Antecedents of Triumphant SBM: A Sequential Explanatory Study to an Upgraded Primer

Louwen G. Tuazon

This dissertation is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Education major in Educational Management

Don Honorio Ventura State University

January 2022

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Today, the quality of education is more important than ever, since living in a knowledge-

based era requires human capital in the form of knowledge workers and skilled professionals

who can guide the local and global sectors. (Peters, 2019)
 Quality education, according to UNESCO, is both a process and a result that can be

quantified. The major goal should not only be to increase the number of schools or access to

them but to improve the quality of education services. The primary goal of the educational

system should be to promote a child's intellectual development while also encouraging

emotional development and creativity. Different educational systems use these kinds of goals

in different ways.

A quality education system is one that succeeds in reaching the targeted goals and

outcomes of individual schools; one that is relevant to the needs of students, communities,

and society; and one that develops students' ability to gain information and 21 st-century skills

(Stone, Bruce & Hursh, 2007).

Moreover, according to Mohammad (2017), the movement toward the provision of

quality education in schools to all students has been accompanied by various research studies

aimed at finding the quality of various education systems for improvement purposes. This is

particularly essential for a high quality of education, which is considered essential to provide

young people with adequate knowledge and skills as well as sustaining countries’ social and

economic development (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015).

In line with this, Total Quality Management (TQM) emerge and became both a

philosophy and a methodology that have been employed in the management of educational

institutions. Total quality management (TQM) is the integration of all functions and

processes within an organization in order to achieve continuous improvement of the quality

of goods and services where the ultimate goal is customer satisfaction. (Ross,2009)

Many scholars also note that to achieve quality education, one of the most important

innovations in TQM has been the reorganization of school systems and the devolution of

decision-making authority to the school level via a shift to school-based management.

 School-Based Management (SBM) has grown in popularity across the world as a

movement toward autonomy, shared decision-making, and collaboration within the school

community to improve the school (San Antonio & Gamage, 2007)

For many years, particularly since the 1990s, SBM has been a preferred education reform

in the field of international development (Daun and Mundy, 2011; Edwards, 2012).

Cadwell (2005), defined SBM as the decentralization of decision-making authority in

specific areas to the school level, relating to the learning program, teaching method,

resources, people, student choices, and accountability of school leaders in all areas including

the adjustment of changing the scope of school-based management administration and be

prepared to respond to central initiatives as defined from time to time at the national,

regional, divisional, or district levels.

SBM is a technique for making a school successful and productive, according to Banten

(2015) and Arar & Abo- Rome, (2016). It is an educational reform that allows schools to

arrange their life around their capabilities, expectations, and requirements through the

collaboration of teachers and parents in defining and achieving goals and techniques.

According to Vali and Dutad (2015), individuals working in schools can utilize the SBM

to think on a broader aspect of subjects and channel their energies toward improving and

developing schools by understanding how SBM can assist in defining the necessary

conditions to inspire and empower schools to use their decision-making authority, as well as

adopting appropriate and developing innovations in school operations is included in the

system.

The integration of SBM – School-Based Management – is one of the primary responses

of countries that has been a global hook and is based on the decentralization trend of the

1970s. Authority decentralization to the school level has become a global education reform
strategy and implemented to enhance the involvement of parents, students, teachers, officers,

principals, and stakeholders in local communities and organizations.

Decentralization of administrative and educational authorities from central government

bodies to schools assumes that school stakeholders will be more concerned if they have a

better understanding of the current reality in their school and that their decisions will be more

appropriate as a result (Hopkins, 2012).

In line with the global education reform, many developing countries around the world

adopted the trend. According to The World Bank, (2007); Barrera-Osorio et at, (2009); Di

Gropello, (2005); Zajda and Gamage (2009); and Cárdenas, (2008), some developed

countries introduced and implemented SBM reforms for various reasons and purposes.

United States, Canada, United Kingdom and New Zealand have adapted SBM to grant

schools more autonomy, increase budget allocation, empower teachers, involve the

community in schools, increase efficiency in school management, create more democratic

process for electing school personnel to improve quality of schooling.

SBM implementation and reform was also introduced to developing countries such as

Hongkong, Thailand, Argentina, Iran and many others including the Philippines for the equal

reasons provided by the developing countries.

According to Hanushek and Woessmann (2007), SBM has a variety of success stories to

tell. While data varies, parental participation in school management has reduced teacher

absenteeism in several different nations, including Papua New Guinea, India, and Nicaragua.

Schools are handled more publicly under these models, which reduces the likelihood of

corruption and provides opportunities for parents and stakeholders to expand their

knowledge. In some circumstances, school council members are given training in shared
decision-making, interpersonal skills, and managerial skills so that members can become

more capable participants in the SBM process while also benefiting the entire community.

