UNIVERSITY OF ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF
PRINCIPALS, TEACHER
LEADERS & TEACHERS
SBM IMPLEMENTATION

Reynante Roxas Malano - ELP

August 20, 2012
 2

Major Paper submitted to Dr. Ernie Grio, PROFESSOR, as a partial requirement in the course
School Program Design. The paper is about the roles and responsibilities of Principals, Teacher
Leaders and Teachers in the successful implementation of School-Based Management as a
strategy to improve classroom instruction and student learning.
 3

The Roles and Responsibilities of the Principal, Teacher Leaders and Teachers

in the Implementation of School-Based Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ....................................................................

3-4
II. Review of Related Literature
A. SBM Defined/Essence of SBM ...................................... 5-8
B. Change in Roles and Responsibilities and Tasks
of Principals .............................................. 9-11
C. Changes in Administrative Focus
and Management Style ................................... 12-14
D. SBM Focus under DepEd .............................................. 15-17
E. Changes in the Roles of Teacher Leaders ....................... 18-19
F. Characteristics of Effective Teacher Leaders .................. 20
G. Roles of Teachers ......................................................... 21
H. Key Elements of a Successful
SBM Strategy ....................................................... 22
I. Summary .................................................................... 23
III. Goals of the Program ........................................................ 27
IV. Program Design ........................................................ 28-29
V. References ........................................................

30-32
 4

I. INTRODUCTION
Moises Salvador Elementary School has 43 teachers catering to 1,410

pupils of varied socio-economic status. It is situated in Sampaloc where most of its

clients are informal settlers that make a living selling corn, thus the place is called

“Maisan” or the Cornfield District (pun intended).

The school however belongs to the upper 10% of the achieving schools in

the Division of City Schools, Manila as evidenced by its consistent inclusion in the

Top 10 Performing Schools with high achievement test scores every academic

year.

With the implementation of the School-Based Management (SBM) in 2009

which hopes to end for an evaluation this year, the new principal just later found

out that how the School-Based Management program being done in school has

been lacking in many ways. This was discovered when an evaluation was made

among the master teachers and herself . As a result, many indicators were unmet.

Said program is expected to have been completed this year as it had been started in

2009. This three-year program is a failure in itself if the school personnel will just

brush aside its completion.

At one time, the principal asked all the master teachers for a special

meeting to discuss on SBM. It was then that we realize that even the supposed

teacher leaders were not entirely aware of the essence or worse, the existence of

SBM. It was later realized, too, that the former principal did the initial

requirements by herself without involving teacher leaders in school. With me in

 5

the fold occupying second rank in school as master teacher 2, the principal

challenged me to dig deeper on the rationale and importance of SBM to be

delivered in a professional meeting on the last Friday of August. While I acceded

with the idea, I suggested that all master teachers should be involved as they have

teachers under them whom they can tap for committee leaderships.

In that concensus, we will have the School-Based Management (SBM) as

the main theme for the August Professional Meeting. It will run for 4 hours with

the following topics:

1. Definition and Essence of SBM

2. Changes in Principal’s Roles and Responsibilities

2.1 Changes in Administrative Focus and Management Style

3. Changes in Teachers and Teacher Leaders’ Roles and

Responsibilities

4. SBM Focus under DepEd

5. What is a successful SBM strategy?

The topics are considered important but they can still be trimmed down into

more important units as covering them all may not be possible. With the program

design that the researcher prepared, it is hoped that teachers and teacher leaders

could be more aware of their roles and responsibilities in an SBM-run institution

where they are part of. Another thing, the reason identified why the SBM program

of the school was not successful was the incognizance of the stakeholders of what

the program was and how would they contribute to its accomplishment. For
 6

chamges in principal’s roles and responsibilities, the principal agreed that she

would talk about it so that the expected roles and responsibilities of the teachers

and teachers alike could be clarified.

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

For many years now, the Department of Education has been embarking on

adapting and practicing school policy changes to bring about improvement in the

continuously deteriorating or ailing public educational system. Much has been

tried and tested; others posed promising results, some got lost in a fillip of a

finger; and still some remained serving their purpose due to their sustainability.

Many believe that system transformation has to be effected should the country

want to be on par with the rest of the world. Some others suggest formulas that

may alter the management conditions, making everyone accountable for both the

success and failure of schools.

