1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Education is a powerful force in bringing about desired changes in knowledge,

skills, attitudes, appreciations and understanding things around individuals. School

leaders and teachers, as well as other stakeholders, should better appreciate and

understand the dynamics of the changing systems and come up with strategies to attain

the highest quality of education. The quality of education in the country is determined

not at the central, regional, or division offices, but in schools where actual teaching and

learning transpire. Therefore, the role of schools and of school heads are of paramount

importance in any agenda aimed to reform education or for plans directed at

accelerating national development (Dumlao-Valisno, 2012).

In the Philippines, the educational system has undergone educational reforms

and innovations to respond to the needs of Filipino learners for an adequate quality

education as well as to make sure that every learner is provided with such education.

Every child is entitled to the basic necessities in life. It is the responsibility of the

parents, together with the full support and assistance of the State, to provide their

children with quality education. As stated in Section I, Article XIV of the Philippine

Constitution that:

“The state shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to
quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to
make such education accessible to all.”
 2

In this regard, the Philippine educational system has adopted programs of

reforms to realize such vision. One of these is the Philippine Education for All (EFA)

Plan 2015, a vision and a holistic program of reforms of the country to achieve an

improved quality of basic education for every Filipino by 2015 in which goal is the basic

competencies for all that will bring about functional literacy for all.

Despite its implementation, some issues besetting the school system, especially

the public school include high drop- out rate, quality educational service, high repetition

rate, and limited holding capacity of the schools. Over the past decades many initiatives

and reform efforts have been implemented to address these problems. One key

response of the national government is the adoption and implementation of School-

Based Management (SBM) anchored on the decentralization trend of the 70’s. SBM

was officially implemented as a governance framework of DepEd with the passage of

R.A. 9155 in 2001 as legal cover. Third Elementary Education Program (TEED),

Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project (SEDIP) and Basic

Education Assistance for Mindanao (BEAM) - three pilot projects implemented by

DepED- support the SBM as a viable structure reform intervention used to improve the

quality of education in the public school so as to produce functionally literate Filipinos.

In this effect, the Department of Education (DepEd) Secretary Leonor Magtolis

Briones emphasized the Duterte administration’s thrust of providing a desirable quality

of life for Filipinos during her keynote speech at the UP-NCPAG 65th Anniversary

International Conference. Speaking on behalf of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, the

Secretary discussed the “Matatag, Maginhawa at Panatag na Buhay”, which is in

Ambisyon Natin 2040. This is based on the study of the National Economic
 3

Development Authority (NEDA) that by 2040, Filipinos will enjoy a stable and

comfortable lifestyle, secure in the knowledge that we have enough for our daily needs

and unexpected expenses, that we can plan and prepare for our own and our children’s

future. Your family live together in a place of our own, and we have the freedom to go

where we desire, protected and enabled by a clean, efficient, and fair government”. The

Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) included as one of its key thrust

school leadership with the goal to empower and enable school heads. School heads

exercise leadership over the development and implementation of programs and

activities integrating their own context and in their own pace.

The School-Based Management (SBM) is a DepEd thrust that decentralizes the

decision-making from the Central Office and field offices to individual schools to enable

them to better respond to their specific education needs. One way to empower the

schools is through the SBM grant. School-based management reforms were reaffirmed

in 2006 with the passing of the Basic Education Reform Agenda. Responsibility and

decision- making over school operations are transferred to principals, teachers, parents,

sometimes students and other school community members. The school-level actors

have to conform to, or operate within a set of centrally determined policies. Under SBM,

professional responsibility replaces bureaucratic regulation.

From this point of view, Deped Order No.45, s. 2015 ‘”Guidelines on School-

Based Management (SBM) Grants For Fiscal Year(FY) 2014”, to further strengthen

decentralization efforts at the school level and in line with Republic Act No. 9155 also

known as Governance of Basic Education Act 2001, the Department of Education

(DepEd) shall continue providing School-Based Management (SBM) Grants as

 4

additional funds to public elementary and secondary schools, which shall be used to

augment the school fund on Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses. Funds for

this purpose come from the Fiscal year 2014 General Appropriations Act gives way for

the school principal to become primary target of research in assessing and evaluating

their capability in implementing the School-Based Management. Whereas principals are

accustomed to being the primary decision-maker at the school site, this is likely to

change under SBM, with teachers, parents and community members empowered to

make decisions formerly in the principal's exclusive domain. Principals may find

themselves as members of councils that have a majority of teachers or a majority of

members who are not professional educators -- parents and community

representatives. The School-Based management (SBM) style is a strategy that would

help school heads to keep schools running and bring about change in intensifying the

attainment of the goals of Education for All (EFA 2015) and the Millennium

Development Goals (MDG 2015).

One of the purposes and objectives of the promulgation of Republic Act No. 9155

(RA 9155) known as Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, is to provide the

framework for the governance of basic education which shall set the general directions

for educational policies and standards and establish authority, accountability and

responsibility for achieving higher learning outcomes

Hence, the Department of Education through one of its flagship programs, the

School-Based Management (SBM), has continuously strive to empower schools to

effectively address access, efficiency, and quality issues in basic education. For this

reason, DepEd Order No. 83, s. 2012, or the Implementing Guidelines on the Revised
 5

School-Based Management (SBM) Framework, Assessment Process and Tool (APAT)

sets the rationale and the need to validate and assess annually the SBM Level of

Practice of the schools for continuous improvement of the delivery of basic education

services.

Accordingly, Republic Act (RA) 10533, Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013,

Section 5.d. states that Department of Education shall adhere to the standards and

principles in developing the enhanced basic education curriculum which shall be

contextualized and global. Part of the K to 12 Framework is the Curriculum Support and

under this is the Management and Leadership which covers School-Based

Management program.

With these concerns, the researcher desires to look for the possible solutions to

the gaps on achieving the Education for All (EFA) 2015 target. This may serve as guide

for administrators or may be for the whole educational system on the needs for the

improvement towards quality education where properly educated pupils and globally

competitive.

The purpose is to have a CIPP- Based Evaluation of SBM Program in the Public

Schools in the Division of Rizal in order to come up with a School-Based Management

Model based on the results.

Background of the Study

School-Based Management (SBM) is an organizational 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
 6

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. The underlying principles of the said program is that the people directly

involved and affected by school operations are the best persons to plan, manage and

improve the school.

The SBM program was being implemented in several developing countries all

over the world. In Australia, the program was being implemented in early 1960s and

1970s in various states. Some schools experimented with more open and participatory

relationships with parents and school communities, with the creation of school councils.

There was also some talk of more autonomy for school principals in running their

schools. It was with the help of Australian government that SBM was introduced through

the BEAM progam. School-Based Management (SBM) has five dimensions such as:

Dimension 1- School Leadership, Dimension 2 Stakeholders (Internal and External),

Dimension 3- School Improvement Plan, Dimension 4- School Management of

Resources, Dimension 5 – School Performance Accountability (Manual on School

Governing Council, 2012).

