Participation of Stakeholders in The Imp

1
PARTICIPATION OF STAKEHOLDERS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

ENHANCED-SCHOOL BASED MANAGEMENT (SBM)
A Dissertation Submitted to the

Faculty of the Graduate School
University of Caloocan City
In Partial Fulfilment for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy
Major in Educational Management
FEDERICO G. JABOYA
February, 2018
2
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to

the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously
published or written by another person nor material to which to a
substantial extent has been accepted for award of any other degree or
diploma of a university or other institute of higher learning, except where
due acknowledgement is made in the text.
I also declare that the intellectual content of this

thesis/dissertation is the product of my work, even though I may have
received assistance from others on style, presentation and language
expression.
FEDERICO G. JABOYA
________________________________
Candidate
Date: _________________________
PROF. LILIAN B. ENRIQUEZ
________________________________
Adviser
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As the researcher takes another step in his career, he would like to extend
his heartfelt thanks and praise to the LORD Most High for giving him strength,
determination and courage to finish the course. The researcher is bringing back
all the GLORY and PRAISES to GOD. To GOD is All the GLORY.
The researcher pleases to acknowledge the following people behind the
success of his career, for without their contribution and support this research
would not be made possible.
Honorable Mayor Oscar “OCA” Malapitan, for his continuing program
and support to the University of Caloocan City especially to the Graduate School.
Atty. Rene Richard A. Salazar, OIC President of University of Caloocan
City, for his openhandedness support to the Graduate School.
Dr. Joel P. Feliciano, Dean of Graduate Studies, for his ardent belief to
the researcher to continue his study in the University of Caloocan City.
Dr. Lilian B. Enriquez, the researcher’s adviser for adopting him and his
dissertation and making her as his adviser and extending her undying support to
this worthy educational achievement.
Dr. Rosario C. De Ocera, chairman of the panel, who gave her expertise
and advise to fulfil this educational task.
Dr. Teresita Santos, Dr. Domingo, Dr. Morallos and Dr. Manalo, panel
members, for their support to this endeavor.
Dr. Warren Ramos, my Professor and panelist without his proper
guidance the researcher cannot finish this dissertation.
Dr. Cecille Carandang, the Schools Division Superintendent of Caloocan
City, for her approval to administer his survey questionnaires to the respondents.
This work is shared by the researcher to his UCC PhD – DEM classmate’s
batch 2017 – 2018 and to UCC students for their assistance and cooperation.
The researcher is thankful to his respondents for their cooperation, time,
attention and effort in answering the questionnaire. The researcher is also
thankful to his friends and co – teachers for their moral support and assistance.
Lastly with his greatest delight, he dedicates this success to his father and
mother, brother and sister, for their encouragement, moral and spiritual support.
To my love Erykka Beatriss Jaboya whom she has given me inspiration
and hope to be successful in my endeavors to finish this dissertation.
4
DEDICATION
This research study is dedicated….
To my Almighty God and Savior of the World that strengthens and guides me in
everything
To Him Nothing is impossible

…and
To my parents who nurtured and incessantly supported my endeavors, To my

daughter Erykka Beatriss Jaboya for love, inspiration and support in finishing this
study.
To God Be All The Glory!
Federico G. Jaboya
5
CONTENTS PAGE
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………….. 3
Dedication………………………………………………………………………… 4
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………6
Chapter 1. General Introduction……………………………………………….8
Chapter 2. Internal and external stakeholders participation

in the enhanced SBM.…………………………………………….14
Chapter 3. Challenges encountered by the internal and

external stakeholders in their involvement in the
implementation of SBM.…………………………………………..30
Chapter 4. Addressing the Challenges in the Implementation

of SBM by the internal and external stakeholders …................40
Chapter 5. Key areas of effective participation in the enhanced SBM ……46
Chapter 6. Collaborative Strategic Plan in the Implementation of SBM …. 53
Chapter 7. General Discussions ………………………………………………60
Chapter 8. What This Paper Adds …………………………………………….68
Glossary of Terms ………………………………………………………………83
Appendices ………………………………………………………………………86
Curriculum Vitae ………………………………………………………………...90
List of tables ……Table 1. Respondents of the Study………………………18

Table 2. Stakeholders Participation in the Enhanced –
SBM in terms of School Governance………………… 22
Table 3. Curriculum Enhancement……………………… 23
Table 4. Community Development……………………… 24
Table 5. Student Activities……………………………….. 25
Table 6. Respondents of the Study………………………32
Table 7. Challenges Encountered by External
Stakeholders……………………………………...33
6
ABSTRACT
PARTICIPATION OF STAKEHOLDERS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF THE ENHANCED – SCHOOL BASED MANAGEMENT
The purpose of this research was to look at the participation of the internal
and external stakeholders in the implementation of the SBM in CAMANAVA
public schools as assessed by their Principal/ OIC and teachers as for the
Internal Stakeholders while the Barangay Captain, the PTA President and NGO
for the External Stakeholders.
School-based management (SBM), was defined as the decentralization of
decision-making authority to the school site. Over the past decade, many schools
have implemented this method of managing school budgeting, curriculum, and
personnel decisions and are enthusiastically promoting it.
But part of the problem with SBM is that there are so many variations on
how it is put into practice. In an SBM system, authority can be transferred from
the government to local school boards, from local school boards to
superintendents, from superintendents to principals, from principals to other
members of the school community such as teachers and parents, or some
combination of two or more of these.
It was found out that the participation of stakeholders in the
implementation of school – based management program in CAMANAVA public
schools were in the different activities initiated by the schools pertaining to school
governance, curriculum enhancement, community development, and student
activities. The School – Based Management was created to bridge the gap
between the internal and external stakeholders. It is how power is decentralized
and then devolved to administer schools in terms of implementing rules and
regulations as well as policies. During the study the researcher found out
weaknesses on the participation of external stakeholders. SBM is much more
focused on internal stakeholders even though there are participation from the
external stakeholders from this point of view the researcher aims to assess the
participation of external stakeholders in the implementation of the enhanced-
school based management (SBM) in CAMANAVA during the school year 2017-
2018. It sought answers to the following questions: 1. how do the internal and
external stakeholders participate in the enhanced SBM? 2. What are the
challenges encountered by the internal and external stakeholders in their
involvement in the implementation of SBM? 3. How do the internal and external
stakeholders address the challenges identified? 4. What are the key areas of
effective participation in the enhanced SBM? 5. What collaborative strategic plan
may be developed to ensure participation of external stakeholders?
7
This study is focused on the assessment of the participation of

stakeholders particularly in the implementation of the enhanced – school based
management. Findings shows that: School – based management is a framework
that transfers the power and authority as well as the resources to the school level
on the assumption of all the stakeholders to know the root and the solution to the
problem. It is concerned with the decentralization of decision – making authority
from central, regional and division offices to the individual schools (Chapter 1).
Chapter 2 shows to what extent is the participation of the stakeholder’s
involvement (internal and external stakeholders) in the implementation of the
Enhanced – School Based Management. This chapter explains to what extent of
the implementation of the Enhanced – School Based Management is in terms of
school governance, curriculum enhancement, community development and the
student – activities. Chapter 3 explains the challenges encountered by the
stakeholders involved (internal and external stakeholders). In this chapter,
challenges in terms of their involvement in the implementation of the Enhanced –
School Based Management was highlighted because these challenges were
crucial for both the internal and external stakeholders. Chapter 4 shows
strategies used to address the above challenges. Chapter 5 introduces key areas
of an effective participation in the Enhanced – School Based Management
(SBM). Chapter 6 gives an idea to define the participation of stakeholders
especially the external stakeholders in terms of a collaborative strategic plan in
the implementation of the Enhanced – School Based Management.
Cooperation and initiative among stakeholders is seen important for the
success of the implementation.
Respondents of the study includes 40 Non-government Organization
(NGO), 60 Parent Teacher Association (PTA) presidents and 50 Barangay
Captain on the other we have internal stakeholders composed of 10 principals
and 90 teachers they were chosen within CAMANAVA area alone.
The descriptive method of research was used to describe the internal and
external stakeholders’ participation in the enhanced SBM. It describes and
interprets what is. It is concerned with conditions or relations that exist, opinions
that are held, processes that are going on, effects that are evident, or trends that
are developing. It is primarily concerned with the present, although it often
considers past events and influences as they relate to current conditions.
A researcher-made questionnaire was developed by the researcher
focusing on the assessment of the internal and external stakeholders’
participation in the enhanced SBM in terms of school governance, curriculum
enhancement, community development, and student activities. The researcher
sought permission from the respective school principals of the respondent-
schools for the approval to the conduct of the study.
Unstructured interview was conducted to describe how the stakeholders
participate in the enhanced SBM. The unstructured interview was done with an
open-ended, semi-structured interview questions to the respondents face-to-face
to know the extent of their participation in the enhanced SBM.
The qualitative type of research and the unstructured interview was used
in this study.
8
Furthermore, there is a need to formulate strategies or intervention

program to address the problems encountered for better participation of
stakeholders in the implementation of the Enhanced - School Based
Management program.
Keywords: Internal stakeholders, external stakeholders, enhanced – school

based management
9
Chapter 1
Enhanced School-Based Management (SBM)

_____________________________________________________________
General Introduction
School – based management is “the systematic decentralization to the
school level of authority and responsibility to make decisions on significant
matters related to school operations within a centrally determined framework of
goals, policies, curriculum, standards, and accountability" (Caldwell, 2013,).
The approach is also sometimes referred to as “self – managing schools,”
“site – based management,” or “local management.” A World Bank – led
assessment of several impact evaluations of school based management found
that school – based management changed the dynamics in the school because
of changes in the behavior of parents (who became more involved) and teachers
who changed their actions. These changes led to positive impacts on repetition
rates, failure rates, and learning outcomes (World Bank, 2014).
Improved leadership, administration, planning and budgeting, along with
transparency, accountability, and improved parental and community participation,
create the conditions for improved and more relevant learning and teaching.
School – based management is a framework that transfers the power and
authority as well as the resources to the school level on the assumption of all the
stakeholders to know the root and the solution to the problem. It is concerned
with the decentralization of decision – making authority from central, regional and
division offices to the individual schools. The idea is to unite the schools heads,
teachers, students, local government units and the community to improve the
quality of early formal education in Philippine public schools (DepED SBM
Manual, 2006).
The participative management required of SBM structures means that
authority is delegated from higher to lower levels (Mosoge & Van der
Westhuizen, 2012) and entails major changes of roles. The customary role of the
school principal has therefore changed under SBM as decision-making is shared
among stakeholders. The current position of the principalship renders not only
authority, but also leadership, to the incumbent. As more and more countries
worldwide implement SBM, principals are empowered and given more authority
over what happens in their schools. School principals in these countries
increasingly find themselves with the power to make on-site decisions such as
how money should be spent, where educators should be assigned, and even
what should be taught in the classrooms (in countries where there is not some
form of centralised curriculum development). Provincial education departments
no longer tell schools and school principals what to do, but instead try to help
them accomplish what they decide independently to do. SBM therefore demands
more of the school principal, specifically in terms of principal leadership
(Marishane, 2013).
Although there are other factors, the leadership role of the school principal
is widely regarded as the primary factor contributing to a successful relationship
10
between SBM and school improvement and it is therefore an essential dimension

of successful SBM. According to Herman and Herman (2009), the SBM literature
is consistent in describing the school principal as the “key player in the
decentralization and restructuring process”. Van der Westhuizen (2007) also
touched upon this redefined leadership role of the principal when referring to
principal leadership as the ability of a principal “to convince, inspire, bind and
direct followers to realise common ideals”. The culture of a democratic order
displayed in SBM requires school principals to exercise leadership that fully
promotes participation of all stakeholders.
According to Van der Westhuizen (2007), authority in school leadership
tends towards the extremes of authoritarian and laissez faire types of leadership.
Neither of these types of leadership are, however, envisaged in SBM. The
collaborative setting of SBM calls upon school principals to exercise leadership in
various roles in a school, namely, in the fields of “visionary leadership,
transformational leadership and mentor leadership” (Van der Westhuizen, 2007).
This indicates therefore not only the importance of principal leadership,
but also a change in leadership roles of the school principal, under an SBM
system. Effective leadership by the school principal in SBM is now widely
regarded as a pivotal and essential dimension contributing to a successful
relationship between SBM and school improvement (Marishane, 2013). From the
above, it is clear that in both the literature and other studies undertaken on this
issue point towards the school principal as the most important stakeholder in
SBM and school improvement. The crucial leadership role of the school principal
in this regard is also emphasized. The Commonwealth Secretariat (2006), for
example, refers to this issue as follows: “The leadership role of the school
principal plays the most crucial role in ensuring effectiveness in school-based
management”, whilst Gurr (2006) argues in this regard: “The role of the school
principal under school-based management has become more pivotal in providing
the professional leadership required to provide positive learning environments”.
Background of the Study

School improvement and school effectiveness have become major
concern of education authorities, policy makers, administrators and teachers
seeking to reform existing education systems. In many education systems there
has emerged recognition that school-based decision-making and management
has potential to bring improvement in the quality of education. Consequently,
education systems in Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe, and the United
States have undergone restructuring to establish "self-managing", "self-
governing" or "self-determining schools. In Western Australia such restructuring
has been undertaken using corporate managerial practices (Hyslop, 2008). To
some extent the change focus has been on management practices rather than
focusing on the achieving of educational goals.
While it appears that school-based management has potential to create
"Better Schools" there is little indication that such changes have had a positive
impact on the teaching and learning process. Indeed, Rosenholtz (2007) and
Corbett & Wilson (2009) identified a number of unintended consequences for
11
teachers such as reduced motivation, morale, and collegial interaction all of

which are counterproductive to improving curriculum practices.
For Fullan & Miles (2009), school improvement initiatives that focus on
structural and organizational changes alone constitute a very limited strategy for
successful change. Instead the authors suggest it is individuals and groups of
individuals who need to alter their professional practices; their culture. In short
the focus of school improvement efforts should be on facilitating change to
teachers' perceptions, beliefs and practices concerning teaching and learning.
Fullan and Miles (2008) prompt a focus on a number of key issues
concerning the impact of school restructuring on the professional practices of
teachers. These issues were related to curriculum practice, school organization,
and student outcomes. It is these issues that have emerged as central to the
reform debate following significant restructuring of educational bureaucracies.
In the education arena, school-based management has been viewed
largely as a political reform that transfers power (authority) over budget,
personnel and curriculum to individual schools. Little attention has been given to
empowering school sites with control over information, professional development
(knowledge) or compensation systems (rewards). Furthermore, when SBM
programs are analyzed, the general conclusion is that the extent of decision-
making responsibility transferred to site teachers and administrators is limited.
Experience from the private sector suggests that to effectively implement
school-based management, districts need to design plans that not only transfer
real authority to school sites but also expand the definition of SBM to include
control over information, knowledge and rewards. Drawing from successful
decentralization approaches in public schools and in the private sector, strategies
for decentralizing resources in each of these four areas are discussed below.
The main focus of school-based management has been the
decentralization of power. The question is, "Who at the school site is the power
given to?" Power is shifted most often from the central administration to a council
at the school site. Councils may be composed of administrators, teachers,
parents, community members and sometimes students. In this way, SBM
empowers groups who typically have not had much power in managing schools.
The idea of using SBM as a vehicle for giving more authority to classroom
teachers is common. Indeed, SBM often is seen as synonymous with
empowering teachers.
Statement of the Problem

This study aims to assess the participation of external stakeholders in the
implementation of the enhanced-school based management (SBM) in
CAMANAVA during the school year 2017-2018.
It sought answers to the following questions:
1. How do the internal and external stakeholders participate in the
enhanced SBM?
2. What are the challenges encountered by the internal and external
stakeholders in their involvement in the implementation of SBM?
12
3. How do the internal and external stakeholders address the challenges

identified?
4. What are the key areas of effective participation in the enhanced SBM?
5. What collaborative strategic plan may be developed to ensure
participation of external stakeholders?
Significance of the Study

The result of this study may have significant and meaningful benefits to
the following:
Students/Pupils may be the main beneficiaries of this study. The
research enlightened students that the school which actively promotes school-
based management makes a clear priority for learning, with instructional
strategies that are approximately designed to meet students’ needs and interest.
Teachers may broaden the horizon of the teacher on the importance of
decentralization of education. The newly discovered knowledge about
participative decision- making in schools would allow them greater freedom to
control their professional lives and give them evident possible latitude in
sustaining efforts to continuously improve the effectiveness of the teaching and
learning process – academic endeavors which could translate to better school
performance and student achievement.
School Administrators may serve as a guide to the principal or officers-
in- charge authorized to exercise instructional leadership and sound
administrative management of the school towards a rational policy formulation
related to educational reform initiatives and shared decision- making, and the
efficient and effective performance of their administrative functions.
Education Supervisors may serve as springboard in planning programs
to help those school principals who have not reach the ideal level of performance
in the implementation of School- based Management.
Parents may validate the antecedents’ facts regarding the significant roles
played by parents in rearing and educating their children-the rearing experiences
and academic opportunities passionately pursued by them that focus their
children on holistic development. Once more, it reveals that site –management
provides more opportunities for parents to take leadership role.
General Public may provide basic information to make the general public
aware of the importance of SBM and their concomitant effect on school
decentralization
For the school level, assessment results will primarily be the basis for
the school’s plan of action. Looking into the specific dimensions / indicators
where the school was marked “X”, the stakeholders can plan for appropriate
strategies or measures to improve the identified area(s).
Curriculum Writers may find the study useful in the SBM assessment
result that may provide the statistical pictures as to how many schools are in
different levels of SBM practices, thus, may be incorporated in their curriculum
design. DepEd Central office may consider the proposed recommendations
from regions and formulate the necessary policies to support the courses of
action implemented in the field or sustainability.
13
Future Researchers may serve as reference to related researches on the