Thus, DepEd has introduced School-Based Management or SBM since

2009 as an answer to some long-standing problems in education. But what is SBM

and what value does it bring to the fold of education?

The Essence of School-Based Management (SBM)

According to Hanushek and Jorgenson (1996), the term “school-based

management” has many variations – school-site management, school-site

autonomy, shared decision-making, shared governance, school improvement

program (or project or process), school-based budgeting, and administrative

 7

decentralization. Vigoda (2002) averred that school-based management is intended

to enable schools to respond to local needs, it can vary greatly from school to

school in three fundamental characteristics: the authority that has been delegated,

resources (inputs) devoted to the implementation of SBM, and the stated

objectives in introducing SBM.

Under SBM, Lam (2006) stipulated that schools are expected to decide for

themselves the priority of introducing various policies, making flexible use of

existing resources to formulate their policies and measures based on a whole-

school approach.

Myers & Stonehill (1993) define school-based management (SBM) as a

strategy to improve education by transferring significant decision-making

authority from state and district offices to individual schools. SBM provides

principals, teachers, students, and parents greater control over the education

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

and the curriculum. Through the involvement of teachers, parents, and other

community members in these key decisions, SBM can create more effective

learning environments for children.

SBM is a management framework that is school-based, student-cetred and

quality focused; through SBM, schools will develop a management system to

ensure the quality of learning and teaching.

 8

Dond (1989), author of the National Association of Elementary School

Principals (NAESP), a 10-year research study of the elementary and middle school

principalship, noted this upbeat trend. He averred:

Perhaps the most challenging aspects of such shift are, first, a

willingness by central office personnel to transfer autonomy to the

school and its leader, and second, for the principal to understand and

accept the accountability of decision-making inescapably entails. At

any rate, this transaction represents a significant move toward

increased professional stature and job satisfaction among elementary

and middle school principals (p. 10).

Sackney and Dibsky (1995) pointed out further that “SBM is a major

school restructuring mechanism to provide quality education and attempt to

decentralize and de-bureaucratize school control” (p. 39).

As opposed to earlier centralized mode of school management, SBM as a

decentralized model adheres to many reforms and shifts which include: emphasis

from schoolimprovement to development, which means that continuous school

development is necessary for long-term effectiveness. Conceptually, Cheng (1994)

noted that school improvement is a narrow, short-term, and remedial concept

compared to school development which is comprehensive, long-term, and

formative concept.

The second shift is from quantity to quality. People’s satisfaction is not

limited to the quantity of the services they get out of education. They are more
 9

concerned anent the quality of education that can meet the high and diverse

expectations of school constituencies, and how it can be enhanced and assured.

The third shift is from maintenance to school effectiveness. Traditionally,

people are more concerned about problems happening in schools and how they are

resolved. They often ignore whether schools are effective or not. SBM aims at

maximizing school effectiveness to serve diverse educational needs.

From external to internal standpoint, SBM revolves around decentralization

of power from the central authority to the school level, school autonomy and self-

management, and participation of school constituencies. All the school’s

stakeholders from the administration, community and the pupils are strongly

encouraged to facilitate the school-based initiative for school development and

effectiveness.

Lastly, there is a need to apply sophisticated technology as against

simplistic techniques in handling schools. The likes of technology of strategic

management, development planning, participative management, and quality

assurance are now strongly recommended, emphasized and promoted in schools.

Promisingly enough, responding to these trends and developments can

bring about advances in knowledge, research, practice and policy particularly in

the areas of school effectiveness and school-based management.

The implementation of the SBM and the announcement of the current

curriculum reform alter the workings of schools and increase the already heavy

workload and pressures on their staff. There is a complicated and very subtle
 10

development of the control process, affecting the roles of all stakeholders –

principal, master teachers, teacher leaders, teachers, parents, pupils, and the

community as a whole.

Changes in Roles and Responsibilities and Tasks

Here lie the more challenging or more complex new roles and

responsibilities of a school principal being the man at the helm. His functions may

call for more multitasking tasks as he has to meet the different requirements of

running the school’s states of affairs together with his master teachers, teacher

leaders, parents, LGUs and the community. This then also calls for cooperative

management and this has become the name of the game.