In the Philippines, some issues besetting the school system, especially the public

school include high drop- out rate, quality educational service, high repetition rate, and

limited holding capacity of the schools. The roles and responsibilities of principals based

on the key result areas such as Instructional Leadership; Learning Environment; Human

Resource Management and Development; Parents’ Involvement and Community

 7

Partnership; and School Leadership Management and Operations (NCBSSH-TDNA

Guide and Tools, 2012) and School-Based Management Practices such as

Performance Improvement: Access; Efficiency; and Quality and Assessment Based on

Document Analysis, Observation and Discussion (DOD): Leadership and Governance;

Curriculum and Learning; Accountability and Continuous Improvement; and

Management of Resources (Schools Division Office of Rizal, 2019).

With the passage of the RA 9155, SBM, despite unclear plan for implementation,

operated de facto (Bautista, Bernardo, & Ocampo, 2010) through foreign-funded

projects as: Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) and Basic Education

Assistance for Mindanao (BEAM). The said projects became laboratory of reforms in

trying out SBM in over 12,000 schools in the country, which started in 2003. The

projects were able to operationalize SBM in terms of: 1) the formulation, together with

the stakeholders, of 5-year School Improvement Plans and corresponding annual

implementation plans; and 2) the integration of the procurement of inputs that included

textbooks and training, with TEEP going further by letting the principal manage funds to

procure classroom and other supplies for the school (Bautista et al., 2010) which is

normally procured by the concerned division for the school. Regardless of the

differences in SBM implementation, both projects were noted to have registered positive

effects in student performance (Bautista et al., 2010). In 2005, SBM became the core

program of the Schools First Initiative (SFI), a massive DepEd campaign initiative that

aimed to empower the school and its community stakeholders to effectively address

access and quality issues in basic education (Department of Education, 2005). This

move further sealed the place of SBM as the department’s flagship program that it
 8

continued to be the core program of succeeding foreign-assisted projects such as

BEAM and Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project (SEDIP). In

2006, the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA), a comprehensive package

of policy reforms, was launched to sustain the gains of SFI, and strengthen and expand

SBM. With BESRA as the enabling policy, a more defined goal of SBM was established

i.e. to improve student achievement, school performance, and learning outcomes

(Department of Education, 2006). Consequently, all schools were required to practice

SBM as a way to foster continuous school improvement. SBM manuals were provided

to enable schools operationalize SBM complemented with cash grants as a leverage

fund to start off SBM. To monitor progress in SBM implementation, a self-assessment

tool was provided to the schools. This will help schools determine the current SBM level

of practice. 1 Results of the self-assessment will be used to inform adjustment in the

school improvement plan and identify technical assistance needed from the division to

help a certain school improve on SBM practice to achieve the desired learning

outcomes.

It has been observed that there are schools who have been as least performing

when it comes to the implementation of school based management and we cannot deny

the fact that knowledge about the process or how it should be implemented is missing.

Through a CIPP- Based Evaluation of SBM Program in the Public Schools in the

Division of Rizal, the evaluation of the performance improvement and the key areas of

School-Based Management, we can identify the weak point in leading and implementing

the program and definitely to realize what aspects of SBM are not given attention as the
 9

others. Eventually, this study will provide them data that will guide them to promote and

enhance the level of School-based Management towards SBM Best Implementer.

As such, the proponent of the study believes that this study is just on time and

can be an eye opener to the policy makers. Findings of which may serve as an input for

them to come up with the School-Based Management Implementation Model.

The study would be of great help to the school administrators, district supervisors

and school heads in the Division of Rizal. The findings can provide them the inputs for

more functional programs for school-based management Implementation in particular.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study will deal on a CIPP- Based Evaluation of SBM Program in the Public

Schools in the Division of Rizal.

Specifically, it will be conducted in the five (5) clusters into Binangonan and

Angono (BIBA), Cainta and Taytay (CATA); Baras, Cardona, Morong and Teresa

(BCAMT); Tanay, Pililia and Jala Jala (TAPJ) and Rodriguez and San Mateo (ROS).

The respondents of the study will be 288 schools composed of central schools

and non-central schools in the 19 districts.

The variables of the study include categorically the profile of the school such as

type of school, SBM level, demographic location and size of school; and School-Based

Management Practices such as Performance Improvement; and Quality and

Assessment Based on Document Analysis, Observation and Discussion (DOD):

Leadership and Governance; Curriculum and Learning; Accountability and Continuous

Improvement; and Management of Resources.

 10

Statement of the Problem

The study will aim to have a CIPP- Based Evaluation of SBM Program in the

Public Schools in the Division of Rizal during the covered school year of 2017 – 2018.

Specifically, this will seek answers to the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the schools in the Division of Rizal in terms of

1.1. type of school;

1.2. SBM level;

1.3. demographic location; and

1.4. size of school

2. What is the extent of SBM practices in the public schools based on the CIPP

model with respect to:

2.1. Performance Improvement

2.2. Document Analysis Observation and Discussion

2.2.1. Leadership and governance;

2.2.2. Curriculum and learning;

2.2.3. Accountability and continuous improvement; and

2.2.4. Management of Resources

3. Is there a significant difference on the extent of SBM and the profile of the

different public schools?

4. What School-Based Management Implementation Model can be proposed to

further develop the implementation of SBM of Public Schools in the Division of

Rizal.
 11

Hypothesis of the Study

The study tested a null hypothesis which states that there is no significant

difference on the extent of SBM and the profile of the different public schools.
 12

Chapter 2

EVALUATION, DESIGN AND FRAMEWORK

This chapter presents the discussion of output and justification, theoretical

framework, conceptual framework and paradigm, the variables, their definitions and

importance to the study and definition of terms

Discussion of Expected Output and Justification

In our country, SBM was implemented in between 2003 and 2005 in 23 districts

participating in the Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) supported by the World

Bank. The project provided funding for school infrastructure, training, curriculum

development, and textbooks. SBM was introduced as an integrating framework for

obtaining school-level project inputs and building school capacity for education planning

and program implementation beginning in school year 2003-2004.

The output will be a SBMI-LAP or School-Based Management

Implementation-Leaders in Action Program that can help in the improvement of the

implementation of School-Based Management.

A framework will be devised that is based from the results and then a strategic

implementation plan will be created in lined with the framework. The research will be

expected to result more than a solution for decision - making utilizing by integration of

several approaches in School-Based Management Implementation. It will be beneficial

to every person concerned about the SBM such as the school heads, district

supervisors LGU, pupils and parents, decision-makers, curriculum planners and the

DepEd as a whole.
 13

Theoretical Framework

The study is anchored on the CIPP Evaluation Model. The model was proposed

by Stufflebeam in 1983. The CIPP Model (Context, Input, Process, and Product) can be

used for both type of evaluation, summative and formative. The most important thing

about this model is that it provides the holistic view of every element by evaluating

context, input, process and output from each and every angle. With the help of this

model, evaluation can be done systematically, fulfilling the general needs of evaluation.

The important element which makes this model different from other models is that it

focuses on the context for the evaluation of teaching learning and development process

(Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007).

Context evaluation helps to assess the needs and opportunities within a defined

context or environment (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007). The objectives of context

evaluation are to define, identify and address the needs of the target population, identify

the problems and assess if the goals are responsive to the desired needs or not.

For input evaluation, the purpose of this type of evaluation is to provide

information for determining the resources used to meet the goals of the program. The

resources include time resources, human resources, physical resources, infrastructure,

curriculum and content for evaluating the quality of education at school.

