its objectives. The different administrators, school planningteams, and stakeholders

comprise the related and dependent elements in a system thatinteracts and have a common

objective. The schools in this study adopt the Core Values,Mission and Vision of the Department

19
of Education, thus this becomes their guide inworking as a system. Since the school itself is a

system, DepEds’ decentralization ofschool management has helped in the easier administration

of the school. According toLeech and Fulton (2008), a common vision and mission unifies an

organization andharnesses its collective energies. This theory is in accordance to the result of the

studywherein the process of SIP preparation and implementation is a complex process ofdifferent

persona in school to achieve a common goal.

On Practice.The preparation of the School Improvement Plan comes from amandate

from the Department of Education. Literature states that DepEd came up withtraining for school

heads in leading the development and implementation of the SIP aswell as the AIP (Khattri,

Ling, &Jha, 2010). A manual on SIP preparation was alsopublished to aid the SPT in the

planning andimplementation process. Theadministrators, school planning team members and

stakeholders responsible for school planning who did not receive relevant trainings on the matter

comply with what isdemanded of them. Administrators re-echo what they have learned from

their trainingsto the members of the school planning team but adequate training was not

provided.This led to a problem in the preparation and implementation of the plan. The lack

oftraining for planners of the school would push them to work within their

capacitiesundermining the important part of the stakeholders in the process. Issues in the

schoolsinclude physical facilities, lack of funds, and most of all, student performance

whichwould be addressed with the help of the stakeholders. This could also be a reason

whysome of the SIPs of schools are not complete.

DepEd’s logical and iterative way of formulating the SIP has defined the stepsincluding

its plan components. In the schools visited however, these steps were notadopted as school’s

planning teams had their own way of coming up with the SIP.

20
 On Literature.Literature on school improvement planning in the Philippines is

so limited, that studies abroad has been utilized to support this study. Through this

study, it was found out that school planning teams, the prime players in school

improvement planning are aware of their basic roles and responsibilities in the process.

School administrators assemble concerned individuals and groups to partake in the

activities. This is in agreement with the study of Krummacher (2004) wherein the school

is overwhelmed with the stakeholders’ help in the situational analysis and problem

solving of the school. Through the stakeholders, the planning process is leavened.

In the preparation of the plan, the two-month preparation of the schools for

theschoolimprovement plan creates a problem as its focus is not on the effectiveness of he plan

anymore but on the deadlines set. Gozacan(1994) expressed that inadequate time of preparation

for the improvement plan affects the plan. The time frame when theplan is made is not enough to

create a substantial one.

Stakeholders’ participation was admirable as school governing council and other

stakeholders’ organization were formed to be a part of the school. Students are invitedto

participate in the planning and implementation of the plan as they are invited to sitwith the

school planning team. This supports the findings of Uphoff(2008) whereinsystemscollaboration

and unification defines success. The different stakeholders areoriented with their respective roles

on school policies and activities. Communication wasalso given priority in the schools being

studied as administrators keep in touch with thepersons concerned with the school. Through this,

stakeholders are empowered.Stakeholders accept responsibilities in the school to show their

support whileadministrators send backsignificant information to the stakeholders regarding

theschool’s successes and failures. This coincides with the work of Rogers (2004) whichnotes

21
that outcomes are evaluated and relayed to verify impact of the inputs to theoutputs. The Parents-

Teachers Association, School Governing Councils, and other

stakeholders’ groups render help to the school thus, its effect on the latter is considered

important. To continuously encourage its stakeholders to take active roles in the

implementation of the plan, administrators were able to communicate the plan with their

respective stakeholders. Cooper (1998) elaborated that in the implementation of the

SIP, administrators must consider roles, relationships in school.

V. Conclusions

Based on the above-mentioned findings, the following inferences were drawn:

1. Schools included in this study prepare its School Improvement Plan indifferent ways. Though

the Department of Education through their Handbook on SIPPreparation defined ways in

producing an SIP, schools tend to prepare the plan in a waydifferent from other schools. One

school used SWOT analysis in formulating itsobjectives.Strategies in school planning may differ

because of some factors such as theschool administrators’ leadership, external stakeholders’

support and even thecommunity.

2. School Improvement Plan preparation in some of the schools where thisstudy was conducted

was not planned well. Schools prepare or update SIP one to twomonths before the evaluation of

schools wherein the SIP is checked. Some schools evenorganize and consult their SPT after the

preparation of the plan. As supported by theinterviews conducted, there are schools which were

not able to convene their SGC andwere not able to mobilize their SPT.

3. School Improvement Plan preparation and implementation is not an easyprocess to undertake

22
as different issues and problems faces the SPT. The formulation ofthe plan needed more

attention from its stakeholders.

4. The implementation of the SIP is diverse among the schools. Though thefirst part of the

implementation of the schools involved in the study have similarities likethe way it is

communicated to the stakeholders, the manner in tracking of the progressand evaluation differ.

Tasks are distributed among stakeholders in the schools.

5. Budget mismatch and inadequate funds affects implementation of the SIP.

6. Stakeholders take active roles in the school improvement if they areinformed of the school’s

plans.