Under SBM, Quinn (1988) and Qinn and cameron (1983) categorically

identified the roles and responsibilities of principals:

1. Structural Leadership – the extent to which the principal thinks

clearly and logically, develops clear goals and policies, and holds

people accountable for results;

2. Political Leadersship – the extent to which the principal is

persuasive and effective at building alliances and support and

solving conflicts;

3. Symbolic Leadership – the extent to which the principal is

inspirational and charismatic; and

 11

4. Educational Leadership –the extent to which the principal

emphasizes and encourages professional development and

teaching improvement.

As evidenced by a review of literature done by Leithwood and Menzies

(1998), SBM takes at least four forms in practice for principals: administrative

control, professional control, community, and equal control.

Given these developments, the roles of principals in the new millennium

have already changed. Traditionally, principals were the “management” of schools

who played fixed roles and had certain recognized status, power, and authority.

Under SBM, their roles, responsibilities and tasks are not as straightforward as

previously. There has been a paradigm shift in leadership and decision-making has

become a participative activity shared among various stakeholders, namely

teachers, parents and members of the community. Lam (2006) demanded that the

roles of principals and teachers have to be changed in order to meet the changing

needs of school reform, enhance the quality of education, and to be more effective.

According to McInerney (2003), an advocate of SBM:

SBM provides greater freedom and authority to principals to

exercise their leadership in a way which is more attuned and more

responsive to the educational needs of the communities; to manage

day-to-day affairs of the school free from bureaucratic intrusions at

head office, and to make decisions in conjunction with the

 12

community about how best to allocate resources at the local level (p.

63).

Since SBM has changed the workload of schools and the pattern by which

they are managed, principals have to deal with more managerial tasks and devote

more time to collaborative decision-making; and teachers spend more time on

matters that are non-educational. Responsibility is placed on principals and teacher

leaders to use resources efficiently and effectively.

Lam (2006) mentioned that principals should ensure that “schools set up

framework of accountability involving a fair staff appraisal system, production of

annual school profiles and other documentation for parents, students and the

community as a whole” (p.180).

The need for instructional leadership in schools was highlighted by the

emergence of standards-based accountability and demands that principals take

responsibility for student performance also. Elmore (2000) points out that “recent

literature has sought to redefine the role of the school principal and other leaders

in terms of their knowledge and impact on instruction as the key school

determinant of student performance” (p. 112).

Given that many schools are now practicing SBM, Caldwell and Spinks

(1992) proved that “it is clear that special kinds of leaders and leadership are

required for school management, both at the system level and the school level” (p.

47).
 13

Thus, school principals should be cognizant of the different challenges,

difficulties and skills needed to help implement SBM. Challenges include

increased accountability, the attainment of better academic results and the fair

allocation of resources. They have to resolve disagreements and conflicts, and

convince department heads to accept the rationale behind decisions and to win

their support.

Changes in Administrative Focus and Management Style

Difficulties may involve balancing the interests of all stakeholders;

accountability to public and sponsoring bodies, financial matters and the fair

alloaction of resources; and developing a shared vision and leading their staff

towards attaining it.

Principals need good leadership, management, interpersonal,

communication and negotiaton skills, and to adopt a “macro-outlook” and be in

good contact with all stakeholders.

During the release of the provocative document Principals for the 21st

Century Schools , the National Association of Elementary Schools Principals

(1990), contended that

a critical aspect of the transition to school-based decision making is

the concomittant increase in the principal’s accountability for the

school’s quality. During the transition to school-based management,

many principles may be asked to assume responsibilities for which

 14

they are unprepared of or for which their preparation has become

dated (p. 16).

It is probable that some principals have been exercising on-site

management concepts for some time, but for some experienced principals it is a

totally new experience for them. Of course for beginning principals, anything they

undertake will be a new experience for them.* It can b e noted that some

principals do not have a totally grasped concept of what SBM is and they rely on

master teachers’ previous involvement in completing requirements based on the

different dimensions of SBM. In fact due to this unpreparedness, many schools

have not yet accomplished the first two years’ report that started in 2009.

With regard to focus, principals become more responsible for the survival

of their schools – a concern that requires a number of key tasks. Robenstine (2000)

identified them as something:

responsive to parents, responsible for retaining or even developing –

if need be – a competitive edge over other schools, responsible for

efficient and effective management of budget, brave in facing the

task of managing and resolving any conflict arising out of their new

roles (p. 103).