Process evaluation focuses on the running of the program and teaching learning

processes. Implementation is a phase in which the inputs are used in effective manner

to achieve the desired aims, objectives, goals of the product. The evaluator assesses

the processes to understand how the school is working and which processes are

responsible for better working and maintaining the quality of education. In this phase,
 14

implementation decision are taken (Patil & Kalekar, 2014)

Product evaluation includes the outcomes of the school. The focus of the product

is not on the student’s achievement of grades but the skills, attitudes, knowledge,

learning and abilities they attain which the student is going to use in life to benefit

society. The aim of the school is to make the students productive so that they can stand

on their feet in society.

The theory is most significant in the determination of how schools evaluate and

implement SBM. The study will be enriched by looking the struggles of the schools in

implementing the School-Based Management.

Conceptual Framework

Based on the theory presented, the conceptual framework is formulated. The

graphical presentation is based on the CIPP Model with four components such as

Context, Input, Process and Product Evaluations.

Relative to the study, the Context Evaluation refers to the planning of SBM which

the profile of the schools are needed to be considered such as the type of school, SBM

level, demographic location and size of the School.

Input Evaluation refers to the design of the SBM which are the performance

improvement such as access, efficiency and quality.

Process Evaluation include as to how SBM level is measured through the

Document Analysis Observation and Discussion or DOD such as Leadership and

Governance; Curriculum and Learning; Accountability and Continuous Improvement;

and Management of Resources.

 15

Figure 1
A Conceptual Model Showing the CIPP- Based Evaluation of SBM Program in the
Public Schools in the Division of Rizal
 16

Product Evaluation refers to output of this research which is a School-Based

Management Implementation Model with different programs and guidelines that would

help schools to be the Best Implementers of SBM.

The Variables, Their Definitions and Importance to the Study

The following related literature and studies on the different variables are deemed

relevant in the conduct of the study.

Types of School

For decades, in many countries, academic school ‘type’, private or public, as a

factor in future academic performance has been researched and debated (Lubienski,

2009; Peterson & Laudet, 2010; Somers et al., 2011). It is a dilemma for governments,

communities, organizations, and parents alike. Private education is often associated

with higher tuition and consequently a higher socioeconomic status, a perceived ‘better’

peer group, and more flexible curriculum and school guidelines (Teddlie et al., 2009).

Public or sometimes referred to as ‘government’ education is often considered the

education of the masses, more aligned with cultural identity and norms in many

countries including Philippines (Ebonugwo, 2008).

Underlying the school-choice movement is the widely held belief that private

schools respond to competition in ways public schools do not, and consequently are

superior to public schools in providing educational services (Boswell, 2011). Some basic

empirical evidence seems to bear out this contention: private school students routinely

perform at a higher level on standardized tests and are more likely to graduate from

high school and attend college than their public school counterparts (Downes, 2007).

Indeed, despite substantial performance differentials between public and private school
 17

students, public schools generally spend considerably less per pupil than do private

schools. If public school students perform at higher levels at lower cost, proponents

argue, clearly private schools are superior to public schools. With this, the competition

between public and private school students has been one of the central issues in terms

of their academic performance during college.

School-Based Management

SBM has been in existence in our educational system for quite number of years,

though existing for several decades in the educational systems of the other country. It

has proven effective in the realization of the desired goals and outcomes of schools in

Australia, the United States, Indonesia, New Zealand, England and Wales, Thailand

and others. Some scholars and researchers alike assert that parental and community

participation in schools has created more effective schools and improved student

achievements (Cabardo, 2016)

With SBM, several enabling policies were formulated such as the School

Governing Council (SGC); conduct of Assessment of Level of Practice; School

Improvement Planning (SIP); and reporting of accomplishments through School Reports

Cards (SRCs). These policies were supported by a budget line item in the General

Appropriations Act (GAA) for the installation of SBM in all public elementary and

secondary schools. With this, SBM had been revised to better highlight the learner as

the center of SBM practice; to encompass the diverse realities of learning contexts

defined and uniquely occurring within specific geographic, social, cultural, economic,

political, and environmental make-up of the contemporary society; to enhance

commitment of education stakeholders at all levels to their responsibilities and

 18

accountabilities in realizing the education outcomes for children; and to improve the

school system’s capacity to be on track in achieving the Education for All/Millennium

Development Goals and sustain good performance (Department of Education, 2012).

Drysdale, Goode and Gurr (2009) cited positive development and outcomes of

SBM implementation in the Australian education systems after their departure from a

highly-centralized education system established in 1872. In Victoria, since the 1970s,

the decentralized system of school governance with an emphasis on a clear shift of

operational decision-making authority to the school as well as building partnerships

between school, parents and community was effected with strategic policies formulated

and applied; and researchers report that Victoria is currently implementing the most

devolved system resulting in the improvements of student outcomes and the now well-

known Victorian SBM policies have had influence on the teaching –learning

environments.

Brouwer, Brekelmans, Nieuwenhuis and Simons (2012) pointed out that the

theory behind SBM is that good education involves not only physical input – such as

classrooms, teachers and textbooks but also incentives that lead to better instruction

and learning. They stressed that the incentives that affect learning outcomes are

institutional in nature, categorized into: choice and competition, school autonomy and

school accountability

SBM policies actually changed the dynamics of the school- that the leadership of

principals has created supportive teaching and learning environments in schools leading

to the enhancement of the quality of education for students (Sanzo, Sherman and

Clayton, 2011). This reiterated the findings of Crum and Sherman (2008) which
 19

stressed the fact that parents got more involved and/or teachers changed their ways.

Indeed, SBM is a many splendored thing. On one hand, it is a mechanism of

decentralized governance, wherein the management of schools that are accountable

to both internal and external stakeholders is lodged in the school head. On the other, it

serves as a framework for integrating various inputs such as teacher training,

classroom, instructional materials, nutrition programs and resource mobilization efforts

(Bautista,2010)

Demographic Location of School

Demographic Location of Schools may be classified into urban, semiurban and

rural. This classification sometimes goes a long way to influence government

distribution of social amenities like electricity, water, hospital and educational institution.

It is a common knowledge that many of these social amenities are concentrated in

urban areas than rural areas.

Based on this, Owoeye (2011) carried out a study on school location and

academic achievement of secondary schools students in Ekiti State, Nigeria (between

1990-1997). The study population was drawn from the results of the West African

School Certificate Examination (WASCE) conducted between 1990 and 1997 in 50

secondary schools in both urban and rural area of the study. One validated instrument

tagged:“students Location Questionnaire” (SLQ) ,was used for data collection. One

hypothesis was formulated and tested at 0.05 level of significance. Data collected were

analyzed using mean and t-test. The result showed that there was a significant

differences between students’ academic achievement of rural and urban secondary

schools in senior school certificate examination. The study has proven that students in
 20

urban area had better academic achievement than their rural counterparts. It was

recommended that government should bridge the gap between the rural and urban

location by providing the rural dwellers with the social amenities which will enhances

better academic performance of students in their final examination like SSCE. The

community should assist the government by providing taxis and buses to facilitate

movement of teachers and students to their schools.

Again, Adepoju (2012) studied the motivational variables and academic

performance of urban and rural secondary school students in Ibadan, Nigeria. The

objective was to examine the degree of relationship among motivational variables and

academic performance of students in secondary school certificate examination. One

hundred (100) secondary school students were sampled for the study. It was found that

there was an enhanced relationship of each of the motivation variables in respect to

academic performance.

