Revisiting the Level of School-Based Management in Public Elementary Schools of Santiago City, Isabela, Philippines

Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (1); ISSN: 1989-9572 131 ISSN 1989 – 9572 DOI: 10.47750/jett.2023.14.01.012 Revisiting the Level of School-Based Management in Public Elementary Schools of Santiago City, Isabela, Philippines Jonathan L. Roque1* Journal for Educators,Teachers and Trainers, Vol. 14 (1) https://jett.labosfor.com/ Date of reception: 13 Dec 2022 Date of revision: 06 Feb 2023 Date of acceptance: 11 Feb 2023 Jonathan L. Roque (2023). Revisiting the Level of School-Based Management in Public Elementary Schools of Santiago City, Isabela, Philippines.Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers,Vol. 14(1). 131-145. 1Faculty member, Isabela State University, Philippines Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, Vol. 14 (1) ISSN 1989 – 9572 https://jett.labosfor.com/ Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (1); ISSN: 1989-9572 132 Revisiting the Level of School-Based Management in Public Elementary Schools of Santiago City, Isabela, Philippines Jonathan L. Roque1* 1Faculty member, Isabela State University, Philippines *Corresponding Author Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT The study aimed to determine the level of implementation of school-based management in public elementary schools in Santiago City, Isabela, Philippines. It also investigated the level of stakeholders’ engagement in terms of school programs, school projects and school activities. The descriptive method of research was used in order to present the data and correlational analysis was also used in order to determine the relationship between the stakeholders’ engagement and the implementation of school-based management. Result shows that the stakeholders’ engagement is on the level where stakeholders engage in a productive working relationship, the level of implementation of School- Based Management is collaboratively developed by the school community and there is a significant relationship between stakeholders’ engagement and implementation of School-Based Management. It is recommended that the public elementary may enhance the promotion advocacy that supports the sustainability of school programs, projects, and activities and there is a need of further orientation on the roles of the public-school teachers to effectively perform their functions. Keywords: Public elementary school, School-based management system, stakeholder INTRODUCTION Public education worldwide has given impetus to periodic trends where school management emphasis shifted from centralization to decentralization influenced by the modern management in industrial and commercial organizations. The dissatisfaction with the central approach of education and the move towards decentralization have introduced various school reform movements – all of which aimed at improving efficiency, equity, and quality of education. Many researchers affirm that one of the most significant reforms in the current restructuring of school systems has been the devolution of decision-making authority to school levels through the move towards SBM (Zajda & Gamage, 2009; Caldwell,2005). In the same manner, the Primer on SBM and its Support System (2005) defined School-Based Management (SBM) as “decentralization” of decision-making authority from central and regional and division levels to individual schools, uniting school heads, teachers, students, parents, the local government units and the community in promoting effective schools. Likewise, SBM is an institutional expression or decentralization of education at the grassroots level. It is based on the national policy of decentralization originally set by the Philippine Government Code of 1991 (R.A. 7160) as a response to the new challenges to sustainable human development by enabling local communities to become selfreliant and more effective partners in the attainment of national goal (DepEd TEEPReb.Jan.2006). This dovetails with Caldwell (2005) defining SBM as “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. The popularity of SBM is made evident by a large number of development agencies promoting it as a key component for decentralization reforms and the growing number of countries that have adopted aspects of this approach. School-Based Management reforms began in the 1970s in Australia. Since then, a wide range of countries have experimented or introduced SBM in all regions of the world: Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Nepal, Paraguay, Mexico and now in the Philippines, to name a few. This led to another milestone in the history of Philippine education promulgating Republic Act No. 9155 or the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001 and the implementation of Basic Education Reform Agenda 2006-2010. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (1); ISSN: 1989-9572 133 One of the targets of School-Based Management is improving outcomes of learning by getting all schools to continuously improve through school-based management. That is, management framework must look into what suits the needs of the pupils and the community. Thus, DepEd rolled out School-Based Management officially to all public schools in 2012. The implementation, as well as the impact of School-Based Management on management, remains a contentious issue with some researchers arguing that School-Based Management leads to enhanced educational leadership (e.g., Gertler, Patrinos, and Codina, 2006), while others contend that School-Based Management leads to the deterioration of educational quality especially among the weakest schools. Nonetheless, some studies in recent years have found that School-Based Management reforms are associated with improved education outcomes and processes. School-Based Management is of great help in informing the practitioners, the local and national authorities and all those interested in school education, on how SBM with the devolution of power and authority to school level decision-makers contribute to school improvements alongside problems and challenges confronted by school leaders in the implementation thereof. School-Based Management seeks to involve parents and local community members in school decision-making in a meaningful way to improve schools. The expectation underlying the community involvement is that “the schools will be more responsive to local demands and that decisions will be taken from the interests of children rather than adults” (World Bank, 2007, p. 15). With the introduction of SBM, the government devolves more responsibilities to the schools and provides them with greater autonomy and flexibility in their daily operations, resource management and planning for school development. Through SBM, autonomy and transparency in the operations of the school were heightened. School-Based Management contributes to the small but growing empirical literature on SBM practices by extending the research to the entire country or even in East Asia. Likewise, this research study provides an initial analysis of the implementation of School-Based Management to improve educational management in the grassroots level particularly in the different public elementary schools of City Division of Santiago using aggregated school-level formative evaluation and administrative data. The framework of this study shows that School-Based Management is a strategy to improve education by transferring significant decision-making authority from state and district offices to individual schools. SBM provides principals, teachers, pupils and parents with greater control over the education process by giving them responsibility with decision-making vis-à-vis budget, personnel and the school programs. Through the involvement of teachers, parents, and other community members in these key decisions, SBM practices can create more effective school governance; thus, it heightens the leadership within the individual school. The principal’s role being the primary decision maker has dramatically changed under SBM to involve the combination of principals, teachers, parents and other school members in responsibility and decision-making. Therefore, SBM flourishes leadership skills by allowing competent individuals in the schools to make decisions that could probably improve learning. Likewise, it increases the accountability of the school leader to the school members, pupils and parents as there are fewer orders from above. The concept behind this study is the interconnection between SBM practice and principals’ performance specifically in instructional leadership as one of the domains of SBM. Evidence should give insight into the nature of this relationship, and how it could be used to improve principals’ performance as well as the administration or the management of the school. The study is anchored on the social constructivism theory as shown in Figure 1. According to the theory of social constructivism, social worlds develop out of individuals’ interactions with their culture and society. Knowledge evolves through the process of social negotiations and evaluation of the viability of individual understanding. Basically, every conversation or encounter between two or more people presents an opportunity for new knowledge to be obtained, or present knowledge expanded. The exchange of ideas that goes along with human contact is at play here (Lynch, 2016). Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (1); ISSN: 1989-9572 134 Figure 1. Social Constructivism In elaborating constructivists’ ideas Arrends (1998) states that constructivism believes in the personal construction of meaning by the learner through experience and that meaning is influenced by the interaction of prior knowledge and new events (McLeod, 2019). This prior knowledge influences what new or modified knowledge an individual will construct from new learning experiences (Phillips, 1995). Dewey (1938) emphasizes that learning is a social activity – it is something we do together, in interaction with each other, rather than an abstract concept. For example, Vygotsky (1978) believed that community plays a central role in the process of “making meaning.” For