As the image and marketing of the school to maintain a competitive edge

and the cost-effective management of the bubget together as the principals most

pressing aspect of their roles, there is a tendency for principals to become

increasingly distanced in the work of teaching – and hence, also from their faculty
 15

(Bowe & Ball, 1992). Consequently, the market actually worsens the potential

divide between management and staff, a gap that can lead to conflict.

It becomes increasingly part of the principal’s job, as well as that of the

entire adminitrative staff, somehow to persuade the faculty to accept, to some

extent, the following reality: to survive, the school needs to be consumer-

responsive and cost-efficient, and administrative decisions may need to be more

quickly and unilaterally than was previously the case. The teachers will also now

have to accept the possibility or reality of “downsizing.” All of these tasks create a

pressure for a major shift in management styles and strategies, as well as new

values. Within the market framework of school choice, then, “what is required is

the fundamental change in the philosophy of the organization of education at the

school level. Thus, the changes required in the culture ad in the management

processes are much wider than purely financial” (Gerwitz, Ball & Bowe, 1995, pp.

91-92).

The DepEd-managed website STRIVE identfied platforms to guide

principals on their functions in their respective schools of concern:

School-Based Management (SBM). System will focus efforts on

strengthening support systems of the DepEd on School-Based Management

through improved educational planning and management. This has sub-

components created to attain this goal.

Objectives:
 16

1. To strengthen the support systems of DepEd, three Regional

Offices, selected Divisions, and schools for School-Based

Management through improved educational planning and

management

2. To develop a functional management support system for

continuing school improvement at regional, division and school

levels

School-Based Management (SBM) or Component 1 of STRIVE is a

response to BESRA KRT 1 – enabling and empowering school stakeholders to

manage its own affairs for improved delivery of educational services in a

sustainable manner. As such, this component is focused on the strengthening of

support systems including governance, advisory and partnership mechanisms for

SBM through practical experience in application activities in the three regions.

The application experience will be further enhanced through a range of capability

building activties. The SBM component comprises seven (7) sub-components:

 Policy & Planning System. Under this sub-component, STRIVE aims to

enhance/develop structures, processes and tools associated with

policy/planning systems at the school, division and regional levels.

 Participatory Mechanisms in education Governance. This sub-component is

dedicated to identifying existing participatory mechanisms in education

governance at the school, division and region.

 17

 Human Resource Development of Education Management. This sub-

component focuses on developing and piloting the appropriate regional

organizational structure to ensure that the divisions actually support the

implementation of school-based management as mandated by the Education

Act of 2001. In order to help the regions perform this function, the sub-

component has developed the technical assistance mechanism that will

systematize the provision of professional help and guidance by the region to

the divisions, and by the divisions to the schools.

 Quality Assurance & Accountability System. This sub-component offers a

mechanism for insuring quality in the critical systems, processes, outputs,

and outcomes, continuous school improvement and better technical and

management services. It is supported by the interlocking processes of

monitoringand evaluation that systematically provide educators timely

information useful for planning and for making decisions and adjustments.

 Programs to Improve Access. The focus of this sub-component is to

establish the appropriate mechanisms that will increase the number of

effective initiatives undertaken by the region, division and schools to

improve access. The approach s to determine and pilot appropriate support

options for basic education. It specifically aims to:

 18

1. Pilot test numbers of effective initatives directly undertaken by

the Target Access Schools and Community Learning Centers to

improve access.

2. Develop and pilot test support systems/mechanisms at the

division level to render direct technical assistance support to the

Target Access Schools and Community Learning Centers.

3. Develop and pilot test support systems/mechanisms at the

regions to facilitate policy compliance, effective programs

delivery and ensure quality assurance and accountabilities.

 Unified Information System. The Regional UIS is the ICT-enabled support

to the process and information requirements of SBM, T&D and LRMDS. It

aims to strengthen information management at the target regions and

divisions to enable data-driven decision-making and provide a venue for

connecting people to people and people to knowledge they need to

effectively respond and create new and relevant information. Specifically,

the system aims to (1) streamline and efficiently render the collection and

processing of education data from the schools and field offices, (2)

institutionalize Quality Assurance and M&E processes at every level of the

education management system, and (3) support information requirements of

school-based management, planning and policy formulation at all levels.

The UIS shall consist of integrated databases, automated processes

and technologies that are to be implemented on enhanced organizational

 19

structures and improved workflow processes at the target divisions and

regions.