7. School leadership matters the most. Administrators play the most vital rolein the planning and

implementing processes. In this study, it is evident that the primeplayers in the SIP preparation

and implementation are the school heads.

8. The turnover of principals greatly affects the preparation andimplementation of the school

improvement plan. Principals are transferred from oneschool to another may be caused by the

schools’ needs and promotions but its effectson the schools that will be left and reported to

would be harmful to theschool.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions drawn from the findings of this study, the following are recommended:

1. The school administrators in the Fourth District of Iloilo should becommended for their

collective and effective efforts in coming up with schoolimprovement plans of their respective

schools. The intrinsic reward for school heads could motivate them to perform better.

2. It is recommended that additional trainings regarding SIP preparation andimplementation be

23
done. It is fervently suggested that the trainings be givenimportance. School planning team

should undergo rigid training and workshop on SIPpreparation.

3. Have an open communication with the stakeholders of the school about theschools’ plans.

There is a need for a connection with a wider environment. To achievesuccess, collaborating

internally is not enough so schools must interact and work withthe outside stakeholders. It should

be a three wayprocess.

4. Empower the members of the school planning team to be functional.Monitoring and

evaluation teams must be organized and put into action. Themechanisms involving the specific

tasks in SIP preparation should be working and everymember of the team should find fulfillment

in the tasks they are performing.

5. Core values, vision and mission must not only be displayed in strategic areasbut should be

understood and felt by the stakeholders. Stakeholders must be oriented –well with the core

values, vision and mission of the school.

6. Lastly, future qualitative and quantitative researchers should conduct similarstudies involving

school leadership in planning. It would be valuable to conduct parallelstudies involving a greater

number of participants to better explore how SIP is preparedand implemented.

References

Cooper, R. (December 1998). Socio-cultural and within-school factors that affect the

quality of implementation of school-wide programs. USA.

Creemers, B. P., Stoll, L., Reezigt, G., &teami, a. t. (n.d.).Effective school improvement

- ingredients for success.

Crotty, M. (2003).The foundations of social research. Great Britain.

24
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming, again, again, again, leadership. Phi Delta Kappan , pp3-12.

DepEd.(2009). A manual on the assessment of school-based management practices.

Pasig City: DepEd.

DepEd. (2013). Our department of education vision, mission and core values. //DepEd

Order. Pasig City: DepEd.

Edwards, G. ( 1995). Rapid educational expansion and primary school efficiency in

Zimbabwe. Development Southern Africa, Vol. 12, (No. 1), 87-89.

Flores, G. (2012). School-principal blogspot. Retrieved from

http://schoolprincipal.blogspot.com/search?update/2013/08/16/school-principal blogspot

Gozacan, N. (1994). School improvement and educational change: The initiation,

planning and implementation of Lycee improvement project in DogusLycee.

London: University of London Institute of Education. Retrieved from

www3.dogus.edu.tr/ngozaan/MA/Ngozacan_MA.pdf

Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., & McDonald, D. (2012). EDIS. Retrieved 8 16, 2013 from

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fy394

Handbook on the Preparation of the School Improvement Plan. (2005). Pasig City,

Philippines: Department of Education.

Human Development Network. (2012). Retrieved 9 5, 2013 from The World Bank:

http://www.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/O,,Cont

entMDK:20833367~menuPK:2448377~pagePK:210058

Khattri, Nidhi and Ling, Cristina&Jha, Shreyasi. (2010). The effects of school-based

management: An initial assessment using administrative data. World Policy

Research Working Paper. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=15799211

25
Leech, D., & Fulton, C. R. (2008).Faculty perceptions of shared decision making and the

principal's leadership behaviors in secondary schools in a large urban district.

Education, 128, 630-644.

Patton, M. (2002).Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.pp169-186.

Retrieved from

http://legacy.oise.utoronto.ca/research/field_centres/ross/cH1014/Patton1990.pd

Philippine Human Development Report. (2008-2009).Retrieved from

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/national/asiathepacific/philippines/Philippines_NH

DP_2004.pdf

Republic Act 9155 . (2001). Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001 . Manila,

Philippines: Congress of the Philippines, 12th Congress.Retrieved from

www.congress.gov.ph/download/basic_15/HB01509.pdf

Rogers, G. M. (2004). Assessment planning flow chart. Retrieved from

http://www.me.metu.edu.tr/odk.kaynak/ABET_CD/data/iopo.html

Shukla, R. (2012). MBA and B. Tech Class Notes. Retrieved 08 2013, 15 from

Management

LearningCenter:http://managementlearningcenter.blogspot.com/2012/09/modernmanage

ment-theory-in-principle.html

Uphoff, C. B. (2008). Two rural schools: A study of the planning, process and leadership

of school improvement.(Master's Thesis) Urbana, Illinois, Retrieved from Proquest

Dissertation and Theses databaseWorld Bank. (2003). World Development Report 2004:

Making services work for poorpeople.Development Economics Vice Presidency

.Washington D.C.

26
World Bank. (2007). What is school-based management. Washington, DC.: Education,

Human Development Network

27