Table of Contents
ABOUT SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT (SBM)
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. Reference: Office of Research Education/ConsumerGuide
WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES?
- 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;
- 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.
HOW DOES SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT (SBM) AFFECT THE ROLES OF THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE SUPERINTENDENT AND DISTRICT OFFICE?
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.
HOW ARE BUDGET DECISIONS MADE?
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.
HOW ARE DECISIONS MADE AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL?
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.
WHAT IS NECESSARY WHEN IMPLEMENTING SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT (SBM)?
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.
- SBM must have the strong support of school staff.
- SBM is more successful if it is implemented gradually. It may take 5 years or more to implement SBM.
- School and district staff must be given administrative training, but also must learn how to adjust to new roles and channels of communication.
- Financial support must be provided to make training and time for regular staff meetings available.
- Central office administrators must transfer authority to principals, and principals in turn must share this authority with teachers and parents.
WHAT ARE THE LIABILITIES OF SBM?
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.
WHERE HAS SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT BEEN IMPLEMENTED?
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.
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:
Policy & Planning System
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
Participatory Mechanisms in Education Governance
This sub-component is dedicated to identifying existing participatory mechanisms in education governance at the school, division and region
Human Resource Development of Education Management
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.
Quality Assurance & Accountability System
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.
Programs to Improve Access
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.
Unified Information System
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.
ASSESSMENT of SBM PRACTICES: SCHOOLS INITIATED ASSESSMENT FOR SELF- DIRECTED IMPROVEMENT
Why assess the School-Based Management (SBM) practices?
- Determine the level of SBM practices in school
- Provide basis on which to establish it plan of action
- Improve the SBM support systems through interventions that the school and other admin levels of Deped
- Determine effectiveness of SBM practices in the delivery of basic education services
Assessment of SBM Practices Manual
Guide key players in:
- assessing their SBM practices
- identifying their needs for technical support that ought to be given by the support system
Matrix of Scale of Practice
THE WHAT of the ASSESSMENT TOOL
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 )
TABLE on the NUMBER of ITEMS per DIMENSIONS
|DIMENSIONS||LEVEL 1||LEVEL 2||LEVEL 3|
|4.School Improvement Process||31||27||25|
|6.School Performance Accountability||23||14||18|
WHO answers the tools?
|1. School Leadership||School head, asst to the SH, master teacher, dept. head|
|2. Internal Stakeholders||Parent assoc. Representative, teacher assoc. Chair, head of student council|
|3. External Stakeholders||Parent assoc. Representative, LGU/Brgy representative, SGC chair / rep, chair of other active groups|
|4. School Improvement Process||School head, parent assoc rep, teacher assoc chair, head of student council|
|5. School-Based Resources||School head, person in charge of School funds, SGC chair /rep, PTCA chair/reps, LGU|
|6. School Performance Accountability||School head, parent assoc rep, teacher assoc chair, head of student council, SGC chair, LGU / Brgy.|
ADMINISTRATION of SBM ASSESSMENT
STAGE 1: School Head’s Orientation by the DO
STAGE 2: Responding to the Instrument by the School Stakeholders
Phase 1: Orientation of School – Stakeholders as Respondents
Phase 2: Actual Inventory of Evidences
Phase 3: Summarizing the Responses
STAGE 3: Focused Group Discussion (FGD)
Matrix of Scale of Practice
[scribd id=306828323 key=key-sAkoYz4GKTj0vLB6Kd85 mode=scroll]
Read: DO 55, s. 2011 – Guidelines on School-Based Management (SBM) Grants