Implementation of School –Based management and may be provided baseline
data from which further studies maybe made.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The purpose of this study was to assess the participation of stakeholders
in the implementation of the enhanced-school based management (SBM) in
CAMANAVA during the school year 2017-2018. The researcher described how
the stakeholders participate in the enhanced SBM, and how the internal
stakeholders involve external stakeholders. Moreover, the researcher identifies
the challenges encountered by the external stakeholders in their participation in
the implementation of SBM, and how the internal stakeholders address the
challenges identified. As output of the study, the researcher developed a
collaborative strategic plan to ensure 360 participation of external stakeholders.
The respondents of this study included 40 Non-government Organization (NGO),
60 Parent Teacher Association (PTA) presidents and 50 Barangay Captain on
the other the internal stakeholders was composed of 10 principals and 90
teachers in CAMANAVA area.
References
Caldwell, G. (2013) The Theory and Characteristics of School-Based
Management, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 7 Iss: 6,
MCB UP Ltd, 1987
Cadwell , Brian J. (2008). School- based management. The International Institute

for Educational Planning and the International Academy of Education, Steid.
Madia, UNESCO
Fulan, K &, Miles, J Building a New Structure for School Leadership. New York:
Albert Shanker Institute, 2008
Hyslop, H.C., Self-Managing and Organizational Learning and School Change

Educational Quarterly, 2008
Lapuz, Jesli (2008); Enhancing School Governance: Making SBM Work Speech
delivered by DepEd Secretary Jesli A. Lapus at the Manila Public Elementary
School Principals' Association(MAPESPA), Inc., at P. Gomez Elementary School,
Sta. Cruz, Manila
Mosoge, Mercedes P., & Van der Westhuizen (2012) School Based
Management, Promoting Special Education Programs in Local Schools, U.P.
College of Education, Manila
Marishane, Felipe et al, (2013). Decentralized decision-making in Schools: the

theory and evidence on school-based Management (English), 2009
14
Patrinos, Harry Anthony & Tazeen, Fasih, Decentralized Decision-making in

chools: The Theory and Evidence on School-Based Management, World Bank
Publications, USA, 2009
Ozler, B., Decentralization and Student Achievement: The Case of Nicaragua’s

School Autonomy Reform.” Working Paper on Impact Evaluation of Education
Reforms. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2001
Westhuizen, V.d.,(2007). Correlation of Leadership Styles with the Organizational

Climate, Innovative Climate and Innovative Behaviour of Tertiary School
Educators Notre Dame University.
15
Chapter 2
Internal and external stakeholders’ participation in the enhanced SBM

_____________________________________________________________
Abstract
This study was designed to evaluate the participation of the stakeholders
in the implementation of the enhanced – school based management. This
research showed that the stakeholders are participating actively in the different
activities initiated by the schools especially regarding PTA conferences, general
assemblies and parents day activities; participating in school activity directed
towards the reduction of illiteracy in schools especially as visiting mentor in the
school reading intervention program and the reading recovery program; and
helping convince civic community minded members to extend assistance to
schools especially during special activities like teacher’s month, and scouting
activities and others.
Moreover, it was revealed that the level of stakeholders’ participation were

found moderate in the following: volunteering in the different activities related to
the health and nutrition of the school children especially during school feeding
programs, activities in the nutrition month and the like; eagerly engaging in
meaningful volunteer work in our school community (value formation activity,
sports competition) that enhances positive interaction among the youth; assisting
school community in sourcing out funds for students to be able to participate in
academic and non-academic competitions; willingly took part in the schools
maintenance week dubbed as Brigada Eskwela by extending some of the
needed resources (financial, material, labor); and answering the call of the
schools in terms of the urgent activities that needs stakeholders’ participation
such as the coming of visitors and the conduct of evaluation related to school-
based management.
Keywords: PTA conferences, volunteering, reduction of illiteracy, visiting

mentor, sourcing out of funds
Introduction
School-Based Management is the decentralization of decision-making
authority to schools. At the school level, schools heads, teachers, and students
work together with community leaders, and local government officials and other
stakeholders to improve school performance.
Specifically, SBM aims to empower every schools to continuously improve
its performance in attaining desired outcomes for students; engage stakeholders
in shared decision-making; lead the school staff, together with other stakeholders
in identifying and addressing school issues and concerns that affect student
outcomes; create support network of community-based stakeholders that will
mobilize social, political, cultural and economic resources; and make
stakeholders accountable for school performance and student outcomes.
16
As stipulated in the DECS manual (2006) and to keep abide with the
procedures as stipulated in the SBM, principals need to keep the documents
showing roles and responsibilities of each organized internal/external stakeholder
group including the list of officers of internal stakeholders, student organization,
parent organization, teacher organization, list of officials of external stakeholder
group, LGU and local organizations.
Literature Review
School Leadership. Various studies support the idea that ‘it is the
leadership of the school that makes a difference between mediocrity and
excellence (Hugghes, 2011). One can always point to the principal’s leadership
as the key to success of a school that is vibrant and has a reputation of
excellence in teaching. Indeed, the school manager is the keystone in the
building of effective schools. (Licuanan, 2004) found that the nine positive
outliner schools or outstandingly effective schools in the country do have similarly
effective principals. There is a positively significant correlation between effective
principals and effective schools.
Clemente (2012) emphasized the need to identify and develop education
managers fit to pilot schools into the 21st Century. In this light he gives the
characteristics that school managers should possess. The first characteristic is
the capacity to contribute to the academic performance, second the capacity to
promote culture in a given academic year, third, the capacity to promote sports,
fourth, the capacity to manage limited resources and the last, the capacity for
innovation in academics, culture, sports and resource management.
School-based Management (SBM) makes the school dynamics and
relevant to the community. It provides opportunities for the school and the
community to take greater control of the direction of the school; gives authority
and flexibility to manage school resources and encourages leadership and
participation. Principals become true educational leaders and with the
involvement and participation of teachers and the community ensures the
delivery of relevant quality educational service to the students.
Legal Bases of SBM. The importance of SBM in improving learning

outcomes has been emphasized in different legal documents and issuances.
1. The Local Government Code of the Philippines (R.A. 7160) enables
communities to be more effective partners in the attainment of national
goals.
2. The Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP 2004-

2010) requires localized educational management that would enable
schools to focus on enhancing initiative, creativity, innovation and
effectiveness.
3. Governance of Basic Education Act (R.A. 9155) emphasizes

decentralization of school governance.
17
4. Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) provides a

package of policy reforms focused on Key Reform Thrusts (KRTs).
KRT I deals on continuous school improvement through active
involvement of stakeholders. It is anchored on the principle that those
who are directly involved in and affected by school operations are in
the best position to plan, manage and improve the school.
5. The Schools First Initiative (SFI) of 2004 empowers educational

leaders and stakeholders to focus on school improvement and total
well-being of school children.
SBM in the Educational System

The basic framework of a quality education system is one that succeeds in
meeting the individual school desired goals and outcomes; one that is relevant to
the needs of students, communities and society; and one that fosters the ability
of students to acquire knowledge and the needed 21st century skills (Stone,
2007). Quality is not the only factor keeping students out of school, but when
effective learning is not taking place in schools. When this happens, several
factors may be viewed as reasons: poor teaching-learning experience given by
teachers, having incompetent faculty in the rosters of teachers, mismanaged
school system by school heads, and poor leadership potential and misguided
governance of the school administrator (Grauwe, 2004). All of this will go back to
how the schools adopt and practically actualize the school-based management
(Edge, 2000).
SBM has been in existence in our educational system for quite number of
years, though existing for several decades in the educational systems of the
other country (Leroy, 2011). It has proven effective in the realization of the
desired goals and outcomes of schools in Australia, United States, Indonesia,
New Zealand, England and Wales, Thailand and others. Some scholars and
researchers alike assert that parental and community participation in schools has
created more effective schools and improved student achievements (Werf,
Creemers & Guldemond, 2001).
In the Philippines, to achieve the Education for All (EFA) objectives by
2015, the Department of Education is pursuing policy reforms under the Basic
Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA). Key Reform Thrust 1 (KRT1) of
BESRA is School-Based Management (SBM). SBM underscores the
empowerment of key stakeholders in school communities to enable them to
actively participate in the continuous improvement of schools towards the
attainment of higher pupil/student learning outcomes (Department of Education,
2006). With SBM, several enabling policies were formulated such as the School
Governing Council (SGC); conduct of Assessment of Level of Practice; School
Improvement Planning (SIP); and reporting of accomplishments through School
Reports Cards (SRCs). These policies were supported by a budget line item in
the General Appropriations Act (GAA) for the installation of SBM in all public
elementary and secondary schools.
18
With this, SBM had been revised to better highlight the learner as the
center of SBM practice; to encompass the diverse realities of learning contexts
defined and uniquely occurring within specific geographic, social, cultural,
economic, political, and environmental make-up of the contemporary society; to
enhance commitment of education stakeholders at all levels to their
responsibilities and accountabilities in realizing the education outcomes for
children; and to improve the school system’s capacity to be on track in achieving
the Education for All/Millennium Development Goals and sustain good
performance (Department of Education, 2012).
With this and even before this, the Department of Education (DepEd) had
been implementing several projects, programs and activities (PPA) that will
realize SBM and other sound philosophical and legal frameworks of the
department. These PPAs include Brigada Eskwela, Every Child-A-Reader
Program, School First Initiative; Child-Friendly School System; Project WATCH
(We Advocate Time Consciousness and Honesty); and Adopt-A-School Program.
Locally, it has been observed that although the schools are doing their
best in linking with the different school stakeholders, still declining results had
been reported by schools on some of the school-initiated activities. Hence, this
study investigated whether the level of SBM implementation affects the level of
participation of the different stakeholders to school-initiated activities.
Stakeholders’ Level of Participation

Research showed that the stakeholders are participating actively in the
different activities initiated by the schools especially regarding PTA conferences,
general assemblies and parents day activities; participating in school activity
directed towards the reduction of illiteracy in schools especially as visiting mentor
in the school reading intervention program and the reading recovery program;
and helping convince civic community minded members to extend assistance to
schools especially during special activities like teacher’s month, and scouting
activities and others.
Moreover, it was revealed that the level of stakeholders’ participation were
found moderate in the following: volunteering in the different activities related to
the health and nutrition of the school children especially during school feeding
programs, activities in the nutrition month and the like; eagerly engaging in
meaningful volunteer work in our school community (value formation activity,
sports competition) that enhances positive interaction among the youth; assisting
school community in sourcing out funds for students to be able to participate in
academic and non-academic competitions; willingly took part in the schools
maintenance week dubbed as Brigada Eskwela by extending some of the
needed resources (financial, material, labor); and answering the call of the
schools in terms of the urgent activities that needs stakeholders’ participation
such as the coming of visitors and the conduct of evaluation related to school-
based management.
19
Method
Subjects and Sites
The external stakeholder-respondents of this study included 40 Non-
government Organization (NGO), 60 Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
presidents and 50 Barangay Captain in CAMANAVA area. On the other there
were 10 principals and 90 teachers for the internal stakeholders.
Table 1. Respondents of the Study

Respondents F %
Internal Principal 10 10
Stakeholders
Teachers 90 90
Total 100 100
External Non-governmental Office 40 27
Stakeholders
60 40
Parent-Teacher Association
President
50 33
Barangay Captain
Total 150 100
CAMANAVA stands for Caloocan, Malabon, Navotas and Valenzuela City

(Philippines). Malabon is part of the sub-region of Metro Manila informally called
CAMANAVA, which consists of CAloocan, MAlabon, NAvotas, and VAlenzuela
cities. Caloocan lies to the south and east, Navotas to the west, and Valenzuela
to the north. Malabon also borders the town of Obando in the province of
Bulacan to the northwest.
Importance of Stakeholders in Curriculum Development

Curriculum development requires the input of different stakeholders such
as teachers, school heads, parents, community members, students, district
administrators and school boards.
The parents on the other hand support and influence the implementation
of the curriculum through financial resources, that is, payment of school fees. In
addition, the parents may help in monitoring and evaluating the implementation
of the curriculum by keeping a close check at the lessons learnt in school and
monitoring the child's home assignments (homework). Moreover, the parent may
stand in the gap between the child and school administration by providing the
student with resources that may be required in the curriculum but are not
available in school. Furthermore, the parents may help teachers to monitor the
20
behavior and social development of the child, especially for children with special
education needs. The parents can get reliable information on curriculum
development by enquiring from their children or by enquiring from the teachers or
school administrators.
In addition, professionals such as psychologists and social workers may
offer contribution on the various ways of dealing with students with special
needs. For instance, professional counselors may provide various useful options
of dealing with student of foreign origin or those with disabilities. Community
members can assist the school administration in the implementation of the
curriculum by co-operating and providing the necessary resources that may not
be available in the school setting but are found within the community setting. In
addition, the community members can also volunteer and act as school board
members. Other stake holders in the curriculum development include the
government and the professional regulation commission that provides license to
graduates of different colleges and universities. Professionals and community
members can source information on curriculum development and progress from
government reports on the performance of schools or by enquiring from teachers,
students and school administrators.
Research Design and Data Gathering

The descriptive method of research was used to describe the internal and
external stakeholders’ participation in the enhanced SBM. According to Best
(2013) the descriptive study describes and interprets what is. It is concerned with
conditions or relations that exist, opinions that are held, processes that are going
on, effects that are evident, or trends that are developing. It is primarily
concerned with the present, although it often considers past events and
influences as they relate to current conditions.
According to Good and Scales (2010), descriptive research includes
studies that presents facts concerning the nature and status of anything. It further
gives meaning to the quality of facts that is on going such as information about
group of persons, a set of conditions, a class or events, a system of thoughts or
any kind of phenomenon or experience which is of interesting study by nature.
A researcher-made questionnaire was developed by the researcher
focusing on the assessment of the internal and external stakeholders’
participation in the enhanced SBM in terms of school governance, curriculum
enhancement, community development, and student activities. The researcher
sought permission from the respective school principals of the respondent-
schools for the approval to the conduct of the study.
Unstructured interview was conducted to describe how the stakeholders
participate in the enhanced SBM. The unstructured interview was done with an
open-ended, semi-structured interview questions to the respondents face-to-face
to know the extent of their participation in the enhanced SBM.
Method of Analysis
21
To quantify the internal and external stakeholders’ participation in the

enhanced SBM, the weighted mean was used. The weighted mean score was
obtained using the formula:
Wx= fx
____
N
where: f x - Sum of the product of the frequency and score

N - Number of respondents
Four-point Likert scale was used in computing for the weighted
means of gathered data using the following rating:
Rating Scale Level of Participation
4 3.50 – 4.00 Fully Participate
3 2.50 – 3.49 Participate
2 1.50 – 2.49 Moderately Participate
1 1.00 – 1.49 Not Participate
Findings
Internal and External Stakeholders’ Participation in the Enhanced SBM
Although there are many varieties of SBM, a review of studies on SBM
and interviews with its practitioners led to the following generally accepted
descriptions of stakeholders' roles and responsibilities.
The key word that describes the administration's role in SBM is facilitating.
The school facilitates instead of controls schools' actions by formulating and
defining the general policies and educational objectives. At the building level, the
principal is usually the key figure in fostering shared governance within the
school. Principals not only have increased responsibility and authority in school
program, curriculum, and personnel decisions, but also increased accountability
for student and program success. Principals must be excellent team leaders and
delegators.
Teacher empowerment and accountability are major ingredients of SBM.
Teachers influence decisions by participating in planning, developing, monitoring,
and improving instructional programs within the school. Involvement of parents is
essential to successful implementation of SBM. Ultimately, the argument for
parent involvement rests on two benefits to children: better attitudes toward
school and higher grades.
The following tables illustrate the stakeholders’ participation in the
enhanced SBM.
School Governance. Table 2 presents the stakeholders’ participation in
the enhanced SBM as to school governance.
Table 2. Stakeholders’ Participation in the Enhanced SBM
in terms of School Governance
School Governance Internal External

22
Stakeholders Stakeholders
Mean VI Mean VI
Assist and participate in the formation 3.52 FP 3.43 P
of school governing council (SGC)
Support the selection, nomination, 3.47 P 2.88 P
and election of SGC members
Involve in the School Improvement 3.77 FP 3.52 P
Plan formulation, implementation, and
monitoring and evaluation
Keep informed about the whereabouts 3.64 FP 3.37 P
of the school funds and MOOE
allocation and liquidation
Over-all Mean Score 3.66 FP 3.24 P
Data shows that the internal stakeholders participate in the School

Improvement Plan formulation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation
based from the mean score of 3.77 followed immediately that the stakeholders
participate in keeping informed about the whereabouts of the school funds and
MOOE allocation and liquidation as seen from the mean score of 3.64. The
stakeholders lowest assessment was that they participate in assisting in the
formation of school governing council (SGC) as described from the mean score
of 3.52, and that they participate in supporting the selection, nomination, and
election of SGC members based form the mean score of 3.47. On the other
hand, the external stakeholders assessed that they participate in supporting the
selection, nomination, and election of SGC members based from the mean score
of 2.88, followed immediately in assisting in the formation of school governing
council (SGC) based from the mean score of 3.43, and that they participate in
informing about the whereabouts of the school funds and MOOE allocation and
liquidation as seen from the mean score of 3.37.
Curriculum Enhancement. Table 3 presents the stakeholders’

participation in the enhanced SBM as to curriculum enhancement.

in terms of Curriculum Enhancement
Curriculum Enhancement Internal External
Mean VI Mean VI
Support the localization and 3.56 FP 3.21 P
customization of the curriculum
Contribute in the crafting/ planning of 3.69 FP 3.33 P
the curricular offering
23
Assist in enhancing areas in the 3.73 FP 3.28 P

curriculum which needs improvement
Involve in the design, improvement 3.17 P 2.99 P

and enrichment of the curriculum
Over-all Mean Score 3.53 P 3.20 P
Findings show that the internal stakeholders assessed that they

participate in assisting in enhancing areas in the curriculum which needs
improvement based from the mean score of 3.73, followed immediately that they
participate in contributing in the crafting/ planning of the curricular offering as
seen from the mean score of 3.69, and that they participate in involving in the
design, improvement and enrichment of the curriculum as indicated from the
mean score of 3.17. On the other hand, the external stakeholders assessed that
they participate in contributing in the crafting/ planning of the curricular offering
as seen from the mean score of 3.33, followed immediately that they participate
in assisting in enhancing areas in the curriculum which needs improvement 3.28,
and that they participate in involving in the design, improvement and enrichment
of the curriculum as reflected from the mean score of 2.99.
Community Development. Table 4 presents the stakeholders’

participation in the enhanced SBM as to community development.