School location refers to the particular place, in relation to other areas in the

physical environment (rural or urban), where the school is sited. In Nigeria, rural life is

uniform, homogenous and less complex than that of urban centers, with cultural

diversity, which often is suspected to affect students’ academic achievement. This is

because urban centers are better favored with respect to distribution of social amenities

such as pipe borne water, electricity, healthcare facilities while the rural areas are less

favored. This is also true in the distribution of educational facilities and teachers. These

prevailing conditions imply that learning opportunities in Nigerian schools differ from

school to school. It would appear therefore that students in Nigerian urban schools have

more educational opportunities than their counterparts in rural schools have. While
 21

some studies have shown positive influence, others have shown negative influence of

school location on the students’ learning outcome or achievement.

Nwogu (2010) found that location was significant in learning aspects of

mathematics and basic science that involve angles, with rural students exhibiting more

learning difficulties than their urban counterparts do. Some studies (Bosede, 2010;

Ezeh, 1998) showed no difference in academic achievement of students because of

location. Others showed that rural students performed better on practical skills in

mathematics and basic science than their urban counterparts did. Bosede (2010)

showed that there is no difference in performance of students because of location.

Location here is in terms of whether the place of study or school is sited in rural or

urban community.

Moyo (2013) investigated the effects of poverty on access to education involving

students from Tshazi Secondary School in the Insiza district in Kenya through

questionnaires, interviews and content analysis. In that study, Moyo associated walking

over long distances to and from school might lead to late coming at school and at home

after school in evening. It was also explained that because of longer walking distance,

fatigue and hunger lead students to drowsiness during learning as a result of walking

over long distances compared to students from rich families who usually cycled to

school making them at the advantage of arriving at school early without having lost any

considerable amount of energy.

Walking distance as it has been identified by several researchers appears to be a

common factor for poor academic performance. Adeboyeje, Olaniyi and Adepoju (2013)

identify home-school distance through involvement of stakeholders as one among

 22

several factors that causes poor performance of students in public examinations. Other

factors were identified to include poor location of the school, incessant changes in

government policies, closure of schools, which is contingent upon teachers‘ strike

action, high student teacher ratio, poor supervision, monitoring and evaluation

machinery, lack of good textbooks, poor content and context of instruction, poor and

non conductive environment among others. In their explanation, Onderi, Kiplangat, and

Awino (2014) citing Oriko (2002) and Reche et al. (2012) indicate that walking long

distances to school greatly make students reach it with empty stomachs and lateness

influencing negatively, their academic performance

The other study by Komba, Hizza and Jonathan (2013) was conducted to link

education providers, facilitators, and learning environments (facilities and infrastructure,

availability of materials and performance) of ward secondary schools in Moshi district by

involving four ward secondary schools. Through a total of 100 students, four head of

schools, eight teachers, four ward education officers, two Municipal/District education

officers using surveying interview method, elite interviews and document review found

that there was no impressive performance among ward secondary schools in Moshi

Municipal. Among the challenges that limited their performance included the lack of

friendly teaching and learning environment.

Size of School

Size of the school refers to how big or small the school and class size is. A meta-

analysis of studies of small schools (Rochford, 2015) found that size functions primarily

as an enabler of improved student outcomes. Small schools that moved the needle

forward on student outcomes decreased enrollment as part of a suite of related reform

 23

efforts. Early implementers and proponents of small schools conjectured that, with fewer

students, school staff would be able to form deeper and more supportive relationships

with learners. Indeed, this hypothesis was proven to be 4 Preliminary Report on the

Impact of School Size true—but only in the schools that also changed their approaches

to community engagement, instruction, and school structure.

First and foremost, small schools benefited from leadership that both 1) set a

tone that encouraged personalization and 2) distributed responsibility for the reform

effort among multiple staff and the community at large. Successful small schools

focused on improving the quality of instruction, often implementing new curricula or

approaches to teaching. Teachers and leaders participated in professional development

to learn new content delivery and relationship-building skills, and participated in follow-

up meetings to discuss implementation of these new skills. Smaller schools succeeded

when district leaders, Boards of Education, and community members bought into the

work. In short, a school’s staff, leaders, and surrounding community must work

collaboratively to make the small school learning environment successful (Howley,

2012)

However, research around the advantages of smaller schools is not unanimous.

Several recent studies have found a larger school performance advantage (Steiner,

2011; Tanner & West, 2011). In the case of high schools, proponents of larger schools

have argued that larger enrollments are needed to support more diverse course

offerings. Other research, however, suggests that this advantage of larger schools may

be overstated. It also found that smaller schools provide a broader array of learning

experiences than the published course offerings may suggest, while Tanner and West
 24

(2011) found that the relationship between school size and curricular diversity begins to

decrease with school enrollments above roughly 400 students. This suggests that

relatively small high schools may provide nearly as diverse a curriculum as much larger

schools

Jones, K.R. and Ezeife, A.N. (2011) assessed the relationship between school

size and academic achievement of elementary school students in Ontario, Canada. A

sample of ten public schools whose students in grade three and grade six participated

in the EQAO assessment.Small schools were defined as having less than 245 students.

Results indicated there was no statistically significant correlation between school size

and academic achievement.Research has provided little clarity on the relationship of

school size to academic achievement. There is also no conclusive clarification of what

impact, if any, the innate characteristics of small and large schools have in the

achievement and size relationship

Gershenson, S. and Langbein, L. (2015) studied that Administrative records from

North Carolina’s public school system were used to estimate the effect of school size on

academic achievement in a value-added framework. The primary analysis provides no

evidence of the a causal relationship between school size and student achievement,

regardless of whether school size is measured at the school level or grade level, nor did

they find any evidence of a nonlinear relationship between school size and students

achievement, within the range of school sizes observed in North Carolina between 2004

and 2010. There are important difference for students with learning disabilities and

socioeconomically disadvantaged students.

 25

With the conflicting conclusions about the effects of school size on academic

achievement, there is a growing area of research focused on the benefits of smaller

schools. Specifically, this research covers the degree to which smaller schools benefit

students in need of additional learning supports. The challenge with this area of

research is isolating the effects of only school size on academic achievement, since

school reforms often take place as a package, or in combination with other changes in

policies, practices, or resources over time (Schwartz, Stiefel & Wiswall, 2011).

Performance Improvement

This is a type of performance measurement which evaluates the success of the

schools in terms of access, efficiency and quality. Performance Improvement consists of

sixty percent (60%) on the SBM validation.

Access

This is a type of performance indicator which measures the school enrolment for

the last three school years. Access consists of forty-five percent (45%) on the

performance improvement. A performance indicators which are the access

which includes the status of the dropout, repetition and retention; quality which includes

the National Achievement Test performance, graduation rate, promotion rate and

completion rate; literacy which includes the Phil-IRI results and governance which

covers the staff development, curriculum implementation and instructional delivery;

school-community environment; learning materials and equipments and parents

involvement that is used to assess the impact of educational reforms would have a

different meaning from one used to explain causes or to identify effective practices.