In Latin America, according to Cardenias, (2008), the implementation of decentralization

reforms such as school-based management has been a popular alternative to promote

productive education and in the quest to improve access in areas where centralized school

management has proven ineffective. EDUCO is a well-known Latin American school-based

management model that has been used to undertake various decentralization schemes in the

region. It was created with the goal of increasing access to basic education in rural areas

where schools were either non-existent or poorly run and adopting SBM is one of the biggest

and most successful moves the country has ever done in the field of education.

Odden, (2005) revealed various techniques shared by schools in the successful SBM

adaptation in select California schools. First, effective SBM schools distribute power

throughout the school so that a wide range of stakeholders are involved in decision-making.

This includes subcommittees and other decision-making bodies such as teaching teams and

other committees where almost every faculty member and stakeholder participated in the

success due to the wide distribution of power. Professional development as a continuous,

school-wide activity is a second strategy employed by triumphant SBM schools. Building a

schoolwide capacity for change, forming a professional community, and constructing a

shared knowledge base have all been successful school-oriented actions.

Another effective strategy used by successful SBM schools is to disseminate information

widely through meetings, workgroups, outreach, and feedback so that participants can make

educated decisions about the school and all stakeholders are aware of its performance. They

often honored individuals for work well done by giving messages of gratitude from the

administration, recognition awards, plaques, and public acknowledgment but it is also noted
that some schools also give monetary incentives to some staff who had been dealing with

SBM for several years.

According to Costea (2014), most European countries have established dedicated

mechanisms to enhance school evaluation and improvement through decentralization. The

National Service for Quality Education (Italy) and the National Institute of Evaluation

(Sweden) are two examples of specialized structures where schools gain more autonomy,

contribute more effectively to resource management, and take responsibility for their own

institutional growth. They primarily focused on decentralization and the promotion of high-

quality education by providing direct capability and access to schools in managing,

collecting, and using databases in decision-making, self-and public reporting, and allowing

schools to meet their own institution's needs in the short, medium, and long term.

All European educational systems place high importance on quality, which is why schools

are encouraged to establish their own quality assurance systems by ensuring the three aspects

that define quality assurance: providing a clear definition and organizational objective

through an institutional development strategy, mobilizing internal resources for self-

development, self-innovation, and self-evaluation, and establishing a public accountability

system through regular feedback, audits, and benchmarking.

In comparative research made by the Education Policy and Research Unit of UNESCO

Bangkok in 2014, most ASEAN and other countries including Australia, Japan, Korea

Myanmar, Vietnam, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, and

Hongkong have decentralized some key functions and responsibilities to lower levels of

administration by implementing School-Based Management and observing autonomy in

decision- making of schools. Although decentralization is not the only solution for better

education sector management, the study found that countries with decentralized education
have improved the relevance, efficiency, and effectiveness of education, which is why many

other governments around the world have begun to implement education decentralization

reform.

While decentralization appears to improve access and allocate more financial resources to

education in some cases, the effects vary, and some countries face challenges in

implementing decentralization. Without appropriate government interventions,

decentralization can cause great damage than benefits, that is why UNESCO Bangkok

(2012b) recognizes three main aspects that are essential for effective and successful SBM

which include ensuring equity, building accountability, and establishing local capacity.

In Asian countries like Malaysia, based on the Malaysian Education Blueprint (MEB)

2013-2025, SBM was implemented through the Education Development Master Plan

(EDMP) 2006-2010 by creating autonomous-cluster schools, which was later expanded to all

schools due to the effectiveness of this method.

According to Hussein (2014), there are four reasons why SBM implementation is essential

and successful in Malaysia. First, SBM improved the school's development and

transformative role in the educational reform process; second, SBM engendered local level

efforts with locally produced, sustainable programs for long-term transformation benefits.

Third, rather than relying heavily on top-down directives, SBM strengthened local leadership

capabilities in terms of management experience and problem-solving; and fourth, SBM

recognized the professional role of school heads and teachers as key players, as well as the

community's role as stakeholders, particularly when it comes to decisions that affect them.

Moreover, there is a hybrid of two SBM models that were implemented in this country:

administrative-control SBM and professional-control SBM. Depending on the domains of

school management, both models were found to be employed interchangeably (Vally &
Daud, 2015). The level of SBM implementation is further defined into five levels, which are

weak, moderate, somewhat strong, strong, and very strong. As a result, adapting SBM

improved the educational system by granting schools administrative and management

autonomy (Varatharaj, 2015).

Correspondingly, the SBM program in Indonesia under Act 20/2003, Article 54, was

designed to deliver a high level of service where schools should have more authority, and the

community should be encouraged to participate more like the involvement of the community

in school affairs, designing and implementing curriculum, evaluating, and managing

education programs and funds in accordance with community guidelines and with reference

to national education standards. SBM implantation is anchored on the general standard

provided by the Ministry of National Education in 2007 and it was considered a success

considering the performance of the schools that manage to implement it.