Consistent with the overall strategy of building on existing DepEd

systems and structures, the solution system aims to establish effective

linkages with currently functional systems.

Changes in the Roles of Teacher Leaders

Effective principals do not lead successful change alone. While their

roles and responsibilities under SBM have changed, same goes with the teacher

leaders in school. These teacher leaders are those describe as being effective in

leading positive changes for student learning. These include not only those

officially designated as the leadership team, but also department chairs, grade level

leaders, mentor teachers, academic coaches, curriculum specialists, and other

traditional "titled" teacher leadership positions. It also calls for teacher leaders

who may hold no formal positional role, but are highly regarded by colleagues, to

step up to a new way of leading and influencing.

The website http://www.educators2000.com/ clarified that these leadership

teams are not a new institution in schools. However, what we now know from

research about what works in classrooms, schools, and school leadership demands

a new kind of role for these teacher leaders.

The research demands that teacher leaders work to influence and support

colleagues to improve teaching practices in their classrooms; serving as models for

professional group learning and continuous individual improvement. Those who

 20

are grade level chairs or course-alike team leaders are called upon to lead the work

of their specific teams in publicly sharing how students in each classroom are

progressing through the curriculum, using hard data and the examination of

student work. All teacher leaders must also help create demand for changes in

school, department, and grade level policies that increase student success, even

those that are at the expense of teacher preferences, comfort, and convenience.

Richard and Rebecca DuFour, international speakers and authors of many

books on Professional Learning Communities and avid contributors of the

Educators 2000 website, refer to this as a shift from a focus on teaching to a focus

on learning. When a teacher makes a remark such as, "It's not my job to make sure

all the kids in my class are successful," this is evidence that the teacher has not

made that shift. When a teacher leader is told, "You're starting to sound a lot like

an administrator," chances are that the teacher leader has made the shift, but the

colleague has not. Unfortunately, our tradition in public education has been that

only administrators push for changes that benefit students, and that it is the job of

teacher leaders to hold out for what is convenient and comfortable for themselves

and their colleagues. Teacher contract language in many districts has been crafted

to guarantee certain "working conditions" for teachers, which too often keep the

focus riveted on teaching, and make the shift to a focus on learning inordinately

difficult.

In schools that are working to become increasingly effective PLCs - the

vehicle most suited to putting the research-based practices and policies in place -
 21

teacher leaders are the lynchpin of the work. The work of each grade level or

course-alike team must be led by a knowledgeable, optimizing, competent teacher

leader. Administrators cannot lead these teams. In the first place, there are not

enough administrators to lead them all, nor do administrators have the time to do

so. Certainly they do not have the knowledge of individual students and the depth

of curriculum expertise that the teachers have. The principal must lead and

orchestrate the overall effort, assisted by the head teachers and master teachers in

schools that have them, but teachers must also lead their own teams.

Characteristics of Effective Teacher Leaders

What are the characteristics of an effective teacher team leader? To fulfill

this role, a teacher leader must fulfill many of the research-based leadership

responsibilities of effective principals. Teacher leaders have significant

responsibility, but without the formal authority of an administrator. However,

teacher leaders exert tremendous influence

Like an effective principal, an effective teacher leader has an extensive

knowledge of curriculum, effective instructional practices, and student assessment.

S/he stays on top of current research, and continuously provides intellectual

stimulation for the team by sharing it with them, and/or supporting the team in

seeking out answers to tough questions about practices and policies when student

learning is not improving. S/he possesses strong ideals and beliefs about teaching

and learning, and is not afraid to stand up for them with cynical colleagues.

Effective teacher leaders are courageous.

 22

Roles of Teachers

Of course, schools do not change if the people within the schools,

particularly the teaching staff, do not change. Creemes & Reezigt (2005) assert

that in the final analysis it is the actions of the individuals that count. The SBM

offers the best ways to identify both the performing and the non-performing or the

marginal teachers through the National Competency-Based Teaching Standards

(NCBTS). But this remains to be true if teachers become definitely honest in

assessing themselves. That is why, observations and supervisory visits are still

very important to meet these ends.

As to the pedagogical knowledge of teachers, Chevelland (1991) suggests

La transposition didactique defined as a process of change, alteration and

restructuring which the subject matter must undergo if it is to become teachable

and accessible to students. In this respect, it is essential to carefully plan out

teacher trainings to meet this purpose.