Vygotsky, the environment, as shown in Figure 2, in which children grow up will influence how they think and what they think about. Figure 2. Student’s Environment Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (1); ISSN: 1989-9572 135 Fox (2001, p. 30) argues (a) that although individuals have their own personal history of learning, nevertheless they can share common knowledge, and (b) that although education is a social process, powerfully influenced by cultural factors, nevertheless cultures are made up of subcultures, even to the point of being composed of sub-cultures of one. Cultures and their knowledge-based are constantly in a process of change and the knowledge stored by individuals is not a rigid copy of some socially constructed template. In learning a culture, each child changes that culture. The constructivist theory posits that knowledge can only exist within the human mind and that it does not have to match any real-world reality (Driscoll, 2000). In the classroom, the primary responsibility of the teacher is to create a collaborative problem-solving environment where students become active participants in their own learning. From this perspective, a teacher acts as a facilitator of learning rather than an instructor. The teacher makes sure he/she understands the students’ preexisting conceptions and guides the activity to address them and then build on them (Oliver, 2000). Figure 4. The Paradigm of the Study Figure 4 shows the paradigm of the study. This study employed the Input-Process-Output (IPO) model of evaluation. The Inputs are the level of stakeholders’ engagement and the level of School-Based Management implementation and the strengths and weaknesses of the implementation of SBM. Both variables are necessary as predictors of school development. The Process involves the administration of stakeholders’ engagement assessment and the administration of School-Based Management implementation assessment using survey questionnaires and interviews. The Output is the determination of the stakeholders’ engagement and SBM implementation in the public secondary schools in Santiago City, Isabela, Philippines that produced appropriate recommendations for the improvement of the current SBM implementation. METHODS A descriptive method was utilized in this study. McCombes (2020) stated that descriptive research aims to describe a population, situation, or phenomenon accurately and systematically. It can answer what, when, and how questions, but not why questions. The study was conducted in public elementary schools in City Division of Santiago. In addition, all the elementary schools in the West Cluster. As sources of the data to comprise the bulk of this study are the school heads, teachers and stakeholders specifically the PTCA officers in the public elementary schools in City Division of Santiago in West Cluster with a total of 236 respondents. Total enumeration was used to select the teachers and school heads while purposive sampling technique was used to select the stakeholders. The questionnaire about stakeholders’ engagement was taken from the instruments used by De Torres (2021) and Ndili (2013) in their studies related to the researcher’s study with permission for educational use. The answer was categorized as Not Extent, Small Extent, Large Extent and Very Large Extend in a 4-points Likert Scale. It also used unstructured interview for additional inputs and cross validation from the respondents. Pearson r was used to determine the relationship of the variables under study and weighted mean rating was used to elaborate on the data gathered in the rational and operational aspects of the implementation of SBM. 1. Stakeholders’ Engagement 2. School-Based Management Implementation Conducting survey questionnaire and interview to determine the stakeholders’ engagement, contribution of SBM and strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of SBM. Determination of the stakeholders’ engagement and SBM implementation in the public secondary schools in Santiago City, Isabela, Philippines INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (1); ISSN: 1989-9572 136 Table 1. Arbitrary Scale and its Interpretation Scale Interpretation 3.26 – 4.00 Very large extent 2.51 – 3.25 Large extent 1.76 – 2.50 Small extent 1.00 – 1.75 Not extent RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Quantitative Data Analysis on Stakeholders’ Engagement and Implementation of School-Based Management Table 2. Stakeholders’ Engagement in School Programs Indicators Mean Description Stakeholders… 1. collaborate for the purpose of decision-making related to school policies. 3.40 Very large extent 2. have opportunities to contribute to school-wide rules, norms, and expectations. 3.33 Very large extent 3. support for professional learning and growth is available to all staff members. 3.45 Very large extent 4. help in the improvement efforts on changing systems, policies, and adult practices. 3.47 Very large extent 5. help find locations in the community to be utilized for school events and instruction. 3.33 Very large extent 6. regularly participate in community events and activities. 