Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SBM Dimension