School-Based Management in the Philippines was officially implemented as a

governance framework of the Department of Education (DepEd) with the passage of RA

9155 in 2001 as legal cover. It serves as a viable structural reform intervention used to

improve the quality of education in public schools to produce functionally literate Filipinos.

According to DepEd (2015), SBM is an approach for improving education that involves

moving major decision-making authority from state and district offices to local schools. It

gives principals, teachers, students, and parents more authority over the educational process

by putting them in charge of financial, staff, and curricular decisions. Also, it may build more

effective learning environments for children by involving teachers, parents, and other

community stakeholders in these crucial decisions.

The enactment of Republic Act 9155 in 2001 gave DepEd the legal and official mandate

to reorganize governance in basic education. SBM became the foundation for making an
institutional change to improve the learning of primary and secondary school pupils as a

result of this order.

According to Yap and Adorio (2017), the initial implementation of SBM in the country

was focused on the divisions and provinces with the lowest mean scores based on the

National Achievement Tests, with the perception that if the school reform is successful in the

included schools, it will be successful in almost all schools.

Schools now in the country have more autonomy and flexibility in managing their

operations and resources for school growth because of SBM dissolving additional duties to

them. Because the quality of school instruction has a direct impact on students' learning

results, more autonomy makes schools more open in their operations and accountable to the

community for their performance and proper use of finances.

Furthermore, different policies were implemented to enable local decision-makers to

decide the best combination of inputs and educational regulations based on local

circumstances and requirements like the beginning crafting of the School Improvement

Planning (SIP) together with the stakeholders, the School Governing Council, (SGC), the

Assessment of Level of Practice of the schools, and reporting of accomplishments through

School Report Cards (SRCs).

According to DepEd Secretary Luistro, (2010), in terms of learning and management,

successful decentralization and SBM will produce the best results for the basic education

sector. With community support, an empowered school may make significant advances.

Moreover, school principals can easily take the lead in developing a healthy working

connection between the school and the community.

Validation for the SBM Level of Practice has been mandated by DepEd to establish the

depth of its SBM practice alongside the principles of ACCESs. The department uses it to
figure out which schools need help and which schools should be recognized for good

practices so that other schools can benchmark them.

The Department of Education issued DepEd Order No. 83, s. 2012 to strengthen School-

Based Management (SBM) practice and re-emphasize the importance of learners and the

participation of relevant community basic education service delivery. In 2015, the Field

Technical Assistance Division (FTAD) was established to assist schools and learning centers

in providing high-quality basic education and creating an enabling environment. Furthermore,

the Field Technical Help Division (FTAD) is responsible for leading, coordinating, and

integrating the provision of technical assistance to Schools Division Offices in the leading,

monitoring, and evaluation of the SBM level of practice of all school divisions.

The SBM Practices Assessment Tool was made in this context. The tool is based on the

Department of Education's "Framework and Standards for Effective School-Based

Management Practice Towards Improved Learning Outcomes." The tool is evidence-based

and serves as a starting point for those who are just beginning to implement an SBM culture

or for schools that are going to the next level of SBM practice. The formulation of a plan of

action to address gaps or issues begins with an understanding of the existing state of the

institution.

The SBM Assessment Tool will be used by the School Heads for self-assessment on the

SBM level of practice; the SDO SBM Monitoring Teams for monitoring the schools'

implementation of SBM; and the Regional Field Technical Assistance Teams (RFTATs) for

validating the schools' SBM level of practice.

The Regional Office and Schools Division Offices are directed to reorganize the SBM

Task Forces as part of the reorganization. Regional SBM Coordinating Teams/Regional Field
Technical Assistance Teams (RFTATs) and Division SBM Coordinating Teams/Division

Field Technical Assistance Teams (Division FTATs) are the two teams (DFTAT).

The Department of Education's main goals in implementing SBM are to empower school

leaders to lead their teachers and students through reforms that improve learning outcomes;

bring resources, including funds, down to the control of schools to spur change in line with

decentralization; strengthen community partnerships to invest time, money, and effort in

making the school a better place to take lessons; and incorporate education system and

educational regeneration for school improvement.

In relation to DepEd Order No. 83, s. 2012, which is the School-Based Management

Assessment Tool with Contextualized means of Verifications (MOVs), there are four

concepts that serve as the foundation for validating schools’ level of practice, and each

principle has different indicators and percentages which the validators use to measure the

SBM Level of Practice of the schools, and these are Leadership and Governance, Curriculum

and Learning, Accountability and Continuous Improvement, and Management of Resources.

Grishtain and Gibton (2018) revealed loopholes in the authority-responsibility concept,

with minimal levels of authority and a high level of accountability in particular. Therefore, a

school must have a network of leadership that provides vision and direction to the educational

system, making it relevant and responsive to the contexts of diverse communities. It must

also be organized by a clear structure and work arrangement that promote shared stewardship,

as well as define the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders.