In 2009, the Malcolm Baldrige Award performance excellence criteria were

 26

established for educational institutions (NIST, n.d.). The Baldrige Education Criteria for

Performance Excellence are focused on giving educational institutions the tools needed

to examine all parts of its “management system and improve processes and results

while keeping the whole organization in mind” (NIST, 2011, p. i). The criteria are non -

prescriptive so institutions can focus on “results, not procedures, tools, or organizational

structure” (NIST, 2011, p. i). The purpose of being non- prescriptive is so the criteria

25 will foster “understanding, communication, sharing, alignment, and integration while

supporting innovative and diverse approaches "(NIST, 2011 p. i)

Harry Hertz(NIST, 2011), the director of the Baldrige Performance Excellence

Program, stated the Education Criteria are increasingly used by American educational

institutions to improve performance. These criteria are continually updated to help

institutions respond to the “current challenges of the need to create value for students,

stakeholders, and organization, the need for openness and transparency in governance

and ethics, and rapid innovation” (p. i). These criteria are used to assess performance in

the key areas of students, workforce, leadership and governance, and finance and

markets. These areas should be balanced so the organization is holistically focusing on

all stakeholders, and objectives, along with short - and longer - term goals (NIST,

n.d.).

KPI is the abbreviation for key performance indicator. Key performance

indicators is as it sounds, a measurement system that measures performance. It is

however not a performance in itself but solely an indicator of performance.

Measurement systems are keeping the score but the improvement in performance

comes from efficient practices and actions. This means that in order to improve one
 27

needs to change what they are doing or increase the efficiency in execution. Although

measurement by itself does not bring value it can encourage the changes that are

necessary for value creation. (Bourne, 2008)

Efficiency

This is a type of performance indicator which measures the school completion

rate, dropout rate, and cohort survival rate for the last three school years. Efficiency

consists of twenty-five percent (25%) on the performance improvement.

Quality

This refer to the degree of excellence in test results. Average Mean Percentage

Scores (MPS) of the four (4) Quarter Assessments of the current school year for

elementary school. It consists of thirty percent (30%) on the performance improvement.

According to Briggs (2010), Educational schooling is a way and practice that

deals with the process of educational organization. It has a big concern with the

purpose or objectives of real education. These goals provide the pertinent sense of

education which fortifies the management of educational institution. Management is

directed at the achievement of positive educative objectives. Managing towards the

achievement of educational aims is very important but these goals must agree with the

school and the community. Thus, to work collaboratively in the attainment of these goals

must always be considered.

Further, it was found out that the school administrator should cope adequately

with the varied demands and changes in work and organizations; should give to

subordinates recognition for good performance and opportunity for trainings as he

represents them with the higher-ups; should also consult and clarify points with his
 28

peers as he considers them as part of democratic process, should gain the twist and

confidence of his subordinates by working with them; and should initiate program

systems, procedures and standards by coming up new ideas and discovering potentials

in the organization.

Assessment-based on DOD

This refers to Document Analysis Observation and Discussion such as

Leadership and Governance, Curriculum and Instruction, Accountability and Continuous

Improvement, and Management of Resources. Document Analysis Observation and

Discussion consist of forty percent (40%).

Leadership and Governance

This refers to one of the principles of SBM that guides the educational system to

achieve its shared vision, mission, and goals making it responsive and relevant to the

context of diverse environment.

A network of leadership and governance guides the education system to achieve

its shared vision, mission and goals making them responsive and relevant to the context

of diverse environments. It consists of thirty percent (30%).There are five indicators and

each indicator has corresponding artifacts to be presented. At first, in place is a

development plan developed collaboratively by the stakeholders of the school and

community, (a) Original Enhanced School Improvement Plan (ESIP) guided by D.O. 36

s.2013, (b) Organizational chart of School Planning Team (SPT) with and School

Governing Council (SGC) with roles/functions, (c) Annual Implementation Plan (AIP), (d)

School Operational Budget (SOB), (e) Minutes of the meeting and photos showing the
 29

involvement of stakeholders in the Annual Implementation Plan (AIP). Second, the

development plan is regularly reviewed by the school community to keep it responsive

and relevant to emerging needs, challenges and opportunities, (a)Memorandum/Minutes

of meetings on the review and enhancement of School Improvement Plan (SIP),

(b)Letter of invitation and confirmation, (c) Memorandum/ Minutes of meetings on the

regular review of SIP headed by the School Planning Team (SPT).Third, the school is

organized by a clear structure and work arrangements that promote shared leadership

and governance and define the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders, (a) School

Planning Team (SPT) and School Governing Council (SGC) properly conformed (b) List

of General Parent-Teacher Association (GPTA) with Terms of Reference (TOR), (c)

Sample Minutes of meetings of SPT or GPTA with attendance, (d) Resolutions/

Memorandum on the agreed organizational structure of the roles and responsibilities of

the collaboration between the school and community. Next, a leadership network

facilitates communication between and among the school and community leaders for

informed decision-making and solving of School Community-wide learning problems (a)

Evidence showing a confirmation of open communication between school and

community stakeholders (e.g. FB Account, Group Chat, School Sites) (b) School Report

Card (SRC) (c) State of the School Address (SOSA)/ Summit / General Assembly of

Stakeholders (Memorandum, Agenda, Attendance and Accomplishment Report) (d)

Pictures showing that there is an exchange of network communication regarding

decisions and solving learning and administrative problems. Last, a long-term program

is in operation that addresses the training and development needs of school and

community leaders, (a) Individual Plan for Professional Development (IPPD), (b) School
 30

Head Developmental Plan, (c) School Action Plan and Targets, (d) School-Based

Training Plan for School and community leaders and Training Design/Matrix of Capacity

building of school leadership and governance.

A network of leadership and governance guides the education system to achieve

its shared vision, mission, and goals making them responsive and relevant to the

context of diverse environments (DepEd Order No. 83,s. 2012).

Miranda (2006) justifies that toward the accomplishment of the organization’s

objectives, the leader should possess all the necessary qualities if he wants to be

successful. Briefly summarized the traits found in a successful leader are: intelligence,

experience, receptiveness, personality, communicative ability, initiative, tenacity, human

understanding, courage, a sense of justice and fair play.

Tortoza (2011) stated that educational governance plays an important role in the

effectiveness and improvement of school. Governance is defined as the way the school

is being managed by the school heads and the different structures that exist within the

school. It is a part of the function of the school heads in every school to see to it that

governance in the school is well understood by the staff and other stakeholders.

Complex as it maybe, it still needs to be discussed with them as they may understand

the relationship of decision making, delivery of the service to the clientele etc.

Aragoza (2012) stated that education is a continuous process, hence the

principles that govern the operation are: it should be based on clear instructional

objectives; procedures and techniques should be selected in terms of the objective they

serve; it should be comprehensive; it should be continuous; it should be functional and it

should be a cooperative.
 31

Curriculum and Instruction

This refers to one of the principles of SBM that is anchored on the community

and learners’ context and aspirations that are collaboratively developed and

continuously improved.