3.47 Very large extent 7. are proactive partners in education like in the Adopt- a-School Program. 3.36 Very large extent 8. personally participate as education partners through Brigada Eskwela. 3.61 Very large extent 9. help in the mobilization, management, and raising of needed school resources. 10. organize a summit where parents and the community are considered partners. 3.48 Very large extent 3.37 Very large extent Overall Mean 3.43 Very large extent Stakeholder engagement touches every aspect of school life and its presence, either through the conscious application or as a happy consequence of good management, is a vital factor in ensuring that a school can help every individual pupil achieve his/her potential. It has never been more important than it is today. Stakeholder engagement is the process by which any institution can reassure all its stakeholders that decisions taken are not made on a whim. In essence, it is a demonstration of the intent of consideration for others, carrying at its heart the vision that schools exist to develop the potential of all young people (Engagement in Education, n.d.). The Level of Stakeholders’ Engagement School Programs The stakeholders’ engagement in school programs is presented in Table 2. Indicator number 8 or personally participating as education partners through Brigada Eskwela (3.61) has the highest mean. This indicator may be attributed to the collaboration and strengthening partnership engagements that complement DepEd efforts to implement the Basic Education Learning Continuity Plan (BE-LCP) to ensure the “delivery of quality basic education” amidst the COVID-19 pandemic (Malipot, 2021). Indicator number 9 or help in the mobilization, management, and raising of needed school resources (3.48) has the second-highest mean. Indicator number 4 or help in the improvement efforts on changing systems, policies, and adult practices (3.47), and indicator number 6 or regularly participate in community events and activities (3.47) have the third-highest mean. It was followed by indicator number 3 or support for professional learning and growth is available to all staff members (3.45), indicator number 1 or collaboration for the purpose of decision-making related to school policies (3.40), indicator number 10 or organize a summit where parents and the community are considered partners (3. 37), Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (1); ISSN: 1989-9572 137 indicator number 7 or proactive partners in education like in the Adopt-a-School Program (3.36). Indicator number 2 or have opportunities to contribute to school-wide rules, norms, and expectations (3.33) and indicator number 5 or help find locations in the community to be utilized for school events and instruction (3.33) have the lowest means. All indicators were rated ‘very large extent.’ The overall mean was 3.43 which shows a ‘very large extent’ engagement. Malipot (2021) stressed that some teachers are required to render service for a few days “which goes against the program’s voluntary nature.” One important implication is that stakeholders should be well-oriented about their roles, especially in the conduct of the Brigada Eskwela Program. School Projects Table 3. Stakeholders’ Engagement in School Projects Indicators Mean Description Stakeholders… 1. take part in religious and moral obligations in the school. 3.41 Very large extent 2. get involved in financing school projects. 3.43 Very large extent 3. participate in the planning of school projects. 3.40 Very large extent 4. take part in the implementation and consequent completion of projects. 5. are comfortable with the way they are involved to participate in the school. 3.42 Very large extent 3.52 Very large extent Overall Mean 3.44 Very large extent Table 3 shows the stakeholders’ engagement in school projects. Indicator number 5 or comfortability in the way stakeholders are involved in the school (3.52) has the highest mean. This may be attributed to the stakeholders’ interest in educational system development and well-being (Kolesnikova, 2021). Indicator number 2 or involvement in financing school projects (3.43) has the second-highest mean. It was followed by indicator number 4 or taking part in the implementation and consequent completion of projects (3.42), indicator number 1, or taking part in religious and moral obligations in the school (3.41). on the other hand, indicator number 3 or participation in the planning of school projects (3.40) has the lowest mean. All 5 indicators were rated to a ‘very large extent.’ Improving physical plant facilities contribute to the success of learning as “better school projects like building facilities are factors in improving the teaching capacity of teachers and in return improves the performance of the learners” (Department of Public Works and Highways [DPWH], 2019). The DPWH, being the State’s engineering and construction arm, is tasked to implement the School Building Project of the Department of Education (DepEd). The DPWH’s participation in this project is defined under Rule VIII of the Rules and Regulations for the Effective Implementation of RA 7880 adopted on March 31, 1995. This implies stakeholders are well-engaged in school projects. Hence, school projects have transparent results. School Activities Table 4. Stakeholders’ Engagement in School Activities Indicators Mean Description Stakeholders… 1. assist the school community in sourcing funds for students. 