in terms of Community Development
Community Development Internal External
Mean VI Mean VI
Formulate plans for community 3.22 P 3.25 P
improvement
Establish linkages or network to 3.45 P 3.38 P
ensure the school attain its goals
Establish strong relationship with other 3.50 FP 3.41 P
schools for benchmarking of best
practices on school administrative and
instructional matters
Encourage activities that ensure 3.47 P 3.36 P
application of learning to homes and
communities
Over-all Mean Score 3.41 P 3.35 P
24
It was found out that the internal stakeholders participate in establishing

strong relationship with other schools for benchmarking of best practices on
school administrative and instructional matters based from the mean score of
3.50, while assessed that they participate in encouraging activities that ensure
application of learning to homes and communities as seen from the mean score
of 3.41, and that they participate in formulating plans for community improvement
as indicated from the mean score of 3.22.
On the other hand, the external stakeholders assessed that they
participate in establishing strong relationship with other schools for benchmarking
of best practices on school administrative and instructional matters as indicated
from the mean score of 3.41, followed immediately that they participate in
establishing linkages or network to ensure the school attain its goals based from
the mean score of 3.38, and that they participate in formulating plans for
community improvement as described from the mean score of 3.25.
Student Activities. Table 5 indicates the stakeholders’ participation in the
enhanced SBM as to student activities.
Data reveals that the internal stakeholders assessed that they participate
in evaluating data obtained from tests instruments for enrichment/remedial
program based from the means core of 3.45, followed immediately that they
participate in assisting in the conduct of small group study for the
enrichment/remedial program of the students based from the mean score of 3.47,
and that they participate in monitoring remediation and enrichment classes as
indicated from the means score of 2.66.

in terms of Student Activities
Internal External
Student Activities
Mean VI Mean VI
Evaluate data obtained from tests 3.45 P 3.20 P
instruments for enrichment/remedial
program
Assist in the conduct of small group study 3.47 P 3.15 P

for the enrichment/remedial program of the
students
Monitor remediation and enrichment 2.66 P 2.12 MP
classes
Develop the trends of students’ 3.18 P 2.32 MP
performance and design classes with
teachers
Over-all Mean 3.19 P 2.69 P
25
On the other hand, the external stakeholders assessed that they

participate in assisting in the conduct of small group study for the
enrichment/remedial program of the students as revealed from the mean score of
3.15, and that they participate in evaluating data obtained from tests instruments
for enrichment/remedial program based from the means core of 3.20, and that
they participate in developing the trends of students’ performance and design
classes with teachers as seen from the mean score of 3.15.
Discussion
SBM provides better programs for students because resources will be
available to directly match student needs. SBM ensures higher quality decisions
because they are made by groups instead of individuals. Finally, proponents
argue that it increases communication among all internal and external
stakeholders, including school boards, principals, teachers, parents, community
members, and students.
Governance in schools is the responsibility of the governing council whose
role is directed by the school constitution and code of practice. In the model of
school governance the cooperative role of governing council and school staff is
emphasised, management and governance are clearly separated, the focus is on
improving student learning outcomes, and that the broad directions are set and
monitored by the governing council.
In an interview with the principal,
“As a school principal I act alone on my own authority, and carries out my
assignments within the context of laws, regulations, administrative
instructions and directives originating from the school board and local
government, which, as the representative of the school stakeholders, has
the original authority to determine the type of education a country should
provide for its citizens.”
Another principal said,

“Being a school principal, in my school I make sure that governance is
therefore done through a coalition of interests working together,
performing different functions, all aimed at enabling each school to
operate and to achieve its aims and objectives. Being the school principal
I make sure to direct and oversee the day to day activities of the school,
must know what agencies, groups and individuals, and constitute this
coalition of interests.”
The governing council identifies and incorporates, where possible,

student, parent and community input and values into the broad direction of the
school. The principal brings the staff perspective to these undertakings. The
broad direction may include a future vision, a statement of purpose and a set of
values that clearly focus on improving student learning. The governing council
26
develops broad policy statements that facilitate the achievement of the school
vision and broad direction.
In education, a curriculum is broadly defined as the totality of student
experiences that occur in the educational process. The term often refers
specifically to a planned sequence of instruction, or to a view of the student's
experiences in terms of the educator's or schools instructional goals. Curriculum
Is a set of learning goals articulated across grades that outline the intended
mathematics content and process goals at particular points in time. Curriculum
may incorporate the planned interaction of pupils with instructional content,
materials, resources, and processes for evaluating the attainment of educational
objectives.
Curriculum enhancement requires the input of different stakeholders such
as teachers, principals, parents, community members, students, and school
boards. The role of the teachers involves defining different course components
that are considered relevant, in line with the latest technological development in
the education sector. In addition to developing the curriculum, teachers help in
executing the curriculum development findings.
A principal narrated,
“The teachers continuously contribute to the development of school
curriculum by developing periodic course teaching plans and giving
consideration to the special needs of the students. Therefore, having a
good curriculum without the input of teachers cannot help in achieving the
learning objectives and goals.”
The other important group of stakeholders is the school principal. Their

role in curriculum enhancement cannot be underestimated since they are the
people that monitor the implementation of the curriculum.
Another principal revealed,

“As principal I am responsible for purchasing learning materials in the
school which is an essential requirement in curriculum enhancement.”
The parents on the other hand support and influence the implementation of the
curriculum through financial resources, that is, payment of school fees. In
addition, the parents may help in monitoring and evaluating the implementation
of the curriculum by keeping a close check at the lessons learnt in school and
monitoring the child's home assignments (homework).
The consistent community involvement and engagement at all levels of
the school stakeholders have been shown time and time again to have significant
long terms benefits.
In terms of community involvement, “when schools, parents, families, and
communities work together to support learning, students tend to earn higher
grades, attend school more regularly, stay in school longer, and enrol in higher
level programs”.
A principal said in an interview,
27
“With these important benefits in mind, it’s clear that a focus on increasing
community involvement programs and opportunities should be a
consistent goal for the school.”
Volunteering to all school stakeholders is one of the most common and

popular ways to encourage community involvement in schools. Connect with
local businesses, civic organizations, charities, nonprofit foundations, and other
groups in the community to enlist volunteers to come in before, during, or after
the school day.
A principal remarked,
“As principal I establish strong relationship with other schools and to the
local businesses, civic organizations, charities, etc. for benchmarking of
best practices on school administrative and instructional matters.”
Volunteering can come in many different shapes and forms. Invite local
leaders and individuals in the community to visit classes and speak about their
chosen profession for Career Day. Encourage community members to get
involved by volunteering with enrichment opportunities before and after school,
such as tutoring, fine arts clubs, and athletic teams.
Not every organization, business, family, or individual in the community is
going to have the time or capacity to participate in in-person and on-premise
volunteer opportunities. That’s why it’s important to also prioritize community
involvement in the form of sponsorship and donation programs.
Create and publicize sponsorship and donation needs throughout your
community, to give local organizations and businesses the opportunity to partner
with your school.
The responsibility for raising a well-educated and civic-minded generation
of children cannot rest solely with schools. The research review[4] by Henderson
& Mapp examined 51 research studies that offered perspectives on the
relationship between parent (and community) involvement and student
achievement. As a whole, “these studies found a positive and convincing
relationship between family involvement and benefits for students, including
improved academic achievement… Although there is less research on the effects
of community involvement, it also suggests benefits for schools, families, and
students, including improved achievement and behavior.”
However you work to increase community involvement, remember that
when schools, parents, and communities partner together, great things can
happen in the lives of children and young adults.
The principals including all the school stakeholders play a key role in the
delivery of quality instruction. The school stakeholders’ responsibilities include
ensuring educational strategies are in place that support effective learning for all
students. The school stakeholders serve as a facilitator, guide and supporter of
quality instructional practices. The internal stakeholders understand that
improved test scores are important but know that quality instruction is essential
for improving student achievement.
28
The principal being one of the internal stakeholders serves as the

educational leader of the campus, it is imperative that they have a working
knowledge of effective instructional strategies and understand the needs of their
students and teachers. The responsibility for outlining effective practices for
student instruction is a task that should be shared with teachers and may include
support from the curriculum department and consultants. The process of
identifying effective practices requires collaboration both form the internal and
external stakeholders.
Therefore, principals’ responsibilities should include ensuring effective
collaboration. They should acknowledge that collaboration is worthwhile, and it
can work.
A principal stated,
“As a principal I have to put a great deal of work, planning, and trust into it.
The collaborative process should begin with reviewing data and getting
input from teachers, curriculum staff and other external stakeholders to
outline or modify the schools’ action plan.”
“I evaluate data obtained from tests instruments for enrichment/remedial
program, and develop the trends of students’ performance and design
classes with teachers.”
The school principals play an important role in improving student

achievement through their facilitation, guidance and support of effective
instructional strategies. They must be willing to collaborate with staff to determine
appropriate instructional strategies and support teachers through active
involvement, collaboration and effective leadership.
Conclusion
Research showed that both stakeholders are participating in the different
activities initiated by the schools pertaining to school governance, curriculum
enhancement, community development, and student activities.
However, participation in terms of the different activities involved was
inclined to internal stakeholders rather than the external stakeholders. The
researcher found out that for the activities: school governance, curriculum
enhancement, community development and student activities the internal
stakeholders participate more rather than the external stakeholders.
The researcher observed that participation is lopsided towards the internal
stakeholders it only proves that external stakeholders must have a defined
purpose or function to have an effective if not efficient implementation of the
enhanced – school based management.
References
Briggs, K. L., & Robertson P. J. (1998). Improving schools through school-based

management: An examination of the process of change. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 28-57.
29
Briggs, K. L., & Wohlstetter P. (2003). Key Element of a successful school

improvement. School effectiveness and school improvement, vol.14, No. 3, pp.
351-372.
Clemente, Michelle I, School Based Management of Fortune High School,

Marikina City, Philippines, Study Mode.com, 2012
Fullan, M., & Watson, N. (2000). School-Based Management: Re-conceptualizing

to Improve Learning Outcome. School Effectiveness and School Improvement
2000, Vol.11, No.4, pp. 453-473
Leroy, Reine Carmel, School-based Management in Haiti: Committee members’

perceptions of benefits, disadvantages, constraints and facilitators, ProQuest,
University of Miami, USA, 2002
Licuanan, P. (2003) ‘Leading educational change: reflections on the practice of

instructional and transformational leadership’. Cambridge journal of education,
33(3), 329-351.
Stone J and P.C Kirby, Bringing out the best in Teachers: What effective
Principles Do. California: Corwin Press, 2012
Gaziel, H, (1998) School based management as a factor in school effectiveness.
International Review of Education, 44 no 4, p.319-333.
30
CHAPTER 3
Challenges encountered by the internal and external stakeholders in their

involvement in the Implementation of SBM
_____________________________________________________________
Abstract
This study attempted to assess the challenges encountered by the

stakeholders in their involvement in the implementation of the enhanced – school
based management. Part of the problem with evaluating SBM is that there are so
many variations on how it is put into practice. In an SBM system, authority can
transfer from the national government to superintendents, from superintendents
to principals, from principals to other members of the school community such as
teachers and parents, or some combination of two or more of these.
In the country, the trend towards SBM, and the wider decentralization of
public services, including education, has not been the result of an internal
debate. The conviction might have existed that such a policy will lead to higher
quality, but that argument was more of an afterthought.
Before SBM reforms, public authorities were felt to be too restrictive and
the reforms were precisely one strategy to limit their involvement. In many cities
in the country, the problem is the absence of a supportive local government unit.
Weak governments cannot be expected to develop accountability frameworks to
counterbalance school autonomy or to offer support to schools. The absence of
an efficient and supportive LGU is risky not only for the individual schools, but
also for the system as a whole, being threatened by disintegration and disparity.
Some of the challenges encountered by the external stakeholders in their
participation in the implementation of SBM include more work for stakeholders,
less efficiency, uneven school performance, and an increased need for staff
development, confusion about new roles and responsibilities, and coordination
difficulties. Another problem is accountability.
Barriers that may prevent SBM from being implemented successfully
include lack of knowledge by stakeholders of what SBM is and how it works; lack
of decision-making skills, communication, and trust among stakeholders;
statutes, regulations, and union contracts that restrict decision-making authority
and teachers' time involvement; and the reluctance of some administrators and
teachers to allow others to take over decision-making authority.
Keywords: decentralization, weak governments, risky, disintegration, disparity
Introduction
Education systems are extremely demanding of the managerial, technical,
and financial capacity of governments, and, thus, as a service, education is too
complex to be efficiently produced and distributed in a centralized fashion. Thus,
the government adopts this innovation to decentralize the authority to the school
level. Responsibility and decision-making over school operations is transferred to
31
principals, teachers, parents, sometimes students, and other school community

members. The school-level actors, however, have to conform to, or operate,
within a set of centrally determined policies
(http://ourhappyschool.com/education/school-based-management-sbm-
philippine-schools).
In general, SBM programs transfer authority over one or more of the
following activities: budget allocation, hiring and firing of teachers and other
school staff, curriculum development, textbook and other educational material
procurement, infrastructure improvement, setting the school calendar to better
meet the specific needs of the local community, and monitoring and evaluation of
teacher performance and student learning outcomes. SBM also includes school-
development plans, school grants, and sometimes information dissemination of
educational results (otherwise known as ‘report cards’).
The Department of Education has always been consistent with its thrust
as inscribed in the vision, mission and the goal statement. Under the
administration of former DepEd secretary Jesli A. Lapus, several programs were
formulated and implemented. One of which was the SBM or School-Based
Management program--- as the key component of Basic Education Sector reform
Agenda or BESRA. Yet another initiative prescribed by the institution and to be
adopted by its members.
According to former Secretary Lapus, the main objective of the project is
“to equip and empower the key officials of a particular school in order to make an
informed and localized decisions based on their unique needs toward improving
our educational system”. He emphasized the importance of educating the school
children and other stakeholders of their participation in every educational activity,
thereby making the task of school heads and teachers easier as the community
will be one with them in their efforts to improve the quality of education and the
school.
Secondary teacher, should be in unison to every program that the
department implements. Being the applicator or facilitator, everyone seen and
experienced the effect of those programs first-hand. Being aware that the failure
or success of any program basically lies on the teachers--- their acceptance,
readiness, enthusiasm and mastery plays a vital role in the realization of their
objectives.
This is one program that has been long overdue, though the mainframe of
curriculum development and general activity of the department is the
responsibility of administrators; there are also local issues and concerns that can
only be addressed by local school officials and other stakeholders.
Arguments on SBM
School-based management, school based governance, school self
management and school site management: different terms with somewhat
different meanings, but all referring to a similar and increasingly popular trend,
which consists of allowing schools more autonomy in decisions about their
management; that is, in the use of their human, material and financial resources.
The popularity of this trend is clear for all to see through the diversity of agencies
32
showing interest or manifestly promoting it, the amount of articles discussing its
merits and demerits and, most crucially, the growing number of countries that
have adopted aspects of this policy.
Concern with educational quality has seldom been at the heart of this
policy – the reason for its introduction being related more to financial and
managerial arguments. Nevertheless, its impact on quality is undoubtedly a core
and contentious issue, with some authors claiming that SBM is the panacea for
quality improvement, while others argue that its introduction has led to
deterioration especially in the weakest schools. This article will analyze these
different arguments and particularly examine how and under what conditions
SBM can contribute to quality improvement.
Method
Subjects and Sites
The respondents of this study included sampled external stakeholder-
respondents from Non-government Organization (NGO), Parent Teacher
Association (PTA) presidents and Barangay Captain in CAMANAVA area. The
respondents were chosen using the selection criteria that they have been actively
involved for three years or more in the implementation of the SBM in the school,
and have the time and commitment for an interview. On the other there were a
total of 50 internal stakeholders composed of 10 principals and 90 teachers.
Table 6. Respondents of the Study

Respondents Designation f %
Internal Principal 10 10
Stakeholders
Teachers 90 90
Total 100 100
External Non-governmental Office 40 27
Stakeholders
60 40
Parent-Teacher Association
President
50 33
Barangay Captain
Total 150 100

Both the quantitative and qualitative type of research was used in this
study. The questionnaire was used to quantify the respondents assessment on
the challenges encountered by encountered by the external stakeholders in their
participation in the implementation of SBM. The unstructured interview was used
33
to qualify the challenges encountered by the external stakeholders in the

implementation of SBM. The unstructured interview was conducted with an open-
ended, semi-structured interview questions focusing on the challenges
encountered by the external stakeholders in the implementation of SBM.
Method of Analysis
The researcher used the technique developed by Giorgi in analyzing
qualitative data. The responses of the three groups of respondents will be
analyzed separately. The presentation will be by the three groups of respondents
– the NGO, the PTA presidents and the Barangay chairman. Giorgi (2014) has
developed five steps in describing and explaining the context on the lived-
experience of the participants including (1) assume the phenomenological
attitude, (2) read entire written account for a sense of the whole, (3) delineate
meaning units, (4) transform the meaning units into psychologically sensitive
statements of their lived-meanings, and (5) synthesize a general psychological
structure of the experience base on the constituents of the experience. It is the
first-person psychological perspective that is sought so that an empathetic
position can be adopted by the end-user of the research.
Findings
SBM is one program that has been long overdue, though the mainframe of
curriculum development and general activity of the school is the responsibility of
administrators; there are also local issues, concerns and challenges that can only
be addressed by local school officials and other stakeholders in the
implementation of SBM.
Challenges encountered by the external stakeholders in their participation in the

implementation of SBM
Table 7 displays the challenges encountered by the external stakeholders

in their participation in the implementation of SBM.
Table 7. Challenges encountered by the external stakeholders in their
participation in the implementation of SBM
Challenges Internal External

Mean VI Mean VI
Varied application of SBM practices 3.45 O 3.99 A
Absence of participatory decision- 3.17 O 3.98 A
making process
Absence of a supportive local 3.25 O 3.49 O
government framework
Difficulty of transfer of responsibilities 3.30 O 3.73 A
Increased Principals’ administrative and 3.16 O 2.60 O
managerial workload
Gender Issue 3.09 O 3.20 O
34
Lack of Community involvement 3.10 O 3.44 O