The curriculum learning systems consists of thirty percent (30%) anchored on the

community and learners’ contexts and aspirations are collaboratively developed and

continuously improved. There are five indicators and each indicator has corresponding

artifacts to be presented. At first, the curriculum provides for the development needs of

all types of learners in the school community, (a) Phil-IRI result, (b) SF1 generated from

Learners Information System (LIS), (c)Nutritional Status/ SF8, (d) List of 4Ps

Beneficiaries (e) Learner’s Anecdotal Records/Guidance Notebook, (f) List of School’s

Programs, Projects, and Activities (PPAs) concerning school performance, (g) List of

Best Practices concerning curriculum, (h) Accomplishment Report of Schools’

Programs, Projects, and Activities (PPAs) regarding school performance in different

types of learners. Second, the implemented curriculum is localized to make it more

meaningful to learners and applicable in the community, (a) Enhanced School

Improvement Plan (ESIP) Project Matrix Plan, (b) Result of the Monitoring Evaluation on

the use of the localized materials (modules),(c)Evidences showing the Innovations done

by school for a meaningful learning outcome (e.g. Localized Daily Lesson Log,

Instructional Materials. (d) Report on the Orientation on the developed localized

curriculum guidelines agreed by school community and teachers, (e) Implemented

localized curriculum was benchmarked by other schools evidently shown by the visitors,

attendance, certificate issued by the school to other school and feedback form. Third, a
 32

representative group of school and community stakeholders develop the method and

materials for developing creative thinking and problem solving, (a) Photos showing

compilation of Instructional Materials (IMs), (b) Sample of Strategic Intervention

Materials (SIM) concerning least mastered skills, (c) Learning Materials (LMs)/

Instructional Materials (IMs) with identified various approaches addressing deficiencies

was developed and tested by the school community. (d) Accomplishment Report on the

Implementation of the developed Instructional Materials (IMs). Fourth, the learning

systems are regularly and collaboratively monitored by the community using appropriate

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

(a)Sample accomplished Class Observation by the School Head/HT/MT (COT), (b)

Sample accomplished Class Observation by the School Head/HT/MT (COT) with

agreement to the teacher observed, (c) Feedback from the stakeholders (e.g. learners,

parents, other external stakeholders) on teaching-learning process. Fifth, appropriate

assessment tools for teaching and learning are continuously reviewed and improved,

and assessment results are contextualized to the learner and local situation and the, (a)

Result of Quarter Assessment Mean Percentile Score (MPS) in all learning areas for the

current school year, (b) Minutes of the meeting and photos on the conduct of review on

the Quarter Assessment Mean Percentile Score (MPS) by the School Community and

shared to stakeholders through SOSA / Summit, (c) Consultative meeting with the SGC

regarding the assessment tools for teaching and learning (Memorandum, Minutes of the

meeting, Attendance, Accomplishment report).Sixth, learning managers and facilitators

nurture values and environments that are protective of all children and demonstrate

behaviors consistent to the organization’s vision, mission and goals, (a) Documents
 33

showing a Child-Friendly School (ESIP Annex 2A & B) (b) Signage related to a Child-

Friendly school, (c) Photos showing posted composition of School Child Protection

Committee (CPC) and SDRRM Committee with Contact numbers, (d) Narrative and

Pictorial Report on Orientation of various DepEd Orders and DepEd Memoranda

regarding Child Protection Policy and DRRM, (e) Implementation of the Localized

Guidelines on Child Protection and Anti-Bullying noted by the GPTA or SGC (f)

Localized Guidelines on Child Protection and Anti-Bullying adopted by other

school/district. Last, methods and resources are learner and community friendly,

enjoyable, safe, inclusive, accessible and aimed at developing self-directed learners.

Learners are equipped with essential knowledge, skills, and values to assume

responsibility and accountability of their own learning a. List of intervention programs

b. Sample Learner’s Portfolio c. Sample Self-Directed Materials (e,g. localized /

contextualized modules)

The goal of the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum is to create and produce

productive and responsible citizens equipped with the essential competencies and skills

for both learning and employment. (DepEd Order No.83,s. 2012).

As mentioned by Ilagan (2011), the Department of Education prescribes

competencies for the subject areas in all the grade levels. According to the report made

by the (SEAMEO INNOTECH) 2013. The Bureau of Elementary and Secondary

Education develops, publishes and disseminates these learning areas have a list of

learning competencies expected to be mastered by the learner at the end of each grade

level and also at the end of the elementary schooling. Some subject learning areas

have a combination of both(i.e. learning competencies under each content). The

 34

curriculum is designed to be interpreted by teachers and implemented with variations.

Schools are encouraged to innovate and enrich or adapt, as long as they have met the

basic requirements of the curriculum. In addition, pupils are required to participate in co-

curricular activities. These are managed by pupils with the teacher as

facilitator/moderator.

Accordingly, the importance of the curriculum in giving a more relevant education

cannot be put aside. Bandola (2012) explicitly stated that the importance of education is

the suitability of the curriculum, which must not only include the basic intellectual

subjects but also to provide for experiences and activities relevant to the intellectual,

occupational and other needs of the pupils.

Castro (2013) pointed out that curriculum in teacher education institution must be

clearly related to educational and objectives to achieve quality excellence. To meet the

society and community needs, the institution may develop a supplementary and part-

time and short term program. The curriculum must be continuously evaluated and

revised to make it responsive to pupils and community.

Accountability and Continuous Improvement

This refers to one of the principles of SBM that shows a transparent and inclusive

accountability system is in place, collaboratively developed by the school community,

which monitors performance and acts appropriately on gaps and gains. It consists of

twenty-five percent (25%). There are five indicators and each indicator has

corresponding artifacts to be presented. At first, roles and responsibilities of

accountable persons and collective bodies are clearly defined and agreed upon by the
 35

community stakeholders, (a) School Memorandum on the Composition and Terms of

References of ,Bids and Awards Committee (BAC),Teaching/Non-teaching personnel,

Different Coordinators and Ancillary, School Governing Council (SGC), School Planning

team (SPT), (b) School Memorandum, Minutes of Meeting of BAC, SPT, SGC, and

Teaching & Non-Teaching personnel, (c) Resolutions on determined terms of reference

of BAC, SPT, and SGC with Designation Letter duly conformed, Second, achievement

of goals is recognized based on a collaboratively developed performance accountable

system; gaps are addressed through appropriate action, (a) Gap Analysis (SIP Annex

3), (b)Project Work Plan for Priority Improvement Areas (PIA) and Crises Management/

Contingency Plan collaboratively developed, (c) Accomplishment Reports showing the

Target vs Output vs Gaps with appropriate actions. Third, the accountability system is

owned by the community and is continuously enhanced to ensure that management

structures and mechanisms are responsive to the emerging needs and demands of the

community, (a)School Work Plan addressing the gaps for priority improvement area, (b)

Memorandum and Minutes of the meeting in working School Work Plan, (c)

Memorandum and Minutes of the meeting in accomplishing the School Work Plan with

the stakeholders (e.g. GPTA, SGC, other external stakeholders).Fourth , accountability

assessment criteria and tools, feedback mechanisms, and information collection and

validation techniques and processes are inclusive and collaboratively developed and

agreed upon, (a) Feedback mechanism developed by the school Governing Council

(SGC), (b) Accomplishment Report showing the collaborative work of the school and its

stakeholders in the development of the feedback mechanism, (c) Resolutions regarding

the developed Feedback Mechanism is approved by the School Governing Council

 36

(SGC), Last, participatory assessment of performance is done regularly with the

stakeholders. Assessment results and lessons learned serve as basis for feedback,

technical assistance, recognition and plan adjustment, (a) Memorandum on the conduct

of School Monitoring Evaluation and Assessment (SMEA), (b) Conduct of Quarterly

SMEA with printout CLC, (c) Narrative and Pictorial Report showing the involvement of

the stakeholders in the conduct of SMEA reporting as basis for feedback, technical

assistance, and recognition.