3.46 Very large extent 2. volunteer in activities related to the health and nutrition of the students. 3.45 Very large extent 3. willingly take part in the school’s maintenance week. 3.56 Very large extent 4. help convince civic community-minded members to extend assistance to schools. 3.48 Very large extent 5. participate actively in the different activities initiated by the school. 3.46 Very large extent 6. engage in meaningful volunteer work in our school community. 3.45 Very large extent 7. participate in school activities directed towards the reduction of illiteracy in schools. 3.34 Very large extent 8. contribute to the improvement of students’ academic achievement. 3.34 Very large extent 9. get involved in the budget planning for the school. 10. highly support and get involved in designing school programs. 3.12 Large extent 3.23 Large extent Overall Mean 3.40 Very large extent Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (1); ISSN: 1989-9572 138 Stakeholders’ engagement in school activities is reflected in table 4. Indicator number 3 or willingness to take part in the school’s maintenance week which is more popularly known as Brigada Eskwela (3.56) has the highest mean. Again, this may be attributed to the collaboration and strengthening partnership engagements that complement DepEd efforts to implement the Basic Education Learning Continuity Plan (BE-LCP) to ensure the “delivery of quality basic education” amidst the COVID-19 pandemic (Malipot, 2021). Indicator number 4 or helping convince civic community-minded members to extend assistance to schools (3.48) has the secondhighest mean. Indicator number 1 or assisting the school community in sourcing out funds for students (3.46), and indicator number 5 or participating actively in the different activities initiated by the school (3.46) have the third-highest means. It was followed by indicator number 2 or volunteering in activities related to the health and nutrition of the students (3.45), indicator number 6 or engagement in meaningful volunteer work in the school community (2.45), indicator number 8 or contribution to the improvement of student’s academic achievement (3.34), indicator number 7 or participation in school activities directed towards the reduction of illiteracy in schools (3.34), and indicator number 10 or high support and get involved in designing school programs (3.23). Indicator number 9 or getting involved in the budget planning for the school (3.12) has the lowest mean. Maintained schools are required to run their budgets in line with the local authority’s fiscal year while budgets of schools are running parallel to the curriculum year. It can be helpful to build the budget by undertaking predetermined actions at a particular point in the year to get rid of rushed decision-making (The Access Group, n.d.). Furthermore, the school budget provides school districts and their leaders with an opportunity to justify the collection and expenditure of public funds. In its most simple definition, a school budget describes a district’s plan for the upcoming year as related to anticipated revenues, operations, and objectives into reality by outlining and providing specific programs and funding terms. It implies that the school should be engaging other school stakeholders in budget planning activities. Table 5. Summary of the Means of the Levels of Stakeholders’ Engagement inSchool Programs, Projects, and Activities Stakeholders’ Engagement Overall Mean Description 1. School Programs 3.43 Very large extent 2. School Projects 3.44 Very large extent 3. School Activities 3.40 Very large extent Grand Mean 3.42 Very large extent Table 5 displays that the mean average of the level of stakeholders’ engagement in programs is 3.43, 3.44 in projects, and 3.40 in activities. The results suggest that the level of stakeholders’ engagement in each dimension is rated ‘very large extent’. The overall mean of the level of stakeholders’ engagement is 3.42 which is also rated ‘very large extent’. Hence, the stakeholders are actively engaged in the different programs, projects, and activities of the school. De Torres (2021) pointed out that when stakeholders view one another as partners in education, a caring community forms around students and begins its work with an eagerness for the continuous improvement of the school. One important implication is that stakeholders should make sure that they are updated with their knowledge of good engagement in school programs, projects, and activities. The Level of Implementation of School-Based Management Leadership and Governance Table 6. Implementation of School-Based Management in Terms of Leadership and Governance Indicators Mean Description 1. In place is a Development Plan developed collaboratively by the stakeholders. 