Lack of transparency 3.14 O 2.71 O
Over-all Mean 3.20 O 3.39 O
Data shows that the internal stakeholders often find challenges in the
varied application of SBM practices in the school based from the mean score of
3.45, difficulty of transfer of responsibilities as seen from the mean score of 3.30,
followed immediately by assessing that they often experienced absence of a
supportive local government framework as indicated from the mean score of
3.25. The respondents’ lowest assessment was that they often experienced lack
of community involvement as indicated from the mean score of 3.10, and that
they often experience gender issue based from the mean score of 3.09. On the
other hand, the external stakeholders always experienced varied application of
SBM practices in the school based from the mean score of 3.99, absence of
participatory decision-making process as reflected from the mean score of 3.98,
followed immediately that they always experienced difficulty of transfer of
responsibilities as seen from the mean score of 3.73, and that they often
experienced increased Principals’ administrative and managerial workload as
indicated from the mean score of 2.60.
Discussion
In accordance with the researchers findings the following will highlight
what appears to be the crucial challenges in the implementation of SBM.
Pertaining to varied application of SBM practices part of the problem with
evaluating SBM is that there are so many variations on how it is put into practice.
In an SBM system, authority can be transferred from the government to local
school boards, from local school boards to superintendents, from
superintendents to principals, from principals to other members of the school
community such as teachers and parents, or some combination of two or more of
these.
Not only are there variations about how SBM is practiced, but schools
implementing SBM vary widely in what decisions are distributed. For example, a
school may have an active school council--made up of teachers, parents, and the
principal--involved in drawing up budgets, hiring and firing, and determining
curriculum. Others merely advise the principal in such decisions. Or the council
membership might be only teachers, or the council's decisions may be limited to
such topics as fundraising or textbook selection.
In an interview, the principal revealed,
“For SBM to work successfully, we must use a team approach to decision-
making. If this is done teachers will feel more positive toward school
leaders and more committed to school goals and objectives. Parents and
community members will be more supportive of schools because they
have more of a say over decisions.”
35
Principals benefit by receiving input from other stakeholders, thereby

being aware of teacher and parent concerns before they get out of control, as
well as being freer to research new ideas and teaching methods and deal with
problem areas.
In terms of the absence of participatory decision-making process the
researcher elucidates the challenges encountered. In the country, the trend
towards SBM, and the wider decentralization of public services, including
education, has not been the result of an internal debate. The conviction might
have existed that such a policy will lead to higher quality, but that argument was
more of an afterthought. Pressure by the local authorities or communities
demanding a more participatory decision-making process, has generally been
absent. The question then crops up as to what extent this policy is owned and
internalized by those who supposed to be its main beneficiaries, namely teachers
and parents.
The researcher discusses the absence of a supportive local government
framework. In CAMANAVA where SBM policies were introduced, is very different
from that of most developing cities. In other big cities in the NCR, the public
authorities are fairly efficient, with a wide outreach and a communications
network covering all schools.
Results of the interview reveal that,
“The local government is not supportive of the school undertaking. They
do not respond to whatever assistance the school asks.”
Another principal said,
“Whenever we ask for assistance, the local government will always say
that the government has no sufficient budget.”
Before SBM reforms, public authorities were felt to be too restrictive and
the reforms were precisely one strategy to limit their involvement. In many cities
in the country, the problem is the absence of a supportive local government unit.
Weak governments cannot be expected to develop accountability frameworks to
counterbalance school autonomy or to offer support to schools. The absence of
an efficient and supportive LGU is risky not only for the individual schools, but
also for the system as a whole, being threatened by disintegration and disparity.
The researcher expounds the difficulty of transfer of responsibilities. Two
groups are expected to be the main beneficiaries of SBM as well as the main
guarantors of its successful implementation: the senior teachers, specially the
school’s principal and the parents, and at times the wider community. In both
cases, the transfer of responsibilities will encounter preoccupying challenges.
Few head teachers can be considered strong and well-trained
professionals. Quite a few are simply teachers benefiting from end-of-career
promotion, which is hardly their fault. If blame needs to be assigned, it lies with
central policy-makers whose policy declarations have been accompanied by
insufficient measures to strengthen the position of head teachers. In the country,
selection and recruitment practices have not changed; capacity-building
initiatives cover few staff; professional development opportunities, if they exist,
remain scarce.
36
In terms of the increased Principals’ administrative and managerial

workload. SBM has in several cases made life harder for school principals by
increasing their administrative and managerial workload, to the detriment of their
role as a pedagogical leader.
A principal stated,
“With its implementation, the SBM eats a lot of my time that gives me as a
principal already a burden.”
Another principal remarked,
“There is already much demand on my time and, as a result, only a
relatively small proportion of my energy is available for school
improvement purposes.”
This increase workload is a factor as important in schools. In addition,
many management-related decisions, especially financing and staffing issues,
are intricate and complex. Studies found out that “principals were troubled by
ethical dilemmas and some reported an increase in the frequency with which
they were confronted with difficult decisions in recent years”.
Many school principals are being chased by so many work loads with the
implementation of the SBM. It also shows that the implementation of school-
based management has not been completely smoothly because there are still
unavoidable problems. More details, mentioned that among the problems faced
in the implementation of SBM related to financial management is the problem of
extracting sources of funding, bookkeeping, transparency and accountability, and
lack of monitoring, evaluation and reporting.
Pertaining to gender issue the socio-cultural roles and expectations
regarding gender roles are reflected in perceptions of school principals’ impacts
and interactions. Women principals are perceived as unavailable or unreliable
due to family responsibilities. Female school principals are often perceived as
maternal figures, ensuring more responsive and efficient personnel (and school)
management, although they were also described as particularly severe towards
female teachers.
With regards to the community involvement, it is evident that it occupies a
central place in SBM through its involvement in the school. They play a role in
head teacher recruitment, in some budgetary decisions and in extra-curricular
affairs; on the other extreme, some are simply milking cows for enterprising
principals. Whatever the case may be, getting a community involved in school life
is not an easy matter and the problem is not simply one of capacities. In
communities with many social and political tensions, the school has, in some
instances, become an instrument in the hands of the elite to build up its power,
leading to greater inequities.
A related concern is the lack of transparency especially in the use of funds
at the school level by the principal. Ongoing research on school functioning in a
context of decentralization shows that parents and teachers have nearly no
knowledge or control over the use of the fees they pay for their children’s
schooling. In a context where accountability to the local is focused it is doubtful
that SBM leads to better use of funds.
37
Conclusions
The researcher found out that the challenges encountered by the external
stakeholders in the implementation of enhanced – school based management
was increasingly high. In terms of varied application of SBM external
stakeholders are clearly challenged because of SBMs varying degree of
application to different schools. The researcher’s respondents (external
stakeholders) were slow to cope up because of the varying applications of SBM.
The researcher observed that in the decision – making process participation
proves to be a challenge as well because external stakeholders were not given
much participation in the decision – making. It was also found out that there was
an absence of a supportive local governmental framework to give guidance to
external stakeholders in their participation. Much more was the difficulty of the
transfer of responsibilities, gender issue and lack of community involvement
poses as a real challenge to the external stakeholders.
However, the researcher found out that increased administrative and
managerial workload and the lack of transparency was a real challenge to
internal stakeholders.
Furthermore, it only shows that external stakeholders must have a definite
purpose and function to address these challenges to be a support program for
the enhanced – school based management.
References
Abu Duhou, I. (1999). School-based management, Fundamentals of Educational

Planning, 62
Anderson, C., & Limerick, B (1999). Female Administrators and School-Based

Management: New Models in An Era of Change? Education Management &
Administration, vol. 27, no. 4, pp 401-414.
De Grauwe, A, (2003), Les réformes des services d’inspection : modèles et

idéologies, in : Revue Française de Pédagogie, no 145, p.5-20.
Dempster, N. (2000). Guilty or not: the impact and effects of site-based

management on schools. Journal of Educational Administration, vol. 38, no. 1, p.
47-65.
management: the specific case of Queensland, Australia. Journal of Educational

Administration, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 6-30.
Leithwood K., & Menzies T. (1998). A review of research concerning the

implementation of Site-based management. School effectiveness and school
improvement, Vol. 9, No. 33, pp. 233-285.
38
Leithwood K., & Menzies T. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based

management: a review. Educational policy, vol. 12, no. 3, pp.325-347. 13
McGinn & Welsh (1999). Decentralization of education: why, when, what and
how?, Fundamentals of Educational Planning, 64.
Walker, M. E. (2000). The politics of school based-management: Understanding

the process of devolving authority in urban school districts. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, Vol. 10 No. 33. Retrieved [2004] from
http://epaa.asu/epaa/v10n33.html.
39
CHAPTER 4
Addressing the Challenges in the Implementation of SBM

_____________________________________________________________
Abstract
This study is focused on how to address such challenges in implementing

the enhanced - school based management. One good point is to establish a
sound procedure for ensuring school accountability for their resources and
authority.
In accordance with the study a school-based management projects have
been proven to increase the involvement of parents and other local people in the
affairs of the school. When parents and community members are involved in
planning for and using school grants, a process of social auditing ensures
transparency and accountability in the use of funds. Because parents and school
staff are likely to be unaccustomed to the task of procuring goods and services or
to keeping accounts, they need to receive training to ensure their accountability
for the school funds that they are managing.
The study further found out that a sound training program for parents,
teachers, and school personnel is critical to ensure the successful
implementation of school-based management because many of them are likely to
lack the skills necessary to carry out their new responsibilities. These skills
include organizational skills such as planning and management, combined with
process skills such as team building, interpersonal relations, and conflict
resolution.
Keywords: school accountability, school grants, social auditing, transparency

and accountability, interpersonal relations, conflict resolution
Introduction
School-based management (SBM) is the decentralization of levels of
authority to the school level. Responsibility and decision-making over school
operations is transferred to principals, teachers, parents, sometimes students,
and other school community members. The school-level actors, however, have to
conform to, or operate, within a set of centrally determined policies.
SBM or the School – Based Management is anchored on the
decentralization trend of the 70s. SBM, a framework of governance, transfers the
power and authority as well as the resources to the school level on the
assumption that the school heads including teachers, key leaders in the
community, parents know the root and solution to the problem. In the Philippines,
SBM was officially implemented as a governance framework of DEPED with the
passage of RA 9155 in 2001. TEEP, SEDIP and BEAM – two pilot projects
implemented by DEPED – support the SBM as an effective mechanism to
40
inprove the quality of education in the basic level. Thus, SBM is a viable
structural reform intervention used to improve the quality of education in the
public school so as to produce functionally literate Filipinos.
The big challenge ahead of the DEPED is its effective implementation
nationwide. The challenges include varied application of SBM practices, the
absence of participatory decision – making process, the absence of a supportive
local governmental framework, difficulty of transfer of responsibilities, increased
principals administrative and managerial workload, gender issue, lack of
community involvement and the lack of transparency. These challenges must be
addressed in order to have an effective implementation of SBM. These
challenges can only be addressed if there would be a definite policy on the
participation of the external stakeholders collaborating with the internal
stakeholders.
One Punong Barangay told the researcher the following:
“…ang ibang Kapitan hindi alam kung ano ang SBM, so maganda sana
kung ii-introduce kami kung ano ba ang SBM. Mabuti sana kung may
partisipasyon talaga kami na kung saan nakalahad kung papaano, hindi
iyong nangangapa kami…”
From this interview the Punong Barangay frankly suggested to have a
definite policy for the participation of the external stakeholders.
SBM programs take on many different forms, both in terms of who has the
power to make decisions as well as the degree of decision-making devolved to
the school level. While some programs transfer authority to principals or teachers
only, others encourage or mandate parental and community participation, often in
school committees (sometimes known as school councils). In general, SBM
programs transfer authority over one or more of the following activities: budget
allocation, hiring and firing of teachers and other school staff, curriculum
development, textbook and other educational material procurement,
infrastructure improvement, setting the school calendar to better meet the
specific needs of the local community, and monitoring and evaluation of teacher
performance and student learning outcomes. SBM also includes school-
development plans, school grants, and sometimes information dissemination of
educational results (otherwise known as ‘report cards’).
Advocates of SBM assert that it should improve educational outcomes for

a number of reasons. First, it improves accountability of principals and teachers
to students, parents and teachers. Accountability mechanisms that put people at
the center of service provision can go a long way in making services work and
improving outcomes by facilitating participation in service delivery, as noted in
the World Bank’s 2004 World Development Report, Making Services Work for
Poor People. Second, it allows local decision-makers to determine the
appropriate mix of inputs and education policies adapted to local realities and
needs.
Literature Review
41
Evaluations of SBM programs offer mixed evidence of impacts.

Nicaragua’s Autonomous School Program gives school-site councils – comprised
of teachers, students and a voting majority of parents – authority to determine
how 100 percent of school resources are allocated and authority to hire and fire
principals, a privilege that few other school councils in Latin America enjoy. Two
evaluations found that the number of decisions made at the school level
contributed to better test scores (Ozler 2010). Mexico’s compensatory education
program provides extra resources to disadvantaged rural primary schools and all
indigenous schools, thus increasing the supply of education. However, the
compensatory package has several components. If one breaks the intervention
up in its multiple components, then it is shown that empowering parent
associations seems to have a substantial effect in improving educational
outcomes, even when controlling for the presence of beneficiaries of Mexico’s
large and successful conditional cash transfer program (Oportunidades, formerly
Progressa). This is strong evidence of the positive effects of decentralizing
education to the lower levels (Gertler, Patrinos and Rubio Forthcoming, 2009).
Various evaluations of SBM programs in the United States have found evidence
of decreased dropout and student suspension rates but no impact on test scores.
Such evaluations should not only provide more accurate estimates of the
effectiveness of the reforms, but also help answer policy-related questions
regarding design and implementation of those reforms in different socio-cultural
contexts.
Method
Subjects and Sites
The respondents of this study included sampled Non-government
Organization (NGO), Parent Teacher Association (PTA) presidents and
Barangay Captain in CAMANAVA area. The respondents were chosen using the
selection criteria that they have been actively involved for three years or more in
the implementation of the SBM in the school, and have the time and commitment
for an interview.

The qualitative type of research was used in this study. The unstructured
interview was be used to ascertain how the internal stakeholders address the
challenges encountered in the implementation of SBM. The unstructured
interview was done with an open-ended, semi-structured interview questions to
the respondents face-to-face to know how the internal stakeholders address the
challenges encountered in the implementation of SBM.
Method of Analysis
qualitative data. The responses of the three groups of respondents were
analyzed separately. The presentation was by the three groups of respondents.
Giorgi (2014) has developed five steps in describing and explaining the context
on the lived-experience of the participants including (1) assume the
42
phenomenological attitude, (2) read entire written account for a sense of the
whole, (3) delineate meaning units, (4) transform the meaning units into
psychologically sensitive statements of their lived-meanings, and (5) synthesize a
general psychological structure of the experience based on the constituents of
the experience. It is the first-person psychological perspective that is sought so
that an empathetic position can be adopted by the end-user of the research.
Findings
With the challenges encountered by the stakeholders in the
implementation of SBM, the following strategies can be used to address these
challenges.
The first strategy was to establish a sound procedure for ensuring school
accountability for their resources and authority. School-based management
projects have been proven to increase the involvement of parents and other local
people in the affairs of the school. When parents and community members are
involved in planning for and using school grants, a process of social auditing
ensures transparency and accountability in the use of funds. Because parents
and school staff are likely to be unaccustomed to the task of procuring goods and
services or to keeping accounts, they need to receive training to ensure their
accountability for the school funds that they are managing.
The second would be to train external stakeholders in the implementation
of SBM in order to guide them. In CAMANAVA, the experiences of the
stakeholders clearly show that even illiterate parents can be effectively trained to
manage school funds well.
A Barangay official, said in an interview,
“Kinakailangan naming matuto hinggil sa bagay na ito dahil ang SBM ay
bago sa pandinig namin.” (“We need to be trained since SBM is something new
to us.”)
Another barangay official uttered,
“Nararapat lang na I – train kami ng school ukol sa implementasyon ng
SBM upang malaman naming at mabigyan kami ng direksyon kung papaano.”
(“The school should train us in the implementation of SBM so that we will be
aware and be guided with its implementation.”)
As part of the training that can be provided in this program, the school
council may be given standardized forms (or ledgers) to record expenditures,
keep receipts, and file bids received from supplies, as well as a manual
containing simplified accounting procedures. These tools are valuable in helping
people who are new to financial management to learn the basics of good
financial governance.
The third would be to have a periodical supervision by project authorities.
Besides training, most school-based management projects provide for periodical
supervision by project authorities. These school visits can be helpful to school
council members who may have further questions about how to manage school
funds. They can also discover and put a stop to any irregularities and initiate
sanctions against any poorly performing school councils.
43
The fourth was to include external audits. Finally, SBM projects include
external audits of an extensive sample of participating schools, especially during
the first years of the project’s implementation. In the CAMANAVA, participating
schools are required to submit all accounts of the use of funds twice a year to the
respectively state education authority to facilitate annual auditing. In
CAMANAVA, the Free Primary Education Support Project supports capacity
building at the school level to improve school accounting systems.
Discussion
The researcher found out that to effectively implement SBM they must be
guided to ensure that all participants understand the program and have the skills
needed to implement SBM. No matter how good a government project is, it
usually will not make any difference if people cannot understand it. This is
especially true of school-based management since it involves people who are
unlikely to have been involved in managing an institution before, which is why
SBM programs need to include information, communication, and training
components.
There must be a sound training program for parents, teachers, and school
personnel is critical to ensure the successful implementation of school-based
management because many of them are likely to lack the skills necessary to
carry out their new responsibilities. These skills include organizational skills such
as planning and management, combined with process skills such as team
building, interpersonal relations, and conflict resolution.
A principal stated,
“Training must be provided not only to school staff but also to parents and
community members to give them the skills to enable them to carry out
their new roles effectively.”
In other countries, there are also risks in the implementation of SBM. A
risk that has been recognized in the case of most SBM projects is the weak
management capacity of the school council in financial and other areas. This has
been addressed in various ways by different projects. For example, Macedonia,
FYR’s Education Modernization Project mitigates this risk by assisting the
weakest schools (as identified by schools’ self-assessed procurement capacity)
and by arranging for on-going audits. In Pakistan, the Balochistan Education
Support project mitigates the risk of weak governance at the school level by
supporting intensive training, audits (including annual external audits, internal
audits, and oversight arrangements), and regular financial monitoring. Most
(close to 75 percent) school based management projects financed by the Bank
have training components.
Among the most recent (2000-2006) Bank-financed school-based
management projects, approximately 70 percent have a training component
directly aimed at building capacity at the school level. For example, the
Education Modernization Project in Macedonia, FYR has a training component to
build the capacity of the central and local governments to operate in a
decentralized education system. In Niger, the Basic Education Project
strengthens the capacity of school management committees through training. In
44
Paraguay, the Education Reform Program introduced community-associated

management in secondary schools by redesigning the institutional model for
planning and management through school development plans. The Secondary
Education Development Program in Tanzania builds capacity in the secondary
education system by supporting training at all levels, including the school level. In
India, the Rajasthan Second District Primary Education Project trains school
management committees in community mobilization, awareness building,
finances, and civil works. In Mauritania, the Education Sector Development
Program provides training to improve existing community and private sector
initiatives in early childhood development, primary, and secondary education.
Similarly, the Primary Education Development Program in Tanzania supports
capacity building at central, district, and school levels to increase the efficiency of
the primary education system. In Lesotho, the Second Education Sector
Development Project supports the continuous training of participants in school
management including principals, their deputies, and primary school
management committees. In Pakistan, both the Balochistan Education Support
Project and the Punjab Second Education Sector DPC support capacity building
at all levels, including that of the implementing partners (NGOs) and of parent
education committees. In Jamaica, the Reform of Secondary Education Project II
provides training to parents in school development and management skills as
well as technical assistance to support the preparation of a school improvement
plan manual and training materials to be used to build school-based
management capacity.
It was emphasized that training in the education system is most successful
in an environment which promotes the goals of a school-based management with
a strong leadership and support system. It is most likely to succeed when it is
embedded in the vision, strategic plan and organizational structure of the school,
division and region. Moreover, it must be guided by a purposeful and systematic
planning through an INDIVIDUAL PLAN FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
(IPPD).
References
Cheng, Yin Cheong; Magdalena Mo Ching Mok, (2007) "School-based
management and paradigm shift in education: an empirical study", International
Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 Issue: 6, pp.517 - 542
Dela Pena, Carl L. (2007) ONE SCHOOL AT A TIME--SCHOOL-BASED