Pursuant to the Policies of the Commission on Audit, the school administrators

as special disbursing officer of public schools are accountable for the administration of

funds. However, they have the authority and responsibility to review and approve all

school expenses. The school heads may delegate such authority for approving certain

types of expenses to the school property custodians or his highly respected teacher

(Cequeña,2013).

Cequeña (2013) pointed out that accountability suggests transparency in

transactions involving financial management of public funds. Survey of the Social

Weather Station captured the country’s failure to reduce corruption. In its 2005 Survey

on Enterprises on Corruption, the SWS reported a” very high non- diminishing degree of

corruption in the public sector” but nevertheless serious a degree of corruption in the

private sector”. It further state, the lack of progress in the Philippines anti-corruption

effort is attributed to many, among others, the low social awareness and high tolerance

of corruption.

Management of the financial matters is one of the major responsibilities of the

institutional head. Joubert and Bray (2007) describe “a school’s financial management
 37

as the performance of management as actins connected with the financial aspects for

the achievement of effective education.”

Cequeña (2013) emphasized that school administrators have the authority and

responsibility to review and approve all expenses. The school heads may delegate such

authority for approving certain types of expenses to the school property custodians or

his highly respected teachers.

Management of Resources

This refers to one of the principles of SBM that assures the resources are

collectively and judiciously mobilized and managed with transparency, effectiveness,

and efficiency. It consists of fifteen percent (15%). There are five indicators and each

indicator has corresponding artifacts to be presented. At first, regular resource inventory

is collaboratively undertaken by learning managers, learning facilitators, and community

stakeholders as basis for resource allocation and mobilization. a. School Physical

Plant, Property and Equipment (PPE) b. Resource Inventory of Semi- Expandable

Supplies, Consumable Supplies c. School Canteen Reports d. Deeds of Donations

e. Brigada Eskwela (BE) Forms 1-7 f. Memorandum, Minutes of meeting,

Attendance showing stakeholders collaboration on resource inventory. Third, a regular

dialogue for planning and resource programming that is accessible and inclusive,

continuously engage stakeholders, and support implementation of community education

plans, (a) List of school resources programmed for Access, Quality, and Governance, (b)

Minutes of Meeting and photos on the conduct of Focus Group Discussion (FGD), (c)

Memorandum, Minutes of Meeting, Accomplishment Reports and Resolutions on the

 38

Regular Dialogue for Planning and Programming of Resources. Third, in place is a

community-developed resource management system that drives appropriate behaviors

of the stakeholders to ensure judicious, appropriate, and effective use of resources, (a)

List of resources given to the school by the stakeholders for the current school year, (b)

Photos of updated reports posted on the Transparency Board with signatures, (c)

Liquidation Report of MOOE, School Canteen, GPTA, and SSG/SPG. Fourth, regular

monitoring, evaluation, and reporting processes of resource management are

developed and implemented collaboratively by the learning managers, facilitators, and

community stakeholders, (a) Accomplished School CLC Monitoring & Evaluation Report,

(b)Minutes of meeting on the conduct of SMEA reporting specifically on the utilization of

funds, (c) Minutes of meeting on the reporting of SMEA quarterly report to the

stakeholders .Last, there is a system that manages the network and linkages which

strengthen and sustain partnerships for improving resource management, (a) Process

Flow Chart on School Networking and Linkages for Partnerships, (b) Guidelines on the

Process Flow Chart on School Networking and Linkages for Partnerships, (c)

Stakeholders collaboration on the development of Guidelines on the Process Flowchart

on School Networking and Linkages for Partnerships.

Asian Network of Training and Research Institutions in Educational Planning

(ANTRIEP) which is under the guidance of the UNESCO’s International Institute for

Educational Planning reports that empirical studies, analyzing the factors influencing the

quality of education, have demonstrated that the level of resources visible in schools

cannot provide satisfactory explanation for differences in achievement.

 39

According to Education Decentralization and School Grants Improvement in El

Salvador’s Education with Community Participation Program channels education funds

through parents’ organizations at the community level to hire teachers and manage

educational services first-hand of management and efficient utilization of resources

represents a fourth stated objective of school grant schemes. In most countries,

teachers’ salary expenditures eclipse essential non-salary expenditures. School grants

that are earmarked for non-personnel inputs are one of ensuring minimum provision of

such inputs (Caldwel,2008).

Mesa (2012), pointed out that the overemphasis on external resources directs

attention away from rethinking ways to improve use of internal resources. Planners are

guided primarily to think in terms of what can be acquired or used externally. Improving

pupil learnig supports requires (a) reviewing all the internal resources used by the

schools as the basis for ensuring they are deployed effectively and (b) then working on

ways to integrate external resources to fill gaps and strengthen practices.

Definition of Terms

For further understanding of the study, the terms are defined conceptually and

operationally.

Access is a type of performance indicator which measures the school enrolment for the

last three school years.

Accountability and Continuous Improvement refers to one of the principles of SBM

that shows a transparent and inclusive accountability system is in place, collaboratively

 40

developed by the school community, which monitors performance and acts

appropriately on gaps and gains.

Assessment based on DOD is Document Analysis Observation and Discussion such

as Leadership and Governance, Curriculum and Instruction, Accountability and

Continuous Improvement, and Management of Resources

Curriculum and Instruction refers to one of the principles of SBM that is anchored on

the community and learners’ context and aspirations that are collaboratively developed

and continuously improved.

Demographic Location. This refers to the location and distance of the school to the

community

Document Analysis, Observation and Discussion (DOD) is a process of evaluating

the validity or truthfulness of the evidence following the three essential steps: Document

Analysis, Observation, and Discussion.

Efficiency is a type of performance indicator which measures the school completion

rate, dropout rate, and cohort survival rate for the last three school years.

Leadership and Governance refers to one of the principles of SBM that guides the

educational system to achieve its shared vision, mission, and goals making it

responsive and relevant to the context of diverse environment.

Learning Environment. This refers to the extent to which the principal sees to it that

the school has a conducive and child-friendly leaning environment

Management of Resources refers to one of the principles of SBM that assures the

resources are collectively and judiciously mobilized and managed with transparency,

effectiveness, and efficiency.

 41

Performance Improvement is a type of performance measurement which evaluates

the success of the schools in terms of access, efficiency and quality.

Public School Principal. This is the school head or school principal of Elementary and

Secondary Schools.

Quality. This refers to the degree of excellence in test results. Average Mean

Percentage Scores (MPS) of the four (4) Quarter Assessments of the current school

year for elementary school.

SBM Assessment Tool is a localized tool used to assess DOD along with the artifacts.

SBM Level. This refers to the level of school-based management of the schools

advanced, maturing or developing

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, students, and parents greater control over the

education process by giving them responsibility for decisions about the budget,

personnel, and the curriculum.

Size of School. This refers to how big or small the school is.

Type of School. This refers to either public or private schools.

Validation is the process of evaluating the acceptability and authenticity of the

documents presented per SBM practice of all public schools in the Division.
 42

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the research design, setting of the study, setting of the

study, procedure of the study, sources of data and the statistical treatment to be used.