3.26 Very large extent 2. A network of leadership and governance guides the education system. 3.38 Very large extent 3. The school is organized by a clear structure and work arrangements. 3.46 Very large extent 4. A leadership network facilitates communication among stakeholders. 5. A long-term program is in operation that addresses development needs. 3.40 Very large extent 3.34 Very large extent Overall Mean 3.37 Very large extent Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (1); ISSN: 1989-9572 139 The means of the indicators in the implementation of School-Based Management in terms of leadership and governance are presented in Table 6. Indicator number 3 or the school is organized by a clear structure and work arrangements (3.46) has the highest mean. This may be attributed to the organizational structure of a school which often involves members of the administration, licensed and unlicensed support staff, and teachers. The administration often includes a principal who is responsible for the entire school and one or more assistant principals (Reeder, 2022). Indicator number 4 or a leadership network that facilitates communication among stakeholders (3.40) has the second-highest mean. It was followed by indicator number 2 or a network of leadership and governance guides the education system (3.38), indicator number 5 or a long-term program is in operation that addresses development needs (3.34). Indicator number 1 or in place is a Development Plan developed collaboratively by the stakeholders (3.26) obtained the lowest mean. All indicators fall on the ‘very large extent’ rating. Relevant leadership practices yield governance for higher-quality education (Mythili, 2019). One important implication is that school leaders should use much of their work to capacity building in the school. They should consider highly prioritizing leadership and governance. Curriculum and Learning Table 7. Implementation of School-Based Management in Terms of Curriculum and Learning Indicators Mean Description 1. The curriculum provides for the needs of all types of learners. 3.53 Very large extent 2. The implemented curriculum is localized to make it more meaningful. 3.56 Very large extent 3. A representative group of school and community stakeholders develop the methods and materials for developing creative thinking and problemsolving. 3.39 Very large extent 4. The learning systems are regularly and collaboratively monitored. 3.37 Very large extent 5. Appropriate assessment tools for teaching and learning are continuously reviewed. 3.47 Very large extent 6. Learning managers nurture environments that are protective of all children. 7. Methods and resources are learner and community-friendly 3.60 Very large extent 3.56 Very large extent Overall Mean 3.50 Very large extent Table 7 displays the implementation of School-Based Management in terms of curriculum and learning. A curriculum is a set of plans and arrangements regarding the objectives, content, and learning materials as well as materials used as guidelines for the implementation of learning activities to achieve certain educational goals (Aji & Budiyono, 2018). The curriculum provides for the development of all types of learners in the school community. Indicator number 6 or learning managers nurture environments that are protective of all children (3.60) has the highest mean. This can be attributed to the educators who help students embrace their individual strengths and foster collaboration and community to ensure that all students work together, motivate each other, and build integrative thinking skills (Novak, 2020). Indicator number 2 or the implemented curriculum is localized to make it more meaningful (3.56) and indicator number 7 or methods and resources and learner and community-friendly (3.56) have the second-highest means. It was followed by indicator number 1 or the curriculum provides for the needs of all types of learners (3.53), indicator number 5 or appropriate assessment tools for teaching and learning are continuously reviewed (3.47), indicator number 3 or a representative of a group of school and community stakeholders develop the methods and materials for developing creative thinking and problem-solving (3.39). On the other hand, indicator number 4, or the learning systems are regularly and collaboratively monitored (3.37) has the lowest mean. All 7 indicators in the implementation of SBM in terms of curriculum and learning reflect that this dimension of the school is well carried out. All indicators have means rated ‘very large extent’. The overall mean of the indicators is 3.50 which is rated ‘very large extent’. Amon and Bustami (2021) concluded that implementing School-Based Management, curriculum management, and learning processes can be carried out with effectiveness and efficiency, build student character, improve learning achievement, and most importantly, improve the quality of education. The result implies that stakeholders should always remember that the quality of education is the main goal of the implementation of School-Based Management.