MANAGEMENT: A PROCESS FOR CHANGE. Columbia, Maryland: National
Committee for Citizens in Education, 2008. 84 pages. ED 263 683.
Khattri, Nidhi, Ling, Cristina and Jha, Shreyasi, The Effects of School-Based
Management in the Philippines: An Initial Assessment Using Administrative Data
(March 1, 2010). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, Vol., pp. -,
2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1579211
45
Lindelow, John, and James Heynderickx. "School-Based Management." In

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP: HANDBOOK FOR EXCELLENCE, 2nd edition, edited
by Stuart C. Smith and Philip K. Piele. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management, University of Oregon, forthcoming.
Ozler, B. 2010. “Decentralization and Student Achievement: The Case of

Nicaragua’s School Autonomy Reform.” Working Paper on Impact Evaluation of
Education Reforms. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Peterson, David. School-Based Management and Student Performance. ERIC
Digest No. 62. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management, 2010.
46
Chapter 5
Key areas of effective participation in the enhanced SBM

_____________________________________________________________
Abstract
This study presents the key areas for effective participation in the
implementation of the enhanced – school based management. This study also
found out that there are a number of solid arguments to defend the introduction
of SBM; the five key areas of effective participation in the enhanced – school
based management.
The qualitative type of research is used in this study. Qualitative type of
research is used in this study. The unstructured interview is used to obtain on
how the internal stakeholders involve external stakeholders. The unstructured
interview is used to describe how the internal stakeholders involve external
stakeholders in the implementation of SBM. The unstructured interview is done
with an open-ended, semi-structured interview questions focusing on the said
issue.
Result of the study revealed that it has been demonstrated that the quality of
education depends primarily on the way schools are managed, more than on the
availability of resources. It has also been shown that the capacity of schools to
improve teaching and learning is strongly mediated by the quality of the
leadership provided by the head teacher. Both factors could be used to argue for
stronger control over management within the school.
Keywords: effective participation, management, stronger control, capacity of

schools
Introduction
School-based management (SBM) is a strategy to improve education by
transferring significant decision-making authority from state and district offices to
individual schools. SBM provides principals, teachers, students, and parents
greater control over the education process by giving them responsibility for
decisions about the budget, personnel, and the curriculum. Through the
involvement of teachers, parents, and other community members in these key
decisions, SBM can create more effective learning environments for children.
Schools seeking improved outcomes usually have one or more
“champions for change” on the inside of the organization, and these leaders can
often engage other staff to produce better results in the short term. But these
instructional leaders often move to another school, climb the career ladder, or
47
retire. When they do, gains that have been made often quickly fade away. If
schools are going to build support for on-going success, they also need
advocates for improved program outcomes outside the immediate organization—
stakeholders who understand the mission of the school, who share the
champions’ vision and passion for student success, and who have a personal
stake in the performance of the school and its students. In this brief, they identify
schools’ external stakeholders and offer ways in which these constituents can be
a positive force for helping school staff achieve improved outcomes for all
students and sustain them over time.
These schools’ external stakeholders may address key aspects of
sustainability, can help leaders in the school, district, or state plan for active
parent and community involvement and sustain the success they have
established.
Literature Review
Schools need external stakeholders with a vision for improving the
school’s learning environment within a well-functioning school-based
management (SBM) system. SBM involves setting school directions concerning
students, teacher development, and allocation of material and financial
resources. Effective SBM impacts motivation, commitment, and student and
teacher success by: facilitating school leadership that is both appropriate to the
unique context and needs of the school community, developing and
implementing school improvement plans, establishing fair and effective teacher
appraisal systems, structuring classrooms and schools according to school
needs, building partnerships with the community, and ensuring that frameworks
exist to support the functions of other school departments and personnel.
The school restructuring literature identifies a need for improving the
schools system. There was and is a strong belief that the changes that need to
be made to meet international education standards and to provide a workforce
that satisfies emerging domestic needs, requires fundamental change of the
education system. Decentralization to increase accountability, access local
knowledge, focus the change process on individual schools, and to gain support
for the change process was a central component of many restructuring
strategies. Consequently, SBM was central to many proposals. SBM offered local
control of decisions, equitable allocation of resources, effective use of resources,
teacher empowerment, and diversity as a result of a market driven
responsiveness to community needs. Also, SBM was expected to promote the
correlates of effective schools such as improved student outcomes, strong
instructional leadership, long term academic improvement, positive attitudes and
behaviour, more successful programs, and more effective schools. Offsetting the
benefits, teachers, administrators and parents will spend more time planning and
being involved in the decision making process.
Parents and community. The idea that participation of staff, parents and
community in schools, would lead to improvement has come full circle. In 1903
Dewey argued that teachers had valuable insights which would enhance
48
policy (Murphy, 2010). Supporters of the Teacher Control Movement asked for

teacher participation in the formulation and direction of policy. The addition of
professional input to lay boards was expected to provide consistent
administration and to ground policy in practice. Reacting to the
professionalization of school administration, the Democratic Administration
Movement encouraged democracy in schools and saw a role for parents,
teachers, and community members. More recently the Community Control
Movement argued that sharing control of the school with lay persons and groups
external to the school would increase accountability for results and broaden the
school community.
Participation and involvement is expected to give the participants a stake
in the decision. The creative energies of teachers and parents will be engaged
and they will be more knowledgeable about the decisions. This will result in
commitment to and support for the decisions. In addition, the participants will feel
responsible for the decisions and will accept accountability for the decisions.
In addition, participation by and collaboration with teachers is expected to
alleviate a perceived crisis in teaching. It was felt that the prescription of the
teachers' duties and the teachers' lack of control over their work environment
wasn't encouraging professional behavior. Decentralization would address some
of the concerns by empowering teachers and promoting continuous professional
development.
Also, Neal (1991) points out that inviting the broader community to
participate in school decisions broadens the education constituency. This is an
important factor in an era of declining social spending.
Superintendent. The superintendent and his or her division office
staff facilitate the decisions made at the school level, and provide technical
assistance when a school has difficulty translating the division's vision into high-
quality programs. Developing student and staff performance standards and
evaluating the schools are also the responsibility of the division staff.
The division office will generally continue to recruit potential employees,
screen job applicants, and maintain information on qualified applicants from
which the schools fill their vacancies. The division office may also specify
curricular goals, objectives, and expected outcomes while leaving it up to the
schools to determine the methods for producing the desired results. Some
districts leave the choice of instructional materials to the schools, whereas others
may require schools to use common texts.
One of the current international trends in educational reform is the
devolution of decision-making powers from central government to school level.
This trend is related to a move towards institutional autonomy, the so-called site-
based (i.e. school-based) management of institutions, which refers to the issue of
self-management of the institution.
School-based management is no longer an option but, rather, a reality in
Philippine education. Legislation and policy documents all point Philippine firmly
towards a school-based system of education management. The new policy
framework for decentralized decision-making is also embedded in the Philippine
49
schools laws and legislation. This enables each school in the Philippine to renew
its management in a responsible and effective way.
In spite of its widespread implementation, school-based management has
locally received only moderate attention in terms of stakeholder participation and
the impact of stakeholder values on the school-based management process. In
response to this, this article is an attempt to incorporate a strategy to
conceptualize stakeholder participation in school-based management and assess
the impact of stakeholder values on the school-based management process. This
philosophical review of the literature on school-based management also aims at
raising and answering some of the questions about stakeholder participation and
stakeholder values in school-based management in the Philippines, where
educational reform is the norm rather than the exception.
Method
Subjects and Sites
The respondents of this study included a total of 10 principals composed
of 2 principals each from Caloocan, Navotas, Malabon and Valenzuela. The
respondents were chosen using the selection criteria that they have been actively
involved for three years or more in the implementation of the SBM in the school,
who have been close to any of the external stakeholders and have the time and
commitment for an interview.

The qualitative type of research was used in this study. The unstructured
interview was used to describe how the internal stakeholders involve external
stakeholders in the implementation of SBM. The unstructured interview was done
with an open-ended, semi-structured interview questions focusing on the said
issue.
Method of Analysis
qualitative data. The responses of the ten principals were analysed. Giorgi (2014)
has developed five steps in describing and explaining the context on the lived-
experience of the participants including (1) assume the phenomenological
attitude, (2) read entire written account for a sense of the whole, (3) delineate
meaning units, (4) transform the meaning units into psychologically sensitive
statements of their lived-meanings, and (5) synthesize a general psychological
structure of the experience base on the constituents of the experience. It is the
first-person psychological perspective that is sought so that an empathetic
position can be adopted by the end-user of the research.
Findings
There are a number of solid arguments to defend the introduction of SBM;
the five key areas of effective participation in the enhanced SBM most recurrent
ones are:
50
More democratic: allowing teachers and parents to take decisions about

an issue of such importance as education is certainly more democratic than to
keep this decisions in the hands of a select group of central-level officials.
More relevant: locating the decision-making power closer to where
problems are being experienced will lead to more relevant policies as local staff
generally know their own situation better.
Less bureaucratic: decisions will be taken much quicker if they do not
need to go through a long bureaucratic process (from school through several
intermediary offices to the central level), but can be made at a level close to the
school.
Stronger accountability: allowing schools and teachers greater say implies
that they can be held accountable for their results towards parents and the close
community directly. Such accountability is expected to act as a tool for greater
effectiveness.
Greater resource mobilization: teachers and especially parents will be
more eager to contribute to the funding of their school if they have a say in the
organization and management it.
Research has not found a link between SBM and gains in student
academic achievement, lower dropout rates, increased attendance, and reduced
disciplinary problems.
A principal uttered,
"Improving school performance may be an unrealistic expectation for a
governance reform that alters the balance of power within educational
systems toward schools."

“SBM contributes to students’ outcomes, which in turn have the "potential"
to lead to improved student achievement: increased efficiency in use of
resources and personnel, increased professionalism of teachers,
implementation of curriculum reform, and increased community
engagement.”
High-performing SBM schools have combined the governance reform of

SBM with "an overall push for curriculum and instructional reform,” With the
SBM , councils can focus on ways to "improve student academic performance
and make schools more interesting places to work." Without that combination,
"SBM becomes a political reform whereby the council at the school site ends up
spending its time deciding who is empowered and who isn't."
Conclusion
There is also some general research evidence to support the introduction
of SBM. Indeed it has been demonstrated that the quality of education depends
primarily on the way schools are managed, more than on the availability of
resources. It has also been shown that the capacity of schools to improve
teaching and learning is strongly mediated by the quality of the leadership
51
provided by the head teacher. Both factors could be used to argue for stronger
control over management within the school.
References
Fernandez, K. E. 2011. Evaluating school improvement plans and their affect on

academic performance. Educational Policy, 25(2), 338-367.
Giordano, E. A. 2008. School clusters and resource teacher centres . Paris:

UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
Harmon, H. L., and Schafft, K. 2009. Rural School leadership for collaborative

community development. The Rural Educator, 30(3), 4-9.
Kilpatrick, S., Johns, S., Mulford, B., Falk, I., and Prescott, L. 2002. More than an
education: Leadership for rural school-community partnerships . Canberra,
Australia: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
Miles, K., and Frank, S. 2008. The Strategic School. Thousand Oaks, California:

owin Press.
Marquart, L. 2011. IFLA Publications: Global Perspectives on School Libraries:

Projects and Practices. Berlin, DEU: Walter de Gruyter.
OECD. 2012. Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged

Students and Schools. OECD Publishing.
Robinson, V. M. J. 2010. From instructional leadership to leadership capabilities:

Empirical findings and methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 9, 1-26.
World Bank. 2000. Community Partnerships in Education: Dimensions,

Variations and Implications. World Education Forum.
Interview Guide
1. What is your role in the implementation of the SBM in your school?

2. Who are your eternal stakeholders?
3. To what extent do you involve your eternal stakeholders in the
implementation of the SBM in your school?
4. Are these stakeholders doing their responsibilities in the implementation
of the SBM in your school?
52
5. Did you find any problem with the stakeholders’ involvement in the
implementation of the SBM in your school?
CHAPTER 6
Collaborative Strategic Plan in the Implementation of SBM

_____________________________________________________________
Abstract
The study reveals that school-based management (SBM) is a strategy to

improve education by transferring significant decision-making authority from
division offices to individual schools. SBM provides principals, teachers,
students, and parents greater control over the education process by giving them
responsibility for decisions about the budget, personnel, and the curriculum.
Through the collaborative involvement of teachers, parents, and other community
members in these key decisions, SBM can create more effective learning
environments for children.
Based on the findings of the study school-based management (SBM)
decentralizes control from the central district office to individual schools as a way
to give school constituents -- principals, teachers, parents, community members,
and in some schools, students -- more control over what happens in schools.
Proponents of SBM argue that increasing the involvement of school-level
stakeholders in managing schools will increase the capacity of schools to
improve by increasing stakeholders' ownership and accountability for school
performance.
It is further argued that through SBM, a broader range of perspectives will
be taken into account in the decision-making process, thereby producing
decisions better tailored to the needs of the local school community. These
potential outcomes are strong inducements. As a result, more and more school
divisions are turning to school-based management as a centrepiece for their
improvement efforts. However, with the collaborative efforts of the internal and
external stakeholders including principals, teachers, students, and parents and
the community greater success were met with the implementation of SBM.
Keywords: strategy, collaborative involvement, ownership and accountability,

centerpiece
Introduction
While there are many ways in which school-based management can be
practiced, all forms are based on the premise that the school site becomes the
53
central locus of control in decision making. The rationale behind SBM is that
those who are closest to the primary business of schools will make the best-
informed decisions. The essential purpose of redistributing decision-making
authority to increase the autonomy of the critical stakeholders is to improve the
instructional process and, although rarely stated, student outcomes. SBM is
frequently advocated on the grounds that it increases the accountability of
school-site personnel. Schools are forced to become more responsive to local
needs through the inclusion of parents and community members on decision-
making committees. In exchange for increased autonomy, schools are usually
required to report the results of SBM efforts to the central administration.
The term "school-based management" has many variations—school-site
management, school-site autonomy, shared decision making, shared
governance, school improvement program (or project or process), school-based
budgeting, and administrative decentralization. In part because school-based
management is intended to enable schools to respond to local needs, it can vary
greatly from school to school in three fundamental characteristics: the authority
that has been delegated, the resources (inputs) devoted to implementation of
SBM, and the stated objectives in introducing SBM.
Literature Review
SBM in the National Context

It is important to view that SBM is within the National context. The
Philippine Education For All (EFA) 2015 Plan is a vision and a holistic program of
reforms that aims at improving the quality of basic education for every Filipino by
2015. It is through The Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA)
conceptualized in mid-2005 and commencing in late 2006, that a series of
specific policy actions are being introduced to facilitate the implementation of the
EFA Plan promoting increased access to quality and relevant basic education
across the country. The BESRA Implementation and Accountability Plan (BIAP)
2010-2012 has recently been released and is primarily a plan for implementing
SBM that incorporates not just the structural and process foundations of SBM
practice but also competency-based teacher standards, quality assurance and
learning support, and outcomes-focused resource mobilization and management,
in the routine operations of schools, divisions and regions.
Strategic planning
Strategic planning is a process in which organizational leaders determine
their vision for the future as well as identify their goals and objectives for the
organization. The process also includes establishing the sequence in which
those goals should fall so that the organization is enabled to reach its stated
vision.
This complimentary document comprehensively details the elements of a
strategic IT plan that are common across the board – from identifying technology
gaps and risks to allocating IT resources and capabilities. The SearchCIO.com
team has compiled its most effective, most objective, most valued feedback into
54
this single document that’s guaranteed to help you better select, manage, and
track IT projects for superior service delivery.
Strategic planning process

Organizations generally look three to five years ahead when engaged in
strategic planning.
The strategic planning process results in a strategic plan, a document that
articulates both the decisions made about the organization's goals and the ways
in which the organization will achieve those goals. The strategic plan is intended
to guide the organization's leaders in their decision-making moving forward.
The strategic planning framework and committee

A strategic planning committee typically leads this process. Experts in the
strategic planning discipline say the strategic planning committee should include
representatives from all areas within the enterprise and it should work in an open
and transparent way where information is documented from start to finish.
The strategic planning committee works by researching and gathering the
information required to understand the organization's current status as well as
the factors that will impact it in the future. The committee should solicit input and
feedback to validate or challenge its assessment of the information. The
strategic planning committee can opt to use one of many different methodologies
that have been developed to guide leaders through this process. These
methodologies, or frameworks, move the strategic planning committee through a
series of steps that include an analysis or assessment stage; the formulation of
the actual strategy; and the articulation and communication of the actions needed
to move the organization toward its strategic vision.
Strategic management
Organizations that are most effective in aligning their ongoing actions with
their strategic plans are those that actively engage in strategic management.
Strategic management establishes a set of ongoing practices to ensure that the
organization's processes and allotment of resources support the vision
established in the strategic plan. In the simplest terms, strategic management is
the implementation of the strategy; as such, strategic management is also
sometimes referred to as strategy execution.
Strategic planning is more than a step-by-step exercise, however. It
requires individuals capable of strategic thinking, that is, individuals who can take
information and offer insights on how that information can influence or impact the
future organization.
Moreover, strategic planning differs from long-range planning. Although
the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, long-range planning is based on
the idea that the organization's present understanding of the future is reliable
enough to ensure that the stated long-range plan can be achieved. Strategic
plans, on the other hand, recognize that many elements in the future are
unknown and that the organization needs to be flexible while still working toward
achieving the strategic plan's stated vision.
55
Given that distinction, successful organizations opt to view their strategic

plans not as static roadmaps but as living documents that need to be revisited on
a regular timetable as determined by the organization.
Benefits of strategic planning

