Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Comprehensive Guide To School-Based Management (SBM)
A Comprehensive Guide To School-Based Management (SBM)
Management (SBM)
by Mark Anthony Llego
Table of Contents
ABOUT SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT (SBM)
WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES?
HOW DOES SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT (SBM) AFFECT THE ROLES OF THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE SUPERINTENDENT AND
DISTRICT OFFICE?
HOW ARE BUDGET DECISIONS MADE?
HOW ARE DECISIONS MADE AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL?
WHAT IS NECESSARY WHEN IMPLEMENTING SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT (SBM)?
WHAT ARE THE LIABILITIES OF SBM?
WHERE HAS SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT BEEN IMPLEMENTED?
SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT (SBM) SUB-COMPONENTS:
ASSESSMENT of SBM PRACTICES: SCHOOLS INITIATED ASSESSMENT FOR SELF- DIRECTED IMPROVEMENT
Why assess the School-Based Management (SBM) practices?
Assessment of SBM Practices Manual
Matrix of Scale of Practice
WHO answers the tools?
ADMINISTRATION of SBM ASSESSMENT
Matrix of Scale of Practice
The school board continues to establish a clear and unifying vision and to set broad policies for the district 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 board’s role changes little in a conversion to SBM.
The superintendent and his or her district office staff facilitate the decisions made at the school level, and
provide technical assistance when a school has difficulty translating the district’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 district 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 district 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.
In most SBM systems, each school is given a “lump sum” that the school can spend as it sees fit. As outlined by
JoAnn Spear (1983), the district office determines the total funds needed by the whole district, determines the
districtwide costs (such as the cost of central administration and transportation), 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 district 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.
Most districts create school management councils at each school that include the principal, representatives of
parents and teachers, and, in some cases, other citizens, support staff, and–at the secondary level–students.
The council conducts a needs assessment and develops a plan of action that includes statements of goals and
measurable objectives, consistent with school board policies.
In some districts, the management council makes most school-level decisions. In other districts, the council
advises the principal, who then 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 decisionmaker.
From the beginning, the school board and superintendent must be supportive of school-based management.
They must trust the principals and councils to determine how to implement the district’s goals at the individual
schools.
It is important to have a written agreement that specifies the roles and responsibilities of the school board,
superintendent and district office, principal, and SBM council. The agreement should explicitly state the
standards against which each school will be held accountable. James Guthrie (1986) states that each school
should produce an annual performance and planning report covering “how well the school is meeting its
goals, how it deploys its resources, and what plans it has for the future.”
Training in such areas as decision-making, problem solving, and group dynamics is necessary for all
participating staff and community members, especially in the early years of implementation. To meet the new
challenges of the job, principals may need additional training in leadership skills.
In summary:
Participitory decision-making sometimes creates frustration and is often slower than more autocratic methods.
The council members must be able to work together on planning and budget matters. This leaves principals
and teachers less time to devote to other aspects of their jobs. Teachers and community members who
participate in the councils may need training in budget matters; some teachers may not be interested in the
budget process or want to devote time to it.
Members of the school community must also beware of expectations that are too high. According to the
AASA/NAESP/NASSP task force, districts that have had the most success with SBM have focused their
expectations on two benefits–greater involvement in making decisions and making “better” decisions.
Hundreds of school districts across the country have experimented with aspects of SBM.
School-Based Management (SBM) System will focus efforts in strengthening support systems of the DepED
on School-Based Management through improved educational planning and management. This has sub-
components created to attain this goal.
Objectives:
Strengthen the support systems of DepED, three Regional Offices, selected Divisions and schools for School
Based Management through improved educational planning and management.
Development of a functional management support system for continuing school improvement at regional,
division and school levels.
School Based Management (SBM) or Component 1 of STRIVE is a response to BESRA KRT 1 – enabling and
empowering school stakeholders to manage its own affairs for improved delivery of educational services in a
sustainable manner. As such, this component is focused on the strengthening of support systems including
governance, advisory and partnership mechanisms for SBM through practical experience in application
activities in the three regions. The application experience will be further enhanced through a range of
capability building activities.
SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT (SBM) SUB-COMPONENTS:
Under this sub-component, STRIVE aims to enhance/develop structures, processes and tools associated with
policy /planning systems at the school, division, and regional levels
This sub-component focuses on developing and piloting the appropriate regional organizational structure to
ensure that the divisions actually support the implementation of school-based management as mandated by
the Education Act of 2001. In order to help the regions perform this function, the sub-component has
developed the technical assistance mechanism that will systematize the provision of professional help and
guidance by the region to the divisions, and by the divisions to the schools.
This sub-component offers a mechanism for insuring quality in the critical systems, processes, outputs, and
outcomes of DepED at various management levels to bring about improved learning outcomes, continuous
school improvement and better technical and management services. It is supported by the interlocking
processes of monitoring and evaluation that systematically provide educators timely information useful for
planning and for making decisions and adjustments.
The focus of this sub-component is to establish the appropriate mechanisms that will increase the number of
effective initiatives undertaken by the region/division/schools to improve access. The approach is to determine
and pilot appropriate support options for basic education. It specifically aims to:
Pilot test numbers of effective initiatives directly undertaken by the Target Access Schools and
Community Learning Centers to improve access.
Develop and pilot test support systems/mechanisms at the division level to render direct technical
assistance support to the Target Access Schools and Community Learning Centers.
Develop and pilot test support systems/mechanisms at the regions to facilitate policy compliance,
effective programs delivery and ensure quality assurance and accountabilities.
The Regional UIS is the ICT-enabled support to the process and information requirements of SBM, T&D and
LRMDS. It aims to strengthen information management at the target regions and divisions to enable data-
driven decision-making and provide a venue for connecting people to people and people to knowledge they
need to effectively respond and create new and relevant information. Specifically, the system aims to (1)
streamline and efficiently render the collection and processing of education data from the schools and field
offices, (2) institutionalize Quality Assurance and M&E processes at every level of the education management
system, and (3) support information requirements of school-based management, planning and policy
formulation at all levels.
The UIS shall consist of integrated databases, automated processes and technologies that are to be
implemented on enhanced organizational structures and improved workflow processes at the target divisions
and regions.
Consistent with the overall strategy of building on existing DepED systems and structures, the solution system
aims to establish effective linkages with currently functional systems.
The instrument contains INDICATORS regarding the six (6) dimensions of SBM Practices
Each INDICATOR has REQUIRED EVIDENCES as proof of the level of SBM practices
Each SBM DIMENSION is to be responded to by a different group of school stakeholders. (Thus,
responses to be considered as group answer through CONSENSUS )