Key Elements of a Successful SBM Strategy

Briggs & Wohlstetter (2003) identified these eight (8) key elements of a

successful School-Based Management Strategy, to wit:

1. An Active Vision. Successful SBM schools have an active, living vision

focused on teaching and learning that is coordinated with district and

state standards.

2. Meaningful Decision-Making Authority. Successful SBM schools have

decision-making authority in the areas of budget, curriculum, and

 23

personnel, and they use that authority to create meaningful change in

teaching and learning.

3. The Distribution of Power. Successful SBM schools disperse power

throughout the school organization by creating networks of decision-

making teams.

4. The Development and Use of Knowledge and Skills. In successful SBM

schools, the development of knowledge and skills is an ongoing process

oriented toward building a school-wide capacity for change, creating a

professional learning community, and developing a shared knowledge

base.

5. Collecting and Communicating Information. Successful SBM schools

have multiple mechanisms for collecting information related to school

priorities and for communicating information to all stakeholders.

6. Rewards for Progress. Successful SBM schools use both monetary and

non-monetary rewards to acknowledge individual and group progress

toward school goals.

7. Shared Leadership. In successful SBM schools, school leadership is

shared among administrators and teachers. Principals often take on the

role of managers are facilitators of change, while teacher leaders often

take on responsibilities around issues of teaching and learning.

 24

8. Cultivating Resources. Successful SBM schools cultivate resources

from outside school through involvement in professional networks and

through entrepreneurial activity in the local business community.

SUMMARY

School leaders across the nation are exploring ways to better educate

students and improve school performance. School-Based Management (SBM)

offers a way to promote improvement by decentralizing control from central

district offices to individual school sites. It attempts to give school constituents –

administrators, teachers, parents and other community members – more control

over what happens in schools.

Endorsed by may organizations, SBM is being tried in many countries of

the world but so far, many claimed that they only have a small bit of knowledge

about how to make SBM work.

The researchers mentioned in this review of related literature point out that

there are over four resources that need to be decentralized throughout the

organization in order to maximize performance improvement:

1. power to make decisions that influence organizational practices, policies

and directions;

2. knowledge that enables employees to understand and contribute to

organizational performance including technical knowledge to do the job

or provide the service, interpersonal skills, and managerial knowledge

and expertise;
 25

3. information about the performance of the organization, including

revenues, expenditures, unit performance, and strategic information on

the broader policy and economic environment; and

4. rewards that are based on the performance of the organization and the

contributions of individuals.

We should not negate the fact however that all these will not be possible if

all the stakeholders are divided and do not collaborate to attain the school’s goals.

In the school’s setting, it is a must that the roles and responsibilities of all – the

principal, the teacher leaders and teachers – are clarified.

Besides the principal, teachers and teacher leaders alike can lead the way to

a better future by stepping up - stepping up to accept responsibility for the learning

of each and every student, to act as models for one another, and to guide and

support everyone in the continuous improvement of classrooms and schools. It is a

new role requiring courage and commitment, and it is imperative that these roles

are filled in every school: if all the responsibility is left to administrators, public

education is doomed.

With regard to the benefits or advantages that the SBM can bring to the fold of

education, according to the American Association of School Administrators

(AASA), the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP), the

National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), and other sources,

school- based management can:

 26

 Allow competent individuals in the schools to make decisions that will

improve learning;

 Give the entire school community a voice in key decisions;

 Focus accountability for decisions;

 Lead to greater creativity in the design of programs;

 Redirect resources to support the goals developed in each school;

 Lead to realistic budgeting as parents and teachers become more aware of

the school's financial status, spending limitations, and the cost of its

programs; and,

 Improve morale of teachers and nurture new leadership at all levels.

In summary:

 SBM must have the strong support of school staff.

 SBM is more successful if it is implemented gradually. It may take 5

years or more to implement SBM.

 School and district staff must be given administrative training, but also

must learn how to adjust to new roles and channels of communication.

 Financial support must be provided to make training and time for regular

staff meetings available.

 27

 Central office administrators must transfer authority to principals, and

principals in turn must share this authority with teachers and parents.

