The document discusses school-based management (SBM) in the Philippines. It describes how SBM devolves decision-making power from state to district to individual schools. The Philippines implemented SBM through projects like TEEP, SEDIP, and BEAM to support decentralization and education quality improvement. SBM aims to empower local stakeholders and improve student performance through community involvement in school management.
The document discusses school-based management (SBM) in the Philippines. It describes how SBM devolves decision-making power from state to district to individual schools. The Philippines implemented SBM through projects like TEEP, SEDIP, and BEAM to support decentralization and education quality improvement. SBM aims to empower local stakeholders and improve student performance through community involvement in school management.
The document discusses school-based management (SBM) in the Philippines. It describes how SBM devolves decision-making power from state to district to individual schools. The Philippines implemented SBM through projects like TEEP, SEDIP, and BEAM to support decentralization and education quality improvement. SBM aims to empower local stakeholders and improve student performance through community involvement in school management.
The document discusses school-based management (SBM) in the Philippines. It describes how SBM devolves decision-making power from state to district to individual schools. The Philippines implemented SBM through projects like TEEP, SEDIP, and BEAM to support decentralization and education quality improvement. SBM aims to empower local stakeholders and improve student performance through community involvement in school management.
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 16
EDM 203
Managing the School System
Demands of School based
Management School Based Management-is the strategy to improve education by transferring significant decision making authority from state to district to individual school. The School based management provides principals, teachers, students and parents control over the education process by giving them the responsibility for decision about the programs/projects. SBM can create learning environment for the students. In the Philippines, SBM was officially implemented as a governance framework of DepEd with the passage of RA 9155 in 2001 as legal cover. The DepEd implemented three pilot projects TEEP, SEDIP and BEAM to support the SBM as an effective mechanism in improve the quality of education in the basic level. Then SBM was cascaded in all public schools in the Philippines.
TEEP-(Total Effective Equipment Performance) is an
externally funded project carried out by the Philippine government that focused on 22 of the poorest provinces (divisions) in the country as determined by objective poverty data. The Project aimed to: (a) Improve the quality of public education by building the Department of Education’s capability to manage change; (b) Improve pupils’ performance; (c) Actively involve the community and the local government to attain quality education.
The “operationalization of SBM in TEEP included:
1) the formulation, together with parents, communities,
and other stakeholders, of 5-year School Improvement Plans (SIPs) and corresponding Annual Implementation Plans (AIPs) ; 2) The integration of the procurement of inputs that included textbooks and training.”
The Secondary Education Development and
Improvement Project (SEDIP) is a seven-year project that aims to reduce inequity and geographical disparity of access, quality and efficiency of public secondary education and to support the Department’s thrust for decentralization and modernization. Basic Education Assistance for Mindanao (BEAM)- a large and comprehensive 6.5-year DepEd project funded by a grant from Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), aimed to improve the quality of and the access to basic education in Southern and Central Mindanao, specifically in Regions XI, XII, and ARMM.
As a project, BEAM has helped DepEd improve the quality
of and access to basic education across every elementary and secondary in every division across the Regions of XI, XII and ARMM including the indigenous peoples in the remote areas. This was done thru the implementation of School Improvement Plan (SIP) with participation of various stakeholders; providing four cycles of SBM training for school heads; training of Math, Science and English teachers in the constructivist approach. With regard to SBM, it is important to take note of the following:
For Conley (2003), SBM is more of an enabling mechanism
for other goals to materialize. He clearly states in an earlier work (1993) that educational restructuring such as SBM needs to dovetail with the goals of systemic reform. He formulated a “framework of twelve dimensions of educational restructuring that are grouped into three subsets:
Central Variables-Learner outcomes, curriculum,
instruction, and assessment make up the central variables. Labeled as such because they have a powerful direct effect on student learning. Enabling Variables-also closely related to instruction, consist of learning environment, technology, school- community relations, and time.
Supporting Variables- those further
removed from the classroom, consist of governance, teacher leadership, personnel structures and working relationships.” Hanushek and Woessmann, (2007) remind policy makers and implementers about the evidence that “merely increasing resource allocations will not increase the equity or improve the quality of education in the absence of institutional reforms” (p. 1, World Bank, 2007). For a successful SBM, all stakeholders of education should effectively and meaningfully participate in its implementation and all aspects of educational management should also synchronize with efforts related to decentralization.
As to the context-specifity of SBM – because its
implementation is dynamic, its practices cannot be boxed in a template to be followed by school heads. Every country and every locality that practices SBM is well aware of its context-based implementation. Reasons for School-Based Management:
One of the main reasons is that principals,
teachers and parents are the best people to manage the resources available for education to meet the needs of the wider community. If there is a strict regulation imposed upon schools, it limits its ability to make a full potential in meeting students’ needs. If school organization is given importance, it will have a net effect on student performance through increased test scores and reduced dropout rates. -(Montreal Economic Institute, 2007) Di Gropello (2006) - expresses the primary goal of decentralization reforms in education as “to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of education by increasing school autonomy and community participation and the autonomy and capacity of local and regional education offices and stakeholders”. Also, In his study, he presses that “school-based management models seem to be a potentially promising means to promote more civic engagement in education and to cost-effectively get better or similar educational results than traditional programs”. Caldwell (2004) enumerates some of the Demands of School Based Management, as follows:
(1) Demand for less control and uniformity
and associated demand for greater freedom and differentiation;
(2) Interest in reducing the size and therefore
cost of maintaining a large central bureaucracy;
(3) Commitment to empowerment of the
community; (4) Desire to achieve higher levels of professionalism at the school level through the involvement of teachers in decision-making;
(5) Realization that different schools
have different mixes of student needs requiring different patterns of response that cannot be determined centrally, hence the need for a capacity at the school level to make decisions to respond to these needs. Barrera-Osorio, et. al. (2009) hold that at very marginal costs, the potential benefits SBM are large.
A number of these benefits include:
More input and resources from parents (whether in
cash or in-kind)
More effective use of resources because those
making the decisions for each school are intimately acquainted with its needs
A higher quality of education as a result of more
efficient and transparent use of resources A more open and welcoming school environment because the community is involved in its management.
Increased participation of all local stakeholders in
the decision-making processes which leads to more collegial relationships and increased satisfaction.