According to Malonzo (2019), under the principle of leadership and governance,

transformative leadership development programs should be initiated, carried out, and

evaluated on a regular basis throughout the year to ensure that school leaders' management

skills are constantly upgraded. Given that it is School-Based Management, there should be a
program that focuses on school administrators, particularly principals. Furthermore, to

enhance this principle, there is a need to significantly boost school principals' commitment to

their jobs in order to greatly modify their schools and raise practices in the school setting.

Under the idea of Curriculum and Instruction, a curriculum should be developed to meet

the developmental requirements of all types of learners in the school community, and it

should be localized to make it more relevant to the learners and applicable to community life.

Bottoms, (2001) stated that it is not enough for leaders to know "what works," they must

also know what is needed now and what will be needed in the future to make continuous

improvements, that's why many strategies to improve curriculum and instruction are in

demand: raising expectations, providing demanding and challenging content, engaging

students in learning, and constantly seeking ways to raise achievement.

While appropriate assessment tools for teaching and learning are continually reviewed

and improved, assessment results are contextualized to the learner and local situation, and

assessment results are contextualized to the attainment of relevant life skills, the learning

systems are also regularly and collaboratively monitored by the community using appropriate

tools to ensure the holistic growth and development of the learners and the community.

Moreover, Carlos, 2022, stated that based on empirical data, effective learning occurs as

a result of two factors: first, teachers' mastery of subject matter; and second, students' high

level of motivation when interacting. As a result, if you want to make policy changes, you

must pay attention to and invest in teachers, because if teachers are not competent, learning

will not occur; therefore, if you have limited resources, focus them on teacher training which

is under the principle of Curriculum and Instruction,

 In addition, learning managers and facilitators (teachers, administrators, and members of

the community) must foster attitudes and surroundings that are protective of all children and

display behaviors that are consistent with the organization's Vision, Mission, and Goals.

The third principle, in the released SBM Tool from DepEd, Accountability and

Continuous Improvement state that the school must have a community-owned accountability

system that is constantly improved to guarantee that management structures and mechanisms

respond to the community's evolving learning needs and desires. Regular performance

evaluations with the community are carried out. A clear, open, inclusive, and responsive

accountability framework has been established, which monitors expected and actual

performance fixes gaps as they arise, and provides a forum for feedback and redress.

Distracting activities and other unproductive behavior are eliminated when accountability and

continuous improvement are implemented. People learn to respect their work when the

school holds them accountable for their activities.

Malonzo (2019) proposed several measures to promote accountability and continuous

improvement, including collaborative planning and review of SIP, creation of a

contextualized tool, strong partnership with stakeholders, proper record keeping,

transformative leadership enhancement skills for school heads, clinical supervisions from

supervisors, capacity building for teachers, and improvement of the validation process and

validation tool.

Finally, the last principle focuses on resource management, which is defined as the

efficient and effective development of an organization's resources when they are required.

Financial resources, inventory, human skills, manufacturing resources, and information

technology (IT) are all examples of such resources. Learning managers, learning facilitators,
and community stakeholders collaborate on a regular resource inventory to serve as a

foundation for resource allocation and mobilization.

Cabardo (2016) suggested that school administrators form strong bonds with parents in

order to include them in the design, execution, and evaluation of school programs that are

directly related to their students' educational activities. Collaboration has been shown to be a

community mover and shaker. There is ongoing, accessible, and inclusive discourse for

planning and resource programming, as well as ongoing engagement with stakeholders and

support for community education plan execution.

DepEd Order No. 83 series 2021 released the following percentage weights were

assigned to the four (4) principles based on their relative importance to the school's goal

(improved learning outcomes and school operations): Leadership and Governance – 30%

Curriculum and Learning – 30% Accountability and Continuous Improvement – 25%

Management of Resources – 15%.

The SBM level of practice in schools is divided into three categories: Level 1

(Developing), Level 2 (Maturing), and Level 3 (Advanced) (Advanced). Schools in Level 1

or the Developing Level have previously developed and adopted mechanisms that have a

satisfactory limit and extent of community participation and effect on educational objectives.

Furthermore, schools at Level 2 or the Maturing Level have already implemented and

sustained a continuous improvement process that incorporates broader community

collaboration and considerably improves students’ learning outcomes. Level 3 or Advanced

level schools, on the other hand, have established that the expected outputs/outcomes are

produced while exceeding all of the standards of a system that is fully integrated into the

locality which is self-dependent.

 To see how much the schools have improved and maintained their current level of

practice, schools present acceptable means of verification (MOVs), which must be under 3

school years back before the year of the validation such as physical or tangible evidence,

digital or online proofs, and other methods that the validation team deems appropriate,

coherent, and applicable to the guidelines.