Strategic planning has many benefits. It forces organizations to be aware
of future opportunities and challenges. It also forces organizations to understand
what resources will be needed to seize upon or overcome those opportunities
and challenges. Additionally, strategic planning gives individuals a sense of
direction and marshals them around a common mission. It creates standards and
accountability. Strategic planning also helps organizations limit or avoid time
spent on crisis management, where they're reacting to unexpected changes that
they failed to anticipate and/or prepare for.
Organization of Various Curriculum Development Stake Holders

The various groups work well because there exists a systematic way of
engaging every stake holder in the curriculum development process. First and
foremost, the teachers and the curriculum development leaders provide guidance
and opinions regarding what should form the content of the curriculum. Because
students spend most of their learning hours with the teachers, it is assumed that
teachers understand the unique academic and social needs of the students
better. The teachers start by analyzing the current curriculum, that is, the
strengths and weaknesses and possible areas that needs to be amended.
Thereafter, opinions from the parents, community leaders and other stake
holders are considered before a final draft of the curriculum is compiled.
The parents' curriculum development team consists of all the members of
the parents' association teams. The members of the parents' team are given the
mandate to choose their leadership. Through the parents' leadership team, their
opinions are sought and taken into consideration by the district curriculum
development team.
Similarly, the professional counselors association is given the mandate to
elect their leaders. The leadership of the professional bodies support the
curriculum development process. Professional bodies' act as advisory agents on
major policy issues related to curriculum development in schools. Therefore, the
curriculum development team must ensure that such professional bodies are led
by a credible team. In addition, such professional bodies work closely with the
teachers and curriculum development leaders during the evaluation of the
curriculum and academic performance. Other community members such as
community administrators and religious leaders are also answerable to the
curriculum development team.
Designing a Structure for Stakeholder Involvement in Curriculum Work

The designing of a comprehensive structure for stakeholder involvement
in curriculum work entails a careful consideration of various factors that
contributes to effective learning process both inside and outside the classrooms.
The leader of the curriculum development team would be the curriculum director
56
who will be charged with the responsibility of chairing all the curriculum
development committees as well as providing general direction and leadership in
the curriculum development process in the district.
In addition, there would be a curriculum director who shall direct and
would help him/her in discharging his/her duties. The district curriculum
development team would also comprise other curriculum development specialists
in every subject area such as mathematics and science. Such curriculum
specialists would help the curriculum director in making important decisions
during the curriculum development process. The curriculum development team
would seek information and fully engage professionals, parents, the community
and other relevant stakeholders when designing the school curriculum. The
curriculum development team would organize for a curriculum development
research week every year in which a continuous data collection and evaluation of
curriculum in schools would be evaluated.
Findings
transferring significant decision-making authority from division offices to
collaborative involvement of teachers, parents, and other community members in
these key decisions, SBM can create more effective learning environments for
children.
School leaders across the nation are exploring ways to better educate
students and improve school performance. School-based management (SBM)
offers a way to promote improvement by decentralizing control from central
district offices to individual school sites. It attempts to give collaborative efforts
from both the internal and external stakeholders - administrators, teachers,
parents and other community members - more control over what happens in
schools.
Discussion
According to the American Association of School Administrators (AASA,
2011), the school- based management through the collaborative efforts of both
the internal and external stakeholders can:
 Allow competent individuals in the schools to make decisions that will
improve learning;
 Give the entire school community a voice in key decisions;
 Focus accountability for decisions;
 Lead to greater creativity in the design of programs;
 Redirect resources to support the goals developed in each school;

57
 Lead to realistic budgeting as parents and teachers become more

aware of the school's financial status, spending limitations, and the
cost of its programs; and,
 Improve morale of teachers and nurture new leadership at all levels.
School Administrators. The school administrators continue to establish a

clear and unifying vision and to set broad policies for the division and the
schools. SBM does not change the legal governance system of schools, and
school boards do not give up authority by sharing authority.
The other important group of stakeholders is the school administrators.
Their role in SBM implementation cannot be underestimated since they are the
people that monitor the implementation of the SBM. The school administrators
may influence the extent to which SBM is implemented by regulating the release
of the necessary resources. The school administrators may get information from
teachers, students and even the community regarding the success of the SBM
implementation.
Teachers. The role of the teachers involves defining different SBM
components that are considered relevant, in line with the latest development in
the education sector. In addition to developing the curriculum, teachers help in
executing the curriculum development findings. Teachers continuously contribute
to the development of school curriculum by developing periodic course teaching
plans and giving consideration to the special needs of the students (Dillon, 2009).
Therefore, having a good curriculum without the input of teachers cannot help in
achieving the learning objectives and goals. Although modern technology is
quickly finding its root into the education system, teachers still remain at the
center of the student's learning progress. In other words technology must be
integrated into the curriculum but it cannot provide a perfect substitute for the
roles played by teachers in curriculum development and the general learning
process.
Parents. The parents are usually organized into parent association. All
parents are required to register with the relevant parents' association where they
are required to democratically elect their leaders. The parents, through this
association, give their views regarding the student development.
Superintendent. His or her division office staff facilitates the decisions
made at the school level, and provide technical assistance when a school has
difficulty translating the division's vision into high-quality programs. Developing
student and staff performance standards and evaluating the schools are also the
responsibility of the district staff.
The division office may specify curricular goals, objectives, and expected
outcomes while leaving it up to the schools to determine the methods for
producing the desired results. Some divisions leave the choice of instructional
materials to the schools, whereas others may require schools to use common
texts.
58
Budgeting. In SBM systems, each school is given a "lump sum" that the
school can spend as it sees fit. As outlined by Spear (1983), the division office
determines the total funds needed by the whole division, determines the district
wide costs, and allocates the remaining funds to the individual schools. The
allocation to each school is determined by a formula that takes into account the
number and type of students at that school.
Each school determines how to spend the lump sum allocated by the
government in such areas as personnel, equipment, supplies, and maintenance.
In some districts, surplus funds can be carried over to the next year or be shifted
to a program that needs more funds; in this way, long-range planning and
efficiency are encouraged.
Decision Making. Most schools create committee that include the
principal, representatives of parents and teachers, and, in some cases, other
citizens, support staff, and the students. The committee conducts a needs
assessment and develops a plan of action that includes statements of goals and
measurable objectives, consistent with school policies.
Some schools makes most school-level decisions. The principal makes
the decisions. In both cases, the principal has a large role in the decision-making
process, either as part of a team or as the final decision maker.
From the beginning, the superintendent must be supportive of school-
based management. They must trust the principals to determine how to
implement the goals at the individual schools.
Conclusion
School-based management (SBM) decentralizes control from the division
office to individual schools as a way to give school constituents -- principals,
teachers, parents, community members, and in some schools, students -- more
control over what happens in schools. Proponents of SBM argue that increasing
the involvement of school-level stakeholders in managing schools will increase
the capacity of schools to improve by increasing stakeholders' ownership and
accountability for school performance.
It is further argued that through SBM, a broader range of perspectives will
be taken into account in the decision-making process, thereby producing
decisions better tailored to the needs of the local school community. These
potential outcomes are strong inducements. As a result, more and more school
divisions are turning to school-based management as a centerpiece for their
improvement efforts. However, with the collaborative efforts of the internal and
external stakeholders including principals, teachers, students, and parents and
the community greater success were met with the implementation of SBM.
Based on the findings given the researcher came up with this strategic
plan to better implement the Enhanced – School Based Management:
COMMUNITY SUPPORT PROGRAM
Rationale:
The purpose of this program is:
59
To widen and clearly define the participation of the external

stakeholders in support to the SBM program.
To clearly define the purpose and function of the external stakeholders
involving local elected officials (Barangay Captain and/or Kagawad in – charge –
of – education), PTA President and the non – Governmental Organization. This
partnership together with the internal stakeholders are needed to enhance the
performance of the school involved.
Identified need for this program:

In terms of school governance external stakeholders must be kept
informed about the whereabouts of the school funds and MOOE allocation and
liquidation. For curriculum enhancement they must be involved in the design,
improvement and enrichment of the curriculum. They must also encourage
activities to ensure application of learning to homes and communities. Finally, to
focus on remediation and enrichment classes.
The following are the challenges that needs to be addressed upon:
a. Varied application of SBM practices
b. Absence of participatory decision
c. Absence of a supportive local government framework
d. Difficulty of transfer of responsibilities
e. Increased Principals administrative and managerial workload
f. Gender issue
g. Lack of community involvement
h. Lack of transparency
Budget Assessment: Cost to run (instructors, equipment, supplies)

This can be included in the budget of the Barangay or the Local
Government Unit if ever the support program is approved because this will be a
pilot support program for the stakeholders involved.
Benefits:
a. Potential benefits of the program and impacts (meeting community
needs) Benefits reaped will be the enhanced performance of the schools
involved and the empowerment of the stakeholders involved.
Risks:
a. Potential risks in program delivery and plan for risk reduction
Program details:
a. Who is qualified to deliver the program (will you need instructors/
coaches with specific skills or certifications?)
b. Facilities and space options for program delivery (appropriate space,
location, availability)
Communication strategies:
60
a. With whom do you need to communicate the program information?

(Schools, NGO, churches, parent groups)
The program must be communicated to the school involved first; then
the non – governmental organization involved; and as well as the churches and
specially the parents.
b. How will program information be delivered? (On – line, social media,
newspaper)
It will be delivered through on – line, social media and newspaper.
Program evaluation:
a. What performance indicators will you use to measure success of this
program (program pilot, focus groups, and surveys?)
Program pilot will be used to its full extent; focus groups are also
needed; and as well as surveys. To make sure that the researcher can fully
evaluate the participation of the external stakeholders in the implementation of
References
Achilles , C.M. and Smith, P (2009) Stimulating the academic performance of
pupils. In Lary W. Huges (Ed) The principal as leader. New York. Merill
Brown, D. J. (2010) Decentralization and Strategic Management. London: The

Falmer Press
Consortium for Policy Research in Education: Strategic Management. (2007).

Madison, Winconsin Center for Education Research at the school of Education ,
University of Winconsin – Madison
Congressional Commision on Education ( EDCOM ). (2009). Making Evaluation

work: An agenda for reform. Manila and Quezon City : Congress of the Republic
of the Philippines
Gertler, P., H.A. Patrinos and M. Rubio-Codina. Forthcoming (2009). “Do Supply-
Side-Oriented and Demand-Side-Oriented Education Programs Generate
Synergies? The Case of CONAFE Compensatory Program and
OPORTUNIDADES Scholarships in Rural Mexico.”
Winkler , Donald R. (2009, March ) Decentralization in Education . An economic

perspective, Policy, planning and Research Working Paper, No. 143 Washington
: The World Bank.
61
Chapter 7
General Discussions
________________________________________________________________
Introduction
School-Based Management (SBM) has become the most noticeable
feature of public school management systems in most countries around the
world.
In the Philippines, the Department of Education has stepped up its efforts
to decentralize education management to improve the department’s operating
efficiency and upgrade education quality. With the implementation of School-
Based Management (SBM), the school as key provider of education, will be
equipped to empower its key officials to make informed and localized decisions
based on their unique needs toward improving the educational system.
Republic Act 9155 (Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, approved
on Nov. 29, 2002) Section 2, paragraphs 3 and 4 state that:
Governance of basic education shall begin at the national
level. It is at the regions, divisions, schools and learning centers
herein referred to as field offices where policy and principle for
the governance of basic education shall be translated into
programs, projects and services developed, adapted and offered
to fit local needs.
The state shall encourage local initiatives for improving quality of
basic education. The state shall ensure that the values, needs,
and aspirations of a school community are reflected in the
program of education for the children, out-of-school youth and
adult learners.
iv) The parents Schools
and theand community
learning centers
shall shall be empowered
be encouraged for
to makeinvolvement
active decisions on in what is best forofthe
the education thelearners theyparticipation
child. The serve.
and coordination between and among schools, the local school
Section 1.2 provides
boards, the the principles
Parent that guide
Teachers the implementation
Associations (PTAs) must of the
be
act and the application of its
maximized; and rules:
v) Volunteerism from among all sectors shall be emphasized and

encouraged to ensure sustainable growth and development in
education.
These provisions strongly uphold the current initiatives of schools
in involving the different groups of stakeholders in school
improvement processes.
62
Another purpose/objective provided in Section 3, (f) is to “encourage local

initiatives for the improvement of schools and learning centers and to provide the
means by which these improvements may be achieved and sustained.” These
provisions strongly uphold the current initiatives of schools in involving the
different groups of stakeholders in school improvement processes.
Major ingredients of SBM

There are many varieties of SBM, a review of studies on SBM and
interviews with its practitioners led to the following generally accepted
descriptions of stakeholders' roles and responsibilities.
The administration's role in SBM is facilitating so the division office
facilitates instead of controls schools' actions by formulating and defining the
division's general policies and educational objectives. The principal is the key
figure in fostering shared governance within the school. Principals not only have
increased responsibility and authority in school program, curriculum, and
personnel decisions, but also increased accountability for student and program
success. Principals must be excellent team leaders and delegators.
Empowerment and accountability of teachers are major ingredients of
SBM. Teachers influence decisions by participating in planning, developing,
monitoring, and improving instructional programs within the school. Parent
involvement is essential to a successful implementation of SBM. The argument
for parent involvement rests on two benefits to children: better attitudes toward
school and higher grades.
This research only showed that both stakeholders are participating
actively in the different activities initiated by the schools pertaining to school
governance, curriculum enhancement, community development, and student
activities.
School-based management (SBM), is the decentralization of decision-
making authority to the school, it is one of the most popular strategies that came
out of the 1980s school reform movement. Many schools have implemented this
method of managing school budgeting, curriculum, and personnel decisions and
are eagerly promoting it.
It is evident that SBM provides better programs for students because
resources will be available to directly match student needs. The advocates assert
SBM ensures higher quality decisions because they are made by groups instead
of individuals. Finally, proponents argue that it increases communication among
all the internal and external stakeholders, including school boards, principals,
teachers, parents, community members, and students. *
63
It is said to be that SBM is one program that has been long overdue,
though the mainframe of curriculum development and general activity of the
school is the responsibility of administrators; there are also local issues,
concerns and challenges that can only be addressed by local school officials and
other stakeholders in the implementation of SBM.
It is highly evident that both stakeholders actively participate in the
implementation of the enhanced – school based management but without a
clearly defined set of rules particularly to the external stakeholders it will be a
difficult task. There are different challenges an external stakeholder encounters
like the following:
a. Varied application of SBM practices

b. Absence of participatory decision – making process
c. Absence of a supportive local government framework - Weak
governments cannot be expected to develop accountability frameworks
to counterbalance school autonomy or to offer support to schools. The
absence of an efficient and supportive LGU is risky not only for the
individual schools, but also for the system as a whole, being
threatened by disintegration and disparity.
d. Difficulty of transfer of responsibilities - Two groups are expected to be
the main beneficiaries of SBM as well as the main guarantors of its
successful implementation: the senior teachers, especially the school’s
principal and the parents, and at times the wider community. In both
cases, the transfer of responsibilities will encounter preoccupying
challenges.
e. Increased Principals administrative and managerial workload
f. Gender issue - The socio-cultural roles and expectations regarding
gender roles are reflected in perceptions of school principals’ impacts
and interactions. Reyes (2011) in his study revealed that women
principals are perceived as unavailable or unreliable due to family
responsibilities. Female school principals are often perceived as
maternal figures, ensuring more responsive and efficient personnel
(and school) management, although they were also described as
particularly severe towards female teachers.
g. Lack of community involvement - With regard to the community, it is
evident that it occupies a central place in SBM through its involvement
in the school. Getting a community involved in school life is not an
easy matter and the problem is not simply one of capacities. In
communities with many social and political tensions, the school has, in
some instances, become an instrument in the hands of the elite to
build up its power, leading to greater inequities. Evidences show the
under-representation of minority groups in the composition of school’s
PTA.
h. Lack of transparency - the lack of transparency especially in the use of
funds at the school level by the principal. Ongoing research on school
functioning in a context of decentralization shows that parents and
64
teachers have nearly no knowledge or control over the use of the