III. GOALS OF THE PROGRAM

Moises Salvador Elementary School has been implementing the School-

Based Management (SBM) for two years but the evaluation of which was

below par as there have been many dearth in its implementation. First, the

principal is newly installed and she has a little background of what SBM is all

about. Second, the former principal and the master teachers prepared some of

the necessary requirements mainly for compliance. Third, many or if not all,

are not aware of the existence of SBM in school and lastly, how can all these

things be communicated to all stakeholders if those who are expected to deliver

are inept or bereft of skills? It is in this regard that a training should be given to

the members of the faculty for them to be armed with the knowledge, skills and

values in the SBM proper implementation. Thus, the goals of said training

basically enjoin participants to:

 28

A. understand the rationale of the School-Based Management

(SBM) as a strategy, its underlying principles and its

supposed proper implementation.

B. analyze the key elements of a successful SBM

implementation as revealed by research-based data.

C. recognize the roles and responsibilities of all the school

stakeholders with emphasis on the principal, the teacher

leaders and the teachers.

D. identify and later on use assessment strategies to improve

instruction and student learning.

IV. PROGRAM DESIGN

The session will look into the teachers’ full grasp and understanding of

what School-Based Management is by viewing the components and what is

expected of an outstanding SBM system. With Padre Gomez Elem. School in

Manila as an example which achieved an outstanding evaluation of its SBM

system, the participants must have an initial background of how does an SBM

room look like and how it was done or implemented. It would be great to invite

over the principal or a teacher leader of that school to share a message or two.

The key elements of a successful SBM strategy and implementation will also

be discussed using a powerpoint presentation. After that, participants should be

handed out copies of the roles and responsibilities of teachers and teacher
 29

leaders in an SBM system. The principal follows suit to guide the teachers on

how to develop a successful SBM practice. Beforehand, the principal should

already have ready names to handle the different components of SBM. These

teacher leaders will be composed of master teachers, grade chairs and assistant

grade chairs (at least in a grade school setting). A glimpse of the NCBTS

output of teachers can be discussed as well for them to track their records of

improvement. The session will end with an oral and written assessment of

teachers’ understanding of what SBM is all about. The principal can also lead

the faculty in prayer or by singing the “One Little Candle” signifying oneness,

harmony and hope that the school will successfully implement SBM this year.
 30

V. REFERENCES

Bowe, R. & S. Ball 1992. Reforming education and changing schools: Case

studies in policy sociology. London: Rontledge.

Briggs, K. L. & P. Wohlstetter (2003). Key elements of a succesful SBM strategy.

School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Washington D. C., USA and

Rossier School of Education. 3 (14) 351-372

Caldwell, B. J. & Spinks, J. M. (1992). Leading the self-management school

(London Falmer Press).

Chevellard, Y. (1991). Didactic transposition. Paris, France: La Pensee Sauvage.

Creemes, B. P. M. & Reezigt, G. J. (2005). Linking school effectiveness and

school improvement: the background and outline of the project. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement. 16 (4), 359-371.

Dond, J. (1989). The K-8 principal in 1998, Principal, 68, pp. 6-12.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington

D.C.: Albert Shanker Institute.

Gerwitz, S., S. Ball & R. Bowe (1995). Markets, choice and equity in education.
 31

Burmingham, England; Open University Press.

Hanushek, E. A. & Jorgenson, D.W. (1996, 256-259). Improving America’s

schools: the role of incentives. National Research Council. ISBN: 0-30905436-

2.

http://www.educators2000.com/

http://strive.deped.gov.ph/index.php?

option=comcontent&view=category&id=34&layout=blog&Itemid=54

Lam, Y. K. (2006). Local responses to school-based management in Hong Kong.

32 (2) 171-185.

McInerney, P. (2003). Moving in dangerous territory? Educational leadership in a

developing education system. International Journal of Leadership in Education,

6 (1) 57-72.

Myers, D. & R. Stonehill (1993). School-based management. Education Research

Consumer Guide. OR93-3058,ED/OERI9238.

National Association of Elementary School Principals (1990). Principals for 21st

century schools. (Virginia National Association of Elementary Schools

Principals).

Robenstine, Clark (2000). School choice and administrators: will principals

necome marketers? Clearing House. Nov./Dec. ,24 (2) 95-98. Accession

Number: 3696767. ISSN: 00098655

Sackney, L.E. & Dibski, D. J. (1995). School-based management: will it fly? In K.

Wong & K. M. Cheng (Eds) Educationa leadership and changes: an

 32

international perspective (Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press)

Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: governance, citizens,

and the next generation of public administration. Public Administartion

Review 62: 527-40.