Reviews and findings of several research indicated that SBM implementation in different

countries has been an effective reform in improving the quality of education, just like the

evidence from the assessment of the World Bank Group, (2016) in the Philippines clearly

shows that implementing school-based management resulted in enormous benefits in terms of

improved educational outcomes. Many of the reforms required to realize these benefits have

already been implemented in schools across the country.

In a memorandum released by the Region III office which is RM No. 581, s. 2021,

through the FTAD, the region recognized 50 schools in public elementary schools, in the

whole region that showcased triumph in the implementation of SBM, achieving and

sustaining the Level 3 which is the Advance level by providing quality, relevant and

liberating education.

Considering the success of these recognized schools in the region, the researcher was

convinced in knowing their exemplary practices in effective implementation of SBM towards

a guided primer that can be used as a benchmark for other schools to follow and adopt.

In order to fully realize the effectiveness of SBM in every school, a unified, holistic,

pedagogical, and operational guiding primer for quality of education is vital, and to help

achieve this, the benchmarking system can be applied.

Educational institutions use several ways to improve the efficacy and quality of learning,

according to Gunasekaran (2002), one of which is benchmarking. Benchmarking provides a

mechanism for external evaluation and develops new networks of collaboration between

schools where vital information and perspectives on teaching and research may be shared, in

addition to learning best practices from other institutions.

It will also be a significant step toward overcoming resistance to educational

transformation tactics, methodologies, and technologies. This strategy may be used to

effectively implement SBM in education by researching and comparing the scenario, tactics,

practices, and concepts of other schools in the different principles of SBM and adopting the

best practices and techniques which are suitable and applicable to the set- up of a certain

school.

This allowed the researcher to unravel the antecedents of triumphant SBM schools in

achieving SBM level 3 performance towards a guided primer that will benefit not just schools

but will also optimize every Filipino learner's entitlement to a competent, inclusive, culture-

based, and comprehensive education.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 shows the schematic diagram of the conceptual framework of the study. In the

diagram, the first phase includes the quantitative data collection on the antecedents of

triumphant SBM through a survey questionnaire to respondents followed by an interview of

participants which will be the qualitative data collection phase of the study.

The next phase shows the analysis and interpretation of the results. The last step covers

the creation of a guided primer.

Quantitative Data Collection

*Antecedents of Triumphant SBM

*Survey questionnaire

Qualitative Data Collection,

*Semi- structured interview

 Analysis of Data
Interpretation of Results

Guided Primer

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the study

Statement of the Problem

The general objective of the study aims to unravel the antecedents of triumphant SBM

public elementary schools based on the validation of schools in Region III towards an

upgraded primer.

Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What are the antecedents that contribute to the success of public elementary schools

regionally recognized as SBM level 3?

2. What is the SBM level of practice of the schools in the following principles:

2.1 Leadership and Governance,

2.2 Curriculum and Instruction,

2.3 Accountability and Continuous Improvement, and

2.4 Management of Resources.

3. Question will be based on the antecedents/ factors/ determinants of success

4. Based on the result of the study, what possible upgraded primer may be developed?

Significance of the Study

This study is significant to various stakeholders. To wit:

School Supervisors. The findings of this study could be used by school supervisors to assist

them to plan effective strategies to address school deficiencies and reinforcing SBM practices

to ensure that students receive a high-quality education through benchmarking.

School Heads. The result of this study will provide school leaders with a greater

understanding of effective leadership and assistance in taking the required steps to improve

SBM practices. This will highlight substantial contributions to their respective institutions'

achievements.

Teachers. This study's findings may not only assist teachers in better understanding their

students, but may also assist teachers in better understanding themselves, their roles as

facilitators of young learners, understanding and realizing the importance of active

participation in implementing, planning, initiating, executing, and monitoring of school-based

programs.

SBM Team. This research will assist the SBM Team in developing a variety of useful

artifacts/ MOVs on SBM and clearly defining roles in the School-Based Management

process, and accepting changes and new techniques through benchmarking.

Stakeholders. The study's findings will create awareness about their critical role in the SBM

process, leading to increased active engagement, support, and dedication to schools.

Learners. Students will be the main beneficiaries of this research since an enhanced SBM

level of practice in schools will provide a better learning environment and higher-quality

education.

Future Researchers. Other researchers may use this study as a starting point for further

investigation into the many predictors of successful SBM practices. The research will be

included in the existing body of knowledge. Furthermore, the guided primer may direct future

researchers as to which studies, they should pursue.

Scope and Delimitation

This study will focus on unraveling the antecedents of triumphant SBM based on the

validation of schools in Region III towards a guided primer. The study was delimited to

schools that are regionally recognized as level 3 in their SBM level of practice for S.Y. 2020-

2021.

For the quantitative method, 10 divisions with regionally recognized level 3 schools will

be part of the respondents in answering the survey to have a valid result on the predictors of

their success in attainting level 3 in SBM.