MOOE. In a context where accountability to the local and to the central
level is weak, it is doubtful that SBM leads to better use of funds.
It is highly recommended to set policies that will define the function of

external stakeholders.
That there must be a standard application of SBM practices (by
application means how did they put it into practice); a more active representation
in the participatory decision – making process must be put into practice; a
gradual transfer of responsibilities is needed; an active community involvement;
and transparency.
The effectiveness of SBM depends strongly on the accountability that the
school feels towards the community as well as pressure that the same
community can exercise on the school. For the community to play that role, four
requirements should be present for legitimate participation, as identified by
Lawler (2004): knowledge and skill; power; information and rewards. This is
hardly the case in many communities, which puts in doubt one of the main tenets
of the advocates of SBM: that it will create a stronger accountability framework
than the centralized management system.
There are other challenges that includes - increased planning time needed
to implement SBM, financial assistance may be need to implement SBM, there is
an ongoing time commitment due to participation in committees and other
planning groups; the transition is controversial; there may be labor relation
problems due to conflicts with collective agreements; participatory management
is not as efficient as autocratic management; and there is no guarantee that SBM
will lead to school improvement.
Another preoccupation is that the interests of the actors at the school level
do not always coincide. Policies such as putting school budgets in the hands of
the communities gain little sympathy among school staff; and although
strengthening in-school supervision may be popular among head teachers, it is
less so among teachers. Conflicts have arisen between teachers and principals
about the use of funds and the evaluation of performance, with an adverse
impact on the collegial relationships necessary for a quality school. Leithwood
and Menzies (2009) claim that “the single biggest hurdle to developing an
effective school council is interpersonal conflict of one sort of another.
There is a wider worry, more political in character, which sees SBM as
part of a policy allowing parents to choose schools, promoting competition
between schools. It is hoped that such competition will lead to greater diversity in
education offered in addition to quality improvement. The position behind this
belief is that of “market efficiency”; that is, allowing the free market to operate is
the most efficient way to obtain best value for public money. *
Some of the challenges encountered by the external stakeholders in their
participation in the implementation of SBM include more work for stakeholders,
less efficiency, uneven school performance, an increased need for staff
development, confusion about new roles and responsibilities, and coordination
difficulties (Prasch, 2000). Another problem is accountability.
65
A school may want authority over decisions, but the public (and state
statutes) will still hold the school board accountable for the results of those
decisions. National and local policies may also require school involvement.
According to Tapallas (2010) SBM is a "complex undertaking, raising multiple
policy issues involving lines of authority for making decisions and responsibility
and accountability for the consequences of such decisions."
The barriers that may prevent SBM from being implemented successfully
include lack of knowledge by stakeholders of what SBM is and how it works; lack
of decision-making skills, communication, and trust among stakeholders;
statutes, regulations, and union contracts that restrict decision-making authority
and teachers' time involvement; and the reluctance of some administrators and
teachers to allow others to take over decision-making authority.
When stakeholders are informed beforehand, they can make sure each
barrier is dealt with before SBM is implemented. Two essential elements are
adequate training about SBM and clarification of roles and responsibilities and
expected outcomes to stakeholders. The DepEd advises all involved must
understand "which decisions should be shared, by whom, and at what level in the
organization." *
Because of the challenges encountered by the stakeholders in the
implementation of SBM, the following strategies can be used to address these
challenges. A sound procedure must be established to ensure school
accountability for the resources and authority.
School-based management projects have been proven to increase the
involvement of parents and other local people in the affairs of the school. When
parents and community members are involved in planning for and using school
grants, a process of social auditing ensures transparency and accountability in
the use of funds. Because parents and school staff are likely to be unaccustomed
to the task of procuring goods and services or to keeping accounts, they need to
receive training to ensure their accountability for the school funds that they are
managing.
In CAMANAVA, the experiences of the stakeholders clearly show that
even illiterate parents can be effectively trained to manage school funds well.
A Barangay official, said in an interview,
“We need to be trained since SBM is something new to us.”
Another barangay official uttered,
“The school should train us in the implementation of SBM so that we will
be aware and be guided with its implementation.”
Being part of the training that can be provided in this program, the school
council may be given standardized forms (or ledgers) to record expenditures,
keep receipts, and file bids received from supplies, as well as a manual
containing simplified accounting procedures. These tools are valuable in helping
people who are new to financial management to learn the basics of good
financial governance.
There must be a periodical supervision by project authorities. Besides
training, most school-based management projects provide for periodical
supervision by project authorities. These school visits can be helpful to school
66
council members who may have further questions about how to manage school
funds. They can also discover and put a stop to any irregularities and initiate
sanctions against any poorly performing school councils.
Finally, SBM projects include external audits of an extensive sample of
participating schools, especially during the first years of the project’s
implementation. In the CAMANAVA, participating schools are required to submit
all accounts of the use of funds twice a year to the respectively state education
authority to facilitate annual auditing. In CAMANAVA, the Free Primary Education
Support Project supports capacity building at the school level to improve school
accounting systems. *
The five key areas of effective participation in the enhanced SBM are:
More democratic: allowing teachers and parents to take decisions about
an issue of such importance as education is certainly more democratic than to
keep this decisions in the hands of a select group of central-level officials.
More relevant: locating the decision-making power closer to where
problems are being experienced will lead to more relevant policies as local staff
generally know their own situation better.
Less bureaucratic: decisions will be taken much quicker if they do not
need to go through a long bureaucratic process (from school through several
intermediary offices to the central level), but can be made at a level close to the
school.
Stronger accountability: allowing schools and teachers greater say implies
that they can be held accountable for their results towards parents and the close
community directly. Such accountability is expected to act as a tool for greater
effectiveness.
Greater resource mobilization: teachers and especially parents will be
more eager to contribute to the funding of their school if they have a say in the
organization and management it.
Research has not found a link between SBM and gains in student
academic achievement, lower dropout rates, increased attendance, and reduced
disciplinary problems.
A principal uttered,
"Improving school performance may be an unrealistic expectation for a
governance reform that alters the balance of power within educational
systems toward schools."
“SBM contributes to students’ outcomes, which in turn have the "potential"
to lead to improved student achievement: increased efficiency in use of
resources and personnel, increased professionalism of teachers,
implementation of curriculum reform, and increased community
engagement.”
High-performing SBM schools have combined the governance reform of
SBM with "an overall push for curriculum and instructional reform,” With the SBM,
councils can focus on ways to "improve student academic performance and
make schools more interesting places to work." Without that combination, "SBM
67
becomes a political reform whereby the council at the school site ends up
spending its time deciding who is empowered and who isn't." *
There is also some general research evidence to support the introduction
of SBM. Indeed it has been demonstrated that the quality of education depends
primarily on the way schools are managed, more than on the availability of
resources. It has also been shown that the capacity of schools to improve
teaching and learning is strongly mediated by the quality of the leadership
provided by the head teacher. Both factors could be used to argue for stronger
control over management within the school. *

transferring significant decision-making authority from division offices to
collaborative involvement of teachers, parents, and other community members in
these key decisions, SBM can create more effective learning environments for
children.
School leaders across the nation are exploring ways to better educate
students and improve school performance. School-based management (SBM)
offers a way to promote improvement by decentralizing control from central
district offices to individual school sites. It attempts to give collaborative efforts
from both the internal and external stakeholders - administrators, teachers,
parents and other community members - more control over what happens in
schools.
The researcher found out that to be able to lobby a policy that will give
power to the external stakeholders to support the enhanced – SBM is to consider
first the existing law regarding LGU and NGO partnership.
In accordance with Article Three. - Inter-Local Government Relations on
Chapter 4 pertaining to RELATIONS WITH PEOPLE'S AND
NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS; SECTION 35. Linkages with
People's and Non-Governmental Organizations. - Local government units may
enter into joint ventures and such other cooperative arrangements with people's
and nongovernmental organizations to engage in the delivery of certain basic
services, capability-building and livelihood projects, and to develop local
enterprises designed to improve productivity and income, diversify agriculture,
spur rural industrialization, promote ecological balance, and enhance the
economic and social well-being of the people.
In relation to the abovementioned section, empowerment for the external
stakeholders will be clearly defined if it will emanate from local government at
first by defining the purpose and function of an elected official whether a
Barangay Captain or a Kagawad in – charge – of – education partnered with the
PTA President for the purpose of supporting and empowering more the SBM.
In accordance with section 35, the local government unit can partner with
non – governmental organization by means of defining its purpose and function
regarding SBM participation.
68
In terms of creating this so – called external stakeholders support program

to SBM the following procedures must be followed first:
1. Committee creation per division office with members involving external
stakeholders (NGO representative, elected officials from Barangay
Captain to Kagawad in – charge – of – education and PTA President)
2. Local school board – brainstorming with the committee
3. Creation of an ordinance defining and expanding the participation of
the external stakeholders to support SBM program.
The policy must contain the mission and vision of the said program
created. It must also include the purpose and function of each and every external
stakeholder in a position as a support group for the SBM program.
69
CHAPTER 8
What this Paper Adds

________________________________________________________________
This paper will help address the challenges encountered in

implementing the Enhanced – School Based Management. The researcher
assessed the participation of the internal and external stakeholders to
understand its strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
In terms of school governance referring particularly to transparency the
external stakeholders must be aware of where the school funds are used. The
external stakeholders must also be involved in the school improvement plan
formulation, implementation and monitoring and evaluation. In this light, school
management will not only be effective but it will be efficient because external
stakeholders will be included in terms of school improvement planning. In terms
of community development particularly in formulating plans for community
improvement internal and external stakeholders must partner themselves to
achieve community growth and towards a sure community development. In
student activities external stakeholders must amplify monitor remediation to
produce competitive children.
This study will help how to establish a program for external
stakeholders in which a program will be created to support the Enhanced –
School Based Management. So this external stakeholder program is a support
program for the SBM. It will help improve the performances of different schools
because each and every external stakeholders will have a clearly defined
purpose and function within the school and community involved.
The researcher provided a support program that will try to expound the
intricacies of the enhanced – participation of the external stakeholders in the
implementation of the enhanced – school based management.
School-Based Management is a key element of Basic Education Sector
Reform Agenda or BESRA. In the BESRA School-Based Management (SBM)
Framework and Standards and levels of practice; it is imperative for the school
head, teachers, students and parents to gain adequate and appropriate
information as well as skills in engaging other groups of community stakeholders
in school improvement processes to ensure that these improvements are
achieved and sustained (Department of Education, 2009).
In school governance, stakeholders with harmonized perspectives and
experiences are crucial in improving the lives of children, youth, families and the
70
community. These groups of stakeholders may be formally represented in a

governance structure in the school system. In the SBM Framework and
Standards adopted by the DepEd, these School Governance structures are
called School Governing Councils (SGCs).
Moreover, SGC provides a forum for parents, students, teachers,
community stakeholders and the school head to work together towards
continuously improving student learning outcomes. The participation of the
School Governing Council in school practices shall be guided by a mission
statement developed by the Council itself. The mission statement of the School
Governing Council communicates the ground for its existence.
Implications of the SBM

The foregoing are the implications drawn based from the results of the
study that suggest any attempt towards better schools in achieving its desired
goals.
Power and Authority Vested in the School Governing Councils

RA 9155 promotes the principles of shared governance that recognizes
that every part of an organization has a particular role to play and at the same
time responsible for its outcomes. Shared governance also advances democratic
consultation among stakeholders; accountability and transparency; strengthened
communication channels and expanding linkages with other government
agencies, NGOs and POs.
School leaders play an important role in establishing distributed leadership
(Crawford, 2005). Distributed leadership in schools cannot succeed if leaders in
the team do not share the same objectives, targets and performance measures.
Crawford (2005) argues that in order for the leadership functions to be
distributed, there is a need to distribute power. He claims that it is possible to
implement distributed leadership in schools via collective self-management’,
which can take several forms with different combinations of direct and delegated
decision-making, perhaps involving the appointment or election of staff to
management posts but subject to collective strategic policy-making.
Gamage (2006) defines decision making as the process through which
individuals, groups, and organizations choose courses of action to be acted upon
including not only the decisions, but also the implementation of that decision to
take a particular course of action. They explain that decision making produces
the policies which lead to established values and guidelines for operational
decisions. For this reason, they point out that the organizational structures are
created for the purpose of empowering them to make decisions, relating to the
areas or units that come under the purview of that structure or position.
Accordingly, with regard to shared decision-making in SBM, for example, the
decision-making criteria should include: (1) The decision making process is open
and clear to all concerned; (2) It is consistent with reality; (3) Accurate and
adequate information on complex issues is provided for making informed
decisions; (4) The leader/manager understands the concerns of others and
establishes the conventions of the particular form of decision making.
71
What is more important in terms of decision-making process in SBM? As

SBM has drastically reduced the power and authority of the bureaucrats by
devolving power and authority as well as responsibility to school level, a genuine
partnership should be the best choice of any decision-making procedures in a
school (Gamage, 2006). In this context, the school council replaces the supreme
power of bureaucrats and school leaders, enabling decision-making at the school
in a collegial atmosphere. The school council replaces the absolute authority of
the principal in decision-making that enables every school council member to
have an equal opportunity to contribute to decisions which are relevant to the
interests of the school.
Furthermore, Gamage (2006) affirms that a genuine partnership resulting
from participatory decision-making can enable the participants to appreciate each
other’s point of view and consequently foster increased motivation and
commitment enabling the accomplishment of organizational goals. Even, the
opportunity for participation in decision-making provides the stakeholders a
feeling of empowerment and enables them to claim ownership of the policies
which in turn increase their commitment to implement the policies more
effectively. So, it is important to all types of leaders to pay attention to the
participatory decision-making process which can build trust and confidence of
school stakeholders towards a solid partnership. Accordingly, facilitating a
flexible participatory decision-making process should be the most significant
responsibility of all school leaders.
Curriculum Development
Taylor (2000) emphasizes that a Participatory Curriculum Development
approach aims at developing a curriculum from the interchanges of experience
and information between the various stakeholders in education and training
program. Building on lessons learned from field-based practice, a critical element
of PCD is the identification of stakeholders, who may include educationalists,
researchers, policy makers, extensionists, foresters and farmers. Rather than
belonging to a small select group of experts, PCD involves a wide range of
stakeholders in a meaningful way, drawing upon their experience and insights in
a structured approach to curriculum planning, implementation and evaluation.
Helvetas (1997) enumerates that participatory approach was used for
curriculum development, involving ten main steps:
1. Identifying training needs of network members and
expectations/requirements.
2. Setting objectives of the proposed training program in accordance with
needs analysis by discussions among stakeholders, supported by training
of trainers in communication, instructional and planning/demonstration
skills.
3. Conducting “street research” (exclusively by field visit and observation in
the field) on functions of organizations and trainers, existing and
anticipated tasks of trainers in sustainable agriculture, identification,
selection and orientation of panel members for a DACUM (Developing a
Curriculum) workshop.
72
4. Conducting DACUM workshop (identifying areas of responsibility – duties

and tasks - by occupational analysis; traits and characteristics of trainers;
tools, equipment, entry qualifications and the occupation’s prospects for
the future.
5. Conducting “verification” workshop.
6. Analysis, categorization and reporting of verified data/information.
7. Selecting areas of responsibility (based on tasks and skills) for training
and grouping them into modules for curriculum.
8. Developing objectives of the modules and of the tasks/competencies with
the aim of improving instructional and communication skills of learners.
9. Deciding content of modules, developing and selecting topic/contents.
10. Preparing curriculum guide, including training methods, materials, human
resources, evaluation methods and time needed for each topic and related
module.
Ediger (2010) stresses that one of the best approaches in reporting pupil
achievement to parents is the parent-teacher conferences. In some schools,
student is directly involved in these conferences. Involvement by the participating
student in teacher-parent conferences has much to recommend itself in terms of
democratic tenets in grading and evaluation. In a face- to- face situation, relevant
questions concerning the pupil’s performance may be asked by both the teacher
and the parent or parents and pupils’ product such as written reports and art
work, may be viewed.
Henderson & Mapp (2002) affirm that when schools, families, and
community groups work together to support learning, children tend to do better in
school, stay in school longer, and like school more. The report from the
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory concluded that , a synthesis of
research on parent involvement over the past decade, goes on to find that,
regardless of family income or background, students with involved parents are
more likely to:
• Earn higher grades and test scores, and enroll in higher-level programs;
• Be promoted, pass their classes, and earn credits;
• Attend school regularly;
• Have better social skills, show improved behavior, and adapt well to
school; and
• Graduate and go on to postsecondary education
Rutherford et al. (1997) cite the data from the 2000 administration of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that, nationally, 90
percent of 4th graders were in schools where a school official reported that more
than half of parents participated in parent-teacher conferences. Among 8th
graders, though, that proportion dropped to 57 percent. A report from the U.S.
Department of Education cites several reasons for the decline in involvement as
children grow older. Parents of middle schoolers often report feeling that children
should do homework alone, and that the parents shouldn't try to help if they're
not experts in the subject. The structure of many middle schools can also deter
parents. Middle schools are larger and more impersonal than most elementary
73
schools, and students may receive instruction from several teachers, meaning
parents no longer have one contact in the school who knows their child well.
Cotton (1999) explains that family participation in education was twice as
predictive of students’ academic success as family socioeconomic status. Some
of the more intensive programs had effects that were 10 times greater than other
factors. The more parents participate in schooling, in a sustained way, at every
level -- in advocacy, decision-making and oversight roles, as fundraisers and
boosters, as volunteers and paraprofessionals, and as home teachers -- the
better for student achievement.
According to Wilen et al. (2004), part of building a supportive climate for
learning involves teachers sharing their expectations concerning learning of
content, achievement, and social behavior with their students.
McLaughlin (2005) relates an important aspect of effective teaching is
creating a supportive classroom environment. A warm, safe, and caring
environment allows students to “influence the nature of the activities they
undertake, engage seriously in their study, regulate their behavior, and know of
the explicit criteria and high expectations of what they are to achieve”.
Likewise based on the analyses of documents obtained it has
demonstrated that lots of challenges are confronting the school governing council
in the implementation of school-based management program specifically in
curriculum development.
Community Development, Services and Engagement

Epstein (2001) defines community engagement is a two-way street where
the school, families, and the community actively work together, creating networks
of shared responsibility for student success. It is a tool that promotes civic well-
being and that strengthens the capacity of schools, families, and communities to
support young peoples’ full development. Community engagement is the
hallmark of a community school.
Principals paint a vibrant picture of community engagement: local
community-based organizations and businesses working as partners with the
school; community residents actively participating in the education of young
people; advocates and community associations bringing resources to schools;
and the school actively reaching out to be a resource to the community. Family
involvement, too, is a part of community engagement. In a growing number of
places, community engagement is the strategy for developing and sustaining a
comprehensive community school.
There are many reasons for developing school, family, and community
partnerships. They can improve school programs and school climate, provide
family services and support, increase parents' skills and leadership, connect
families with others in the school and in the community, and help teachers with
their work. However, the main reason to create such partnerships is to help all
youngsters succeed in school and in later life. When parents, teachers, students,
and others view one another as partners in education, a caring community forms
around students and begins its work.
74
Lewis (1999) states that schools can serve as places where the public can
come together and be involved in decision-making that impacts their community.
The roles that family and community members play in school reform and other
collaborative efforts can have implications for the larger community, as reform
participants build skills and capacity that can be transferred to address other
community needs. He found that when neighborhood family and community
members are engaged in school reform efforts, the following outcomes can often
be documented: the partnership becomes a means of rebuilding civic
infrastructure, the quality of life in the neighborhood improves, and the nature of
local power and politics changes. Community-based education reformers have
also reported that their work creates a sense of place, develops enduring
relationships, empowers people, erases boundaries between schools and
communities, and builds an engaged community around schools.
Bottoms (2001) substantiated the issue on PTCA’s: “Engaged parents,
business leaders, members of the neighborhood and other taxpaying citizens
may not be essential to student success, But they sure help! All of these people
have a stake in the success of the school and the students in it.
Thus, school goals must be communicated not just to those who work in
school but to the community as well. Schools must have open and honest
communication-a willingness to tell the bad along with the good. In addition, they
must provide a warm, non-threatening environment that welcomes community
involvement. Those with a stake in the school should have the opportunity to
share in the decisions that affect them. This might include the opportunity to
support appropriate funding for the school, mentor and students participate on
school improvement or site-based decision-making teams, or show support for
school activities. In addition, community support systems for the school including
volunteers and business and parent support should be welcomed and utilized”.
Improvements in Student Achievements