Research Design

This study used the descriptive-evaluative research design since the result of the

study will have a CIPP- Based Evaluation of SBM Program in the Public Schools in the

Division of Rizal during the covered school year of 2017 – 2018. According to Arifin
 43

(2010) evaluation research is a research that has an aim to provide information for

decision maker (policy maker) related to a power or strength of a program, seen from its

effectiveness, cost, device, etc. For instance are the implementations of curriculum, an

implementation of contextual learning model, etc.

The researcher used descriptive research method. According to Ary (2010),

“descriptive research studies are designed to obtain the nature of the situation as it

exists at the time of the study. Thus, the aim of descriptive research is to describe what

exist.”

In addition to this, the study also used documentary analysis type of research in

achieving the requirements needed in the investigation of the study. Acero, et al (2006)

defined documentary analysis as an analysis of written or visual contents of a

document.

These methods and techniques are appropriate to the present study since this

would be of great help in investigating a CIPP- Based Evaluation of SBM Program in the

Public Schools in the Division of Rizal during the covered school year of 2017 – 2018.

which will serve as the basis for developing a new School-Based Management

Implementation Model and Framework.

Setting of the Study

This study was conducted in the Division of Rizal. Rizal Province, as shown in

Figure 2, which is one of the provinces of the CALABARZON area consisting of two

congressional districts excluding the city of Antipolo which is considered to be an

independent City of Rizal. It is approximately an hour travel to Manila and for that
 44

reason, the way of life and practically the kinds of occupation specifically those nearest

to Manila are highly urbanized.

Rizal is one of the provinces closer to Metro Manila. It is clubbed by urban

planners as the country’s nest business capital.

The province has also so much to offer to both foreign and local tourists like the

breathtaking view of Laguna Lake and the Sierra Madre mountain ranges. People

residing in the 13 towns and one component city which today compose Rizal engage in

traditional arts and crafts, and hold colorful yearly fiestas that function as accessible

major attractions.

The province of Rizal is governed by 2 Congressmen, Governor, Vice-Governor,

11 Provincial Board Members and 13 Municipal Mayors.

The school vision is “We dream of Filipinos who passionately love their country

and whose competencies and values enable them to realize their full potential and

contribute meaningfully to building the nation. As a learner-centered public institution,

the Department of Education continuously improves itself to better serve its

stakeholders. It’s mission is to protect and promote the right of every Filipino to quality,

equitable, culture-based and complete basic education where:

Students learn a child-friendly, gender-sensitive, safe and motivating

environment; Teachers facilitate learning and constantly nurture every learner.

Administrator and staff, as stewards of the institution, ensure an enabling and

supportive environment for effective learning to happen. Family, community and other

stakeholders are actively engaged and share responsibility for developing life-long

learners with the core values of Maka-Diyos, Makatao, Makakalikasan, Makabansa

 45

DepEd, Division of Rizal lies at the heart of Taytay, Rizal. It is serving the 13

towns with 19 districts. It has a total of 209 public elementary schools and 79 public

secondary schools. On the other hand, the Division has a total of 304 private schools,

27 of which holds purely preschool classes, 124 elementary schools, 137 elementary

attached to secondary schools and 7 purely secondary schools. DepEd Rizal’s human

resource is made of 8,369 teaching and non-teaching personnel.

(Source: depedrizal.wikispaces.com)
 46

Figure 2

Map of Rizal
 47

Subject of the Study

The respondents of the study will be both Elementary and Secondary Schools in

the Division of Rizal. The table shows the distribution of respondent schools

Table 1.0
Distribution of Respondent-Schools

Schools Total Number

Elementary Schools 209

Secondary Schools 79

Total 288

A total of 288 schools composed of 209 elementary schools and 79 secondary

schools.

In choosing the respondents, simple random sampling will be employed. In a

simple random sampling (SRS) of a given size, all such subsets of the frame are given

an equal probability. Furthermore, any given pair of elements has the same chance of

selection as any such pair (and similarly for triples, and so on). This minimizes bias and

simplifies analysis of results. In particular, the variance between the individual results

within the sample is a good indicator of variance overall population, which makes it

relatively easy to estimate the accuracy of results (Yates, 2008).

Procedure of the Study

The study described the a CIPP- Based Evaluation of SBM Program in the Public

Schools in the Division of Rizal during the covered school year of 2017 – 2018.. It

considered the following procedural steps:

 48

After incorporating the suggestions given by the experts during the preliminary

defense, revision of Chapters 1-3 immediately followed to secure permit to conduct the

study from the Office of Graduate School.

The researcher asked permission from the School Division Superintendent to

conduct the study upon approval of which, the questionnaire-checklist was constructed

and validated to obtain needed information from the school administrators and teachers

in different schools.

In this undertaking, the researcher made a preliminary survey or inquiry to be

conducted in the Division of Rizal to determine the feasible number of teachers’

respondents. Appropriate permit for the conduct of the survey was requested to the

Schools Division Superintendent. Another letter of request to the principals of the

chosen schools together with the questionnaire-checklist is hand carried and was given

to the respondents. The questionnaire-checklist was later on retrieve from the

respective respondents after one week. After the retrieval, the data collected encoded

and entered into the matrix to come up with computed generated results.

The structured interview through Focus Group Discussion (FGD) to filter the

validity of the data gathered out the questionnaire-checklist. A focus group discussion

is a good way to gather people from parallel backgrounds or experiences to deliberate a

specific topic of interest. The group of participants is guided by a moderator (or group

facilitator) who introduces topics for discussion and helps the group to participate in a

lively and natural discussion. FGDs can be used to explore the meanings of survey

findings that cannot be explained statistically, the variety of opinions/views on an issue

of interest and to gather a wide variety of local terms. In bridging research and policy,
 49

FGD can be useful in providing an insight into different opinions amongst different

parties involved in the change procedure, thus allowing the process to be managed

more easily.

Analysis and interpretation of the gathered data by the researcher using

appropriate statistical tools will be done. Suggestions and recommendations for the

improvement of the study from the interviewees were taken into account in the final draft

of the research output. After which, the study was presented to the research adviser

and the panel statistician for critiquing in preparation for oral defense. Suggestions and

recommendations for the improvement of the study were taken into account in the final

draft of the research output.

Sources of Data

The data on a CIPP- Based Evaluation of SBM Program in the Public Schools in

the Division of Rizal will be gathered through a researcher-made questionnaire-checklist

and through SBM evaluation tool.

To determine the level of the School-Based Management in public schools, SBM

validation form and assessment tool during School Year 2017-2018 will be used as the

basis using the following performance indicators; Access; Efficiency; and Quality and

Assessment Based on Document Analysis, Observation and Discussion (DOD:

Leadership and Governance; Curriculum and Learning; Accountability and Continuous

Improvement; and Management of Resources using the following scale and description.

Scale Level Description

2.50 - 3.00 III Advanced
1.50 - 2.49 II Maturing
0.50 - 1.49 I Developing
 50

Other interpretations were done through the advised by the expert statistician at

the University of Rizal System, Morong.

Statistical Treatment

To answer the specific data needed, the following statistical treatment was used

for each type of analysis.

To determine the level of the School-based Management Practices of public

schools through SBM validation form and assessment tool, frequency percentage

distribution and weighted mean will be applied.

To determine significant relationship between the extent of SBM and the profile

of different public schools, One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used.