For the qualitative method, 2 Division will be included as participants and will be

interviewed which will be composed of 3 SBM leaders, 3 school heads, 2 local governments

unit LGU officials who is in charge of education, and completing the participants are 2 PTA

officers of schools with SBM level 3 practice. The participants will be asked about their

experience on the Regional SBM validation and will be purposively selected since all of them

are directly involved in the validation process and for the researcher to know what are the

antecedents that contributed to their triumphant in the SBM validation.

Definition of Terms

The following concepts were defined conceptually and/or operationally in order to gain a

better understanding of this research:

Accountability and Continuous Improvement. Hunt (2002) defines accountability as the readiness

or preparedness to explain or justify one's judgments, intentions, acts, and exclusions to relevant

parties when called upon to do so. In the study, it is one of the principles that is concerned with

keeping records of school activities and using such records to assess or appraise institutional

performance in relation to the achievement of predetermined goals while keeping the protection of

public property from abuse due to under or overuse and greatly enhances the educational system's

checks and balances so that conformities can be appreciated and improved upon, while

nonconformities can be identified, sanctioned, and corrected appropriately, timely and collaboratively

by the school leaders and stakeholders, encouraging administrators to pursue educational goals with

zeal.

Antecedent. As used in the study, this refers to the factors, and predictors that contribute to the

success of regionally recognized SBM level 3 public elementary schools.

Curriculum and Instruction. According to the rationale of Tyler and Hlebowitsh (2013), the

curriculum serves as the guide and consists of outlined series of objectives and processes to follow

and carry out by educators for classroom application which is the instruction. As used in the study,

Curriculum and Instruction is one of the principles which involve the provision of the school a

learning system that includes all the development needs of every learner which involve localized

instruction to make it more meaningful and applicable to the community and is regularly monitored

collaboratively by the school personnel and stakeholders to ensure quality education is offered.

Decentralization. Kaur (2016) defines it as dividing the responsibilities among people in school

governance. In this study, it means the transfer of power and authority closer to the head of the school,

the involvement of stakeholders, and the presentation of community participation by the school sector
in policymaking, planning, and carrying out the plans for an effective and efficient educational

system.
24
Developing. This means a process of increasing depth, incremental improvement, more elaborated by

virtue of learning and maturing, and gradual shift in advancement or function from a lower to a higher

stage, Beardwell and Claydon (2007). In this study, it implies that the school is building structures and

procedures with an acceptable level and scope of community participation and influence on learning

outcomes, which falls under Level I of SBM Practice based on the tool used in the validation process.

Guided Primer. According to Cook, 2016, this involves introducing new material before the lesson

occurs and it is a way to prepare students for an activity with which they usually have difficulty. In

this study, this means a support mechanism that can provide guide and assistance to schools in dealing

with the successful implementation of SBM.

Holistic Pedagogical Practices. As defined by Price in 2013 and Johnsons in 2020, it is the art,

science, or craft of teaching and recognizing the interconnection of all things, taking things in a

holistic manner where everything is part of a whole. As utilized in the study, these are comprehensive

practices in the implementation of SBM in relation to improving and reforming the existing policies

and educational practices.

Leadership and Governance. Leadership is ensuring team awareness and spirit, attaining power

from team members’ performances and guiding power to achieve team targets, contributing

significantly to the team. (Ramberg, Brolin Låftman, Fransson, & Modin, 2019). Gobby and Wilkins,

(2020), refers to governance as the ways in which government and non-government entities intervene,

both formally and informally, to shape the way organizations and individuals conduct themselves. As

used in the study, Leadership and Governance is one of the principles of SBM that focuses on

providing plans and purposes to the education sector together with the stakeholders for it to be

applicable to the contexts of multicultural areas.

Maturing. According to the great philosopher Jean Piaget, maturing is similar to intelligence in terms

of how we build and use it to respond appropriately to our surroundings. In this study, maturing refers
to a school's ability to sustain and introduce a continuous improvement process that involves a larger

or broader community and significantly improves performance and learning outcomes, as defined by

Level II of SBM Practice.

25
Resource Management. The scheduling, managing, and allocation of an organization’s people and

other resources in the most effective way possible to produce the highest quality outcome (NOUN,

2009). As utilized in the study, this principle’s main focus is on effective, efficient, and transparent

management of resources of the school through proper organization, coordination, and controlling of

the school management team with the continuous collaboration of the stakeholders for monitoring,

evaluation, recording and reporting processes.

School-Based Management. It is a decentralization technique for making a school more successful

and productive, and educational reform that allows schools to arrange their life around their

capabilities, expectations, and requirements, Banten (2015). SBM is defined in this study as a method

as to how a school manages its school, based on four SBM principles: leadership and governance,

curriculum and instruction, accountability and continuous improvement, and resource management.