The perennial challenge facing school systems worldwide is how to
improve student-learning outcomes. In the pursuit of improvements, educators
introduce various innovations. Most of these innovations towards better school
outcomes assign utmost importance to the quality of leadership and
management in the schools. In fact, researchers claim that the principal plays a
key role in the success of efforts for enhanced levels of school effectiveness
(Bandola, 2012).
Principals who aspire to succeed in working for continued school
improvement need the involvement, participation and support of the other
stakeholders such as teachers, parents, community leaders and students. As
Antinero (2005) argues, helping students who are prepared to learn in the school
should be a joint effort between the school and the community. Indeed, no head
teacher or principal can carry out his/her tasks in isolation. This explains why
staff involvement is becoming a trend in school management. Involving diverse
categories of stakeholders provides benefits to the school. In the same vein,
parents have been found to be significant contributors towards school
effectiveness and students’ success (Raimondo, 2001). The help of active and
75
engaged community is truly a prerequisite for schools wishing to succeed in

educating the students.
Research over the past two decades also revealed that SBM has
contributed to significant improvements in student achievements .They affirm that
granting authority for decision-making and management of resources to the
school can contribute towards the improvements of educational outcomes for the
students. Meanwhile, SBM provides higher participation of the community in
school decision-making processes which provide empowerment to those who are
at the local school leading to enhance school performance, thus, better teaching
and learning and achievements of the students are achieved (Gamage, 2006).
Indeed, some studies have also consistently revealed a positive
association between parental and/or community involvement and student
achievements (Gamage, 2006). For instance, on the basis of research conducted
in the Victorian state schools system, involving 75 interviews, reports that
healthier teaching and learning environments as well as improvements of student
achievements could be achieved by the fact that the parents and teachers who
are the closest to the students have formed a partnership and both parties are
represented in the governing body with accountability. Similarly, San Antonio
(2006) affirm that many researchers have supported the idea of how community
and parental involvement can improve schools and the quality of education that
the children achieved as well as the academic achievements of students.
Castro (2006) asserts that schools can promote improvements in student
learning by building relationships between schools and diverse community
entities. He then clarifies that building partnerships that link school, family, and
community is intimately connected to student achievements because linking
schools and community resources leads to providing services and support that
address various needs of the students. Partnership can also provide learning
opportunities that enhance young people's social, emotional, and physical
development as well as academic skills.
Joyce & Showers (2000) state that remedial activity is one that is meant to
improve a learning skill or rectify a problem area. Remedial instruction involves
using individualized teaching of students who are experiencing difficulties in
specific subject areas. Remedial instruction might be taught individually or in
groups and targets academic weaknesses that may hinder learning. Remedial
activities teach basic skills that are the foundation for learning a subject in greater
detail, and such skills must be learned before students can develop a detailed
understanding of the topic of study.
Remedial teaching is an intervention that can be utilized to assist students
who cannot cope with classroom activities which caused them to perform less in
school.
COMMUNITY SUPPORT PROGRAM
Rationale:
The purpose of this program is:
To widen and clearly define the participation of the external
stakeholders in support to the SBM program.
76
To clearly define the purpose and function of the external stakeholders

involving local elected officials (Barangay Captain and/or Kagawad in – charge –
of – education), PTA President and the non – Governmental Organization. This
partnership together with the internal stakeholders are needed to enhance the
performance of the school involved.
Identified need for this program:

In terms of school governance external stakeholders must be kept
informed about the whereabouts of the school funds and MOOE allocation and
liquidation. For curriculum enhancement they must be involved in the design,
improvement and enrichment of the curriculum. They must also encourage
activities to ensure application of learning to homes and communities. Finally, to
focus on remediation and enrichment classes.
The following are the challenges that needs to be addressed upon:
i. Varied application of SBM practices
j. Absence of participatory decision
k. Absence of a supportive local government framework
l. Difficulty of transfer of responsibilities
m. Increased Principals administrative and managerial workload
n. Gender issue
o. Lack of community involvement
p. Lack of transparency
Budget Assessment: Cost to run (instructors, equipment, supplies)

This can be included in the budget of the Barangay or the Local
Government Unit if ever the support program is approved because this will be a
pilot support program for the stakeholders involved.
Benefits:
a. Potential benefits of the program and impacts (meeting community
needs) Benefits reaped will be the enhanced performance of the schools
involved and the empowerment of the stakeholders involved.
Risks:
a. Potential risks in program delivery and plan for risk reduction
Program details:
a. Who is qualified to deliver the program (will you need instructors/
coaches with specific skills or certifications?)
b. Facilities and space options for program delivery (appropriate space,
location, availability)
Communication strategies:
a. With whom do you need to communicate the program information?
(Schools, NGO, churches, parent groups)
77
The program must be communicated to the school involved first; then

the non – governmental organization involved; and as well as the churches and
specially the parents.
b. How will program information be delivered? (On – line, social media,
newspaper)
It will be delivered through on – line, social media and newspaper.
Program evaluation:
a. What performance indicators will you use to measure success of this
program (program pilot, focus groups, and surveys?)
Program pilot will be used to its full extent; focus groups are also
needed; and as well as surveys. To make sure that the researcher can fully
evaluate the participation of the external stakeholders in the implementation of
78
Glossary of Terms
________________________________________________________________
The following terms are defined operationally:
Accountability – the fact or condition of being accountable; responsibility.
Capacity of schools – the maximum amount that something can contain.
Centrepiece – an item or issue intended to be a focus of attention.
Collaborative involvement – produced or conducted by two or more parties

working together.
Conflict resolution – a formal expression of opinion or intention agreed on by a

legislative body, committee, or other formal meeting, typically after taking a vote.
Decentralization – the transfer of authority from central to local government.
Disintegration – the process of losing cohesion or strength.
Disparity – a great difference.
Effective participation – successful in producing a desired or intended result.
Empowerment means giving authority to others. Empowerment is also the
process of enabling organizational members to act freely within known
boundaries to attain agreed results (The Oxford English Dictionary). In this study,
empowerment refers to devolution of power and authority to school councils for
decision-making.
79
Interpersonal relations – the way in which two or more concepts, objects, or

people are connected; a thing's effect on or relevance to another.
Management – the process of dealing with or controlling things or people.
Participation is to take part in something (Dictionary, 2010) but as used in this
study this means the involvement of internal stakeholders which include the
school heads, teachers and parents in any kind of school management or
decision making.
Reduction of illiteracy – the simplification of a subject or problem to a particular

form in presentation or analysis.
Risky – full of the possibility of danger, failure, or loss.
School-Based Management is a pragmatic approach to a formal alteration of
the bureaucratic model of school administration with a more democratic
structure. It identifies the individual school as the primary unit of improvement
relying on the redistribution of decision-making authority through which
improvements in a school are stimulated and sustained (Gamage, 2006).
School boards – a local board or authority responsible for the provision and
maintenance of schools.
School Governing Council - refers to an independent body established to

provide a forum for parents, students, teachers, community stakeholders and the
school head to work together towards continuously improving student learning
outcomes (DepED Manual on SGC).
School grants – agree to give or allow (something requested) to.
Social auditing – conduct an official financial examination of (an individual's or

organization's accounts).
Strategy – a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
Stronger control – the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the

course of events.
80
Student Achievements - refers to both academic (school examinations and

assessments) and non-academic (religious life, sports, arts, skills appropriate to
school environment such as agricultural skills, weaving skills, and simple
technology).
Transparency – the condition of being transparent.
Total Quality Assurance (TQA) refers to attaining the mean of 4.51 to 5.0 in
order that a component indicator is considered assured or done by the internal
stakeholders.
Visiting mentor – an experienced and trusted adviser.
Volunteering – freely offer to do something.
Weak governments – the action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation,

organization, or people.
81
APPENDICES
________________________________________________________________
Interview Questions
1. What is your understanding about SBM?
2. How will you assess the advantages and disadvantages of the SBM?
3. To what extent do you participate in the schools’ SBM?
4. What needs to be done to obtain full implementation of the SBM?
5. What concrete steps or measures actions would you like to recommend
we have to take?
6. Where do you think will you be able to obtain the support or help
acquired?
7. What support can you give the school and me, as your school head, in
order to effectively practice SBM?
8. What actions can be taken by us to promote practices in our school?

82
QUESTIONNAIRE
UNIVERSITY OF CALOOCAN CITY

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Caloocan City
This is a questionnaire on my thesis titled “PARTICIPATION OF

STAKEHOLDERS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENHANCED-SCHOOL
BASED MANAGEMENT (SBM)”. Please feel free to answer all items sincerely
and honestly. Rest assured, all your answers shall be treated with utmost
confidentiality.
NAME: (Optional)____________________________Date:________________
Part 1. Respondents’ Level of Participation in the Enhanced-SBM

Direction: The following are items that will assess the level of participation in
the enhanced-SBM in your school. Please check (√) the item/s
which you think suit your judgment or write the information on the
blank provided using the corresponding scale provided in each item
below:
4 3.50-4.00 Fully Participate
3 2.49-3.49 Participate
2 1.50-2.49 Moderately Participate
1 1.00-1.49 Not Participate
School Governance 4 3 2 1
FP P MP NP
Assist and participate in the formation of school governing
council (SGC)
Support the selection, nomination, and election of SGC
83
members
Involve myself in the in School Improvement Plan
formulation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation
Keep informed about the whereabouts of the school funds
and MOOE allocation and liquidation
Curriculum Enhancement 4 3 2 1
FP P MP NP
Support the localization and customization of the curriculum
Contribute in the crafting/ planning of the curricular offering

Enhance areas in the curriculum which need improvement
Involve in the design, improvement and enrichment of the
curriculum
Community Development 4 3 2 1
FP P MP NP
Formulate plans for community improvement
Establish linkages or network to ensure the school attain its
goals
Establish strong relationship with other schools for
benchmarking of best practices on school administrative
and instructional matters
Encourage activities that ensure application of learning to
homes and communities
Student Activities 4 3 2 1
FP P MP NP
Evaluate data obtained from tests instruments for
enrichment/remedial program
Assist in the conduct of small group study for the
enrichment/remedial program of the students
Monitor remediation and enrichment classes
Develop the trends of students’ performance and design
classes with teachers
84
Part 2. Respondents’ Assessment on the Challenges encountered in their

Involvement in the Implementation of the Enhanced-SBM
Direction: The following are the challenges encountered in the involvement in
the implementation of the enhanced-SBM in your school. Please
check (√) the item/s which you think suit your judgment or write the
information on the blank provided using the corresponding scale
provided in each item below:
4 3.50-4.00 Always
3 2.49-3.49 Often
2 1.50-2.49 Frequent
1 1.00-1.49 Never
Challenges 4 3 2 1
A O F N
Varied application of SBM practices
Absence of Participatory Decision-making process
Absence of a supportive local government framework
Difficulty of transfer of responsibilities
Increased Principals’ administrative and managerial
workload
Gender Issue
Lack of Community involvement
Lack of transparency
THANK YOU
85
Curriculum Vitae
FEDERICO GARCIA JABOYA

323 Sitio Uno, Sangandaan, Caloocan City
Cell No.: 09231226359
E-mail add: jaboya36@gmail.com
February 19, 2014 to present Administrative Officer II

General Service Office/
Administrative Division
Caloocan City Hall
March to May 2013 Mayor Oscar “Oca” Malapitan

(Caloocan City)
Speaker’s Bureau/ Spokesperson
(Emcee and Seminar Speaker)
Campaign Manager (UCC)
October 8, 2013 – Present University of Caloocan City

Assistant Director for Community
Extension Service Office (CESO)
Assistant Professor III (Part- time)
Political Science Department
86
November 8, 2008 – Present University of Caloocan City

Assistant Professor III (Part- time)
Political Science Department
Areas of Specialization: Principle of Economics

Economic Development of the
Philippines
Labor Economics
Economic Problems
Philosophy
Ethics
Logic
Sociology/ Sociology and
Anthropology
Philippine History
Asian History
World History
Rizal’s Life, Works and Writings
Introduction to Political Science
Politics and
Government with Phil.
Constitution
Understanding Philippine
Government and Politics
Comparative Government and

Politics
International Political Economy
Government and Politics in

Southeast Asia
American Government and Politics
Political Theory
International Relations
Philippine Foreign Relations
July 5, 2010 – August 31, 2010 AMA Caloocan Campus

Instructor I (Part- time)
87
May 20, 2008 – August 9, 2008 E – PLDT Ventus Dishnetwork

Account
Call Center Agent – CSR I
Jupiter St., Makati City
April 7, 2008 – May 19, 2008 E – PLDT Ventus Teleflora

Account
Call Center Agent – CSR I
The Fort, Taguig City
June 20, 2005 – December 2007 City of Malabon University

Instructor I (Part- time)
Faculty Business Manager
Student Council Adviser
June 2004 – April 2005 Arellano University

Instructor I
College Activity Coordinator
Student Council Co – Adviser
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Graduate Studies:

UCC South Campus
PhD – DEM Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Management and
Planning (Dissertation Writing)
2015 to present

Gen. San Miguel St., Sangandaan, Caloocan City
MAED Educational Management and Planning
2011 - 2015
Tertiary:
Quezon Colleges of Southern Philippines
Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat, Mindanao
A.B. Economics
1994 – 1998
Secondary:
Caloocan High School
10th Avenue, Caloocan City
1990 - 1994
88
Primary:
Tinajeros Central Elementary School
Brgy. Tinajeros, Malabon City
1984 – 1990
SEMINARS ATTENDED
 Enhancing Professionalism in  Seminar Workshop on

the Academe & Sexual Government
Harassment Working Hours and Leave
Bulwagang Katipunan, Laws
Caloocan City Hall PGMA – Sandoval Bldg. CMU
August 29, 2009 October 11 – 12, 2006
 Economic Update: Banking,  Collaborative Learning Styles

Investment and Insurance and Effective Motivation
New Era University, June 10, 2006
University Hall
February 10, 2009  Teacher Empowerment
Program
 6 – Week Training Program April 19, 2006
on Call Center Fundamentals
(TESDA Accredited Call Center  Teaching Strategies
Training) E – PLDT Ventus By: Atty. Cecilio D. Duka
Jupiter St., Makati City CMU
February 25 – April 3, 2008
 New Paradigm in Education:

Shifting Models of Instruction  20th Faculty Development and
in Higher Education Labor Seminar Theme:
U.P. Diliman, Quezon City Faculty Empowerment and
August 27, 2007 Global Education
Arellano University
 Leadership and Commitment Subic International Hotel,
Island Cove, Cavite City Subic, Olongapo City
April 30 – May 1, 2007
AFFILIATIONS

89
Faculty and Employees Association

Member
90

Participation of Stakeholders in The Imp

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Participation of Stakeholders in The Imp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

PARTICIPATION OF STAKEHOLDERS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

A Dissertation Submitted to the

In Partial Fulfilment for the Degree

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to

I also declare that the intellectual content of this

PROF. LILIAN B. ENRIQUEZ

This research study is dedicated….

To Him Nothing is impossible

To my parents who nurtured and incessantly supported my endeavors, To my

To God Be All The Glory!

Chapter 1. General Introduction……………………………………………….8

Chapter 2. Internal and external stakeholders participation

Chapter 3. Challenges encountered by the internal and

Chapter 4. Addressing the Challenges in the Implementation

Chapter 5. Key areas of effective participation in the enhanced SBM ……46

Chapter 6. Collaborative Strategic Plan in the Implementation of SBM …. 53

Chapter 7. General Discussions ………………………………………………60

Chapter 8. What This Paper Adds …………………………………………….68

Glossary of Terms ………………………………………………………………83

Curriculum Vitae ………………………………………………………………...90

List of tables ……Table 1. Respondents of the Study………………………18

PARTICIPATION OF STAKEHOLDERS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION

This study is focused on the assessment of the participation of

Furthermore, there is a need to formulate strategies or intervention

Keywords: Internal stakeholders, external stakeholders, enhanced – school

Enhanced School-Based Management (SBM)

between SBM and school improvement and it is therefore an essential dimension

Background of the Study

teachers such as reduced motivation, morale, and collegial interaction all of

Statement of the Problem

3. How do the internal and external stakeholders address the challenges

Significance of the Study

Future Researchers may serve as reference to related researches on the

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

Cadwell , Brian J. (2008). School- based management. The International Institute

Hyslop, H.C., Self-Managing and Organizational Learning and School Change

Marishane, Felipe et al, (2013). Decentralized decision-making in Schools: the

Patrinos, Harry Anthony & Tazeen, Fasih, Decentralized Decision-making in

Ozler, B., Decentralization and Student Achievement: The Case of Nicaragua’s

Westhuizen, V.d.,(2007). Correlation of Leadership Styles with the Organizational

Internal and external stakeholders’ participation in the enhanced SBM

Moreover, it was revealed that the level of stakeholders’ participation were

Keywords: PTA conferences, volunteering, reduction of illiteracy, visiting

Legal Bases of SBM. The importance of SBM in improving learning

2. The Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP 2004-

3. Governance of Basic Education Act (R.A. 9155) emphasizes

4. Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) provides a

5. The Schools First Initiative (SFI) of 2004 empowers educational

SBM in the Educational System

Stakeholders’ Level of Participation

Table 1. Respondents of the Study

CAMANAVA stands for Caloocan, Malabon, Navotas and Valenzuela City

Importance of Stakeholders in Curriculum Development

Research Design and Data Gathering

To quantify the internal and external stakeholders’ participation in the

where: f x - Sum of the product of the frequency and score

School Governance Internal External

Data shows that the internal stakeholders participate in the School

Curriculum Enhancement. Table 3 presents the stakeholders’

Table 3. Stakeholders’ Participation in the Enhanced SBM

Assist in enhancing areas in the 3.73 FP 3.28 P

Involve in the design, improvement 3.17 P 2.99 P