Triumphant. According to Niritnthin, 2016, triumph is the moment of success and accomplishment.

In this study, this refers to the achievement of the schools which are recognized as SBM level 3 in the

regional validation.

Acronyms

ACCESs - A Community- and Child (Learner)-Centered Education System

DBEP - Decentralized Basic Education Project
DepEd - Department of Education
DFTAT - Division Field Technical Assistance Team
DOD - Document Analysis Observation and Discussion
EDMP - Education Development Master Plan
FTAD - Field Technical Assistance Division
MOVs - Means of Verifications
QAD - Quality Assurance Division
RFTAT - Regional Field Technical Assistance Team
SC - School Committees
SGC - School Governing Council
SIP - School Improvement Plan
SRC - School Report Card
UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Chapter 2
 METHOD

Research Design

The study will use a mixed-method approach that includes both quantitative and

qualitative research. Their combination allows for the full extraction of knowledge from

demographic trends as well as an in-depth understanding of participants' viewpoints and

experiences (Creswel & Plato Clark, 2007).

The researcher will employ the sequential explanatory mixed-method design. The

integration of both quantitative and qualitative research into one study as a mixed-method

provides better insights into a phenomenon (Polit and Beck, 2010).

According to Creswell (2012), mixed-method design entails gathering and collecting

data from the respondents from the quantitative part, then gathering ideas and concepts

through interviews of participants to understand more the study.

This design will best fit the study because it will help the researcher reveal the information

by exploring the experiences of participants through an interview. This design will also

increase the validity and reliability of the result because it will provide clear details of data

collection, sampling, and analysis (Mays and Pope, 2010).

Participants/Respondents

The importance of identifying the right participants in the study cannot be taken for

granted. To ensure that the appropriate respondents will be chosen, the researcher will

directly obtain information of schools from the Region through the RFAT. Following the

identification of the schools, the purposive sampling technique will be used to determine

the respondents and participants of the study..

Purposive sampling as cited by Crossman (2017), is also known as judgmental

sampling. It is a subjective method that is use to decide who among the population will be
included in the sample and a type of non-probability sampling that is chosen based on the

characteristics or criteria that must be met. This technique is commonly used when

proportionality is not the primary concern.

It is a technique in which not everyone in the population is given the opportunity to

participate in the study because, in this sampling, a researcher considers factors that will

determine the participants who are relevant and will suit the purpose of the study.

Quantitative

Purposive sampling will be also employed in this section. According to Foley (2018),

purposive sampling is also known as judgmental, selective, or subjective sampling because

the researcher relies on his own judgment when selecting members of the population to

participate in his study.

The researcher in this study will use the purposive sampling technique because it is one

way to access a specific subset of people, as all study respondents will be chosen because

they fit a specific profile.

For the quantitative part of the study, School heads, SBM leaders and members, LGU

and PTA officers of the select 10 Divisions with 22 schools regionally recognized as SBM

Level 3 or the Advanced Level based on the SBM validation process will be included.

Therefore, there will be 110 respondents in the quantitative part. They will answer the

survey questionnaire about the predictors of successful SBM.

Table 1

Respondents of the Study (Quantitative)

Position Number of Respondents

School Head 22
SBM Leader 22
 SBM Member 66
Total 110

Qualitative
For the qualitative part, a purposive sampling technique will be used in selecting the

participants. There will be 10 participants in this part who are directly involved in the SBM

implementation in school. The participants will be: (a) 3 School Head, (b) 3 SBM leaders,

(c) 2 PTA Officers, and (d) 2 LGU officials in-charge in education. The participants will

be asked about their experiences with the SBM implementation and validation process.

Table 2 reflects the distribution of the participants.

Table 2

Participants of the Study (Qualitative)

Position Number of Participants

School Head 3

SBM Leader 3

PTA Officer 2

LGU Officials 2

Total 110

Instrument

There will be two general kinds of instruments that will be utilized in this study since

the study is sequential explanatory in nature. In the quantitative part is a survey tool based

on various literature and studies which will be validated by experts. As stated by Eng

(2013), an instrument is used to collect or gather data that will provide an explanation to

the particular problem of research.

 The researcher will use a survey questionnaire in the quantitative phase that will be

given to the respondents for them to answer. This must be validated by experts to ensure

that the research instrument will address the problems of the study. This will be needed to

assess the content validity of the research instrument which is important because this will

verify if the collected data meet the objectives of the study as mentioned in the study of

Creswell (2014).

On the qualitative part, the unstructured interview will be utilized by the researcher to

gather data. According to Torno (2016), the instrument is comprised of a set of questions to

be asked to the participants of the survey. These usually ask questions that elicit ideas and

behaviors, preferences, traits, attitudes, and facts of the target individuals.

This kind of interview allows the participants time and opportunities to develop their

answers. It will give the participants the opportunity to take control to define properties and

direct the interview into areas that they see as remarkable and significant.

Questions will be asked to them, specifically the antecedents of triumphant SBM based

on their experiences in the validation process and once the questions were answered, they

will be themed Necessary follow-up questions will be also given to validate and

substantiate the response of the participants, as supported in the study of Galang (2014),

these follow-up interviews will be essential to supplement the data provided through the

answers in the open questions and to acquire further clarification.

To also ensure a precise and accurate response from the participants, the researcher will

suggest an audio and video recording to record the full transcripts of the interview, with the

approval of the participants, and it will be kept safe and confidential till after the

completion of the study.

Suggestions and proper revisions will be considered from the experts in the field of

SBM to validate the instrument on the survey and interview and all necessary
recommendations will be taken into account.

Data Collection

The researcher will obtain all necessary permits and approvals from authorities,

including the Regional Director prior to the study's actual conduct. Once approval is

obtained, it will be forwarded to the Schools Division Superintendents of Divisions

included in the study, District Supervisors of public schools, and the principals of the

elementary schools taking part in the study.

Quantitative

The validated questionnaires will be given to the SBM leaders and SBM members. The

teachers will be asked to answer the survey at their desired time. The researcher will

personally distribute the questionnaire to the respondents to increase the retrieval rate.

Again, if the health situation hinders face-to-face contact, the researcher will float the

survey questionnaire online by sending a link to the respondents. After, the researcher will

tally and tabulate the acquired data.

The figure below depicts the quantitative data collection procedure that will be utilized in

this study.
Figure 2. Quantitative Data

Qualitative

Before conducting the actual interview, participants will be given a letter of request

highlighting the purpose of the study as well as a copy of the questions to be asked. This

will be done to ensure that each participant will have enough time to respond to the

program's questions based on their own experiences, ideas, feelings, and perspectives.

With the participants' permission, the interview will be recorded for transcription. The

researcher will make sure that health and safety protocols will be strictly followed during

the conduct of the interview.

If the situation regarding the pandemic will hinder personal interviews, the researcher

will move to its other option which is an online interview with the participants.

The figure below illustrates the qualitative data gathering procedure that will be used in

this study.
Figure 2. Qualitative Data Collection
The figure below illustrates the data collection procedure that will be operated in this

study.
Figure 4. Data Collection Process
Ethical Consideration

According to Chetty (2016), ethical considerations play a significant role in research.

Ethics allows researchers to deal with a cooperative conceptualization of their study with

the help of their teacher, peers, and others who have experience in the study. This ethical

principle necessitates accountability, trust, mutual respect, and fairness among all parties

involved in a study.

The goal of this value is to protect all contributors' intellectual property rights. Another

ethical consideration is accountability to the general public by protecting the respondents

and participants in the study.

The researcher will secure the participants' identities and any information that could

lead to their identification. The researcher will use codes as a substitute for their names in

analyzing their responses qualitatively. Furthermore, the data that will be collected from

questionnaires will not be shown to anyone who is not a part of the research project and

will be kept strictly confidential. Participants' and officials' permission will be obtained

through approved letters. All interviewees will be given the option of participating or

declining to be interviewed. This will be done to ensure that participants will be aware of

the study's purpose and the potential implications for their work and profession.

Data Analysis/Statistical Treatment

Quantitative

Data collected from questionnaires will be recorded, organized, and interpreted using

the appropriate statistical treatment for quantitative data analysis. The content validity

coefficient will be used to determine which items in each dimension are relevant to

answering the study's specific problems.

In the quantitative phase, the multiple regression analysis will be used. The information
gathered will be tabulated and analyzed using Statistical Packages for Social Sciences

(SPSS).

The following interpretation standard will be used to properly interpret and analyze the

results of the computations. The Likert scale will be used since it is a non-comparative

scaling technique that is simple to understand. This Likert Scale will be utilized to

determine the antecedents in attaining triumphant SBM level 3.

In the quantitative section, respondents will be asked to indicate their level of agreement

with the following statements using an ordinal scale:

Ordinal scale Symbol Description

4 SA Strongly Agree

3 AG Agree

2 DA Disagree

1 SD Strongly Disagree

For the interpretation of the findings, this scale will be utilized:

Weighted Mean Descriptive Rating

3.5-4.00 Strongly Agree

2.5-3.49 Agree

1.5-2.49 Disagree

1.00-49 Strongly Disagree

The descriptive rating of strongly agree indicates that the respondents completely agree

with the statement while agree means the respondents concur on most points. The rating of

disagree specifies that the respondents mostly disagree with the statement and if the

participants answer strongly disagree, this means complete contradiction with the

statement.

The qualitative data analysis and quantitative statistical treatment will be carried out
sequentially in this exploratory research. The first phase will become the premise to come

up with themes or dimensions that will give the researcher the guide on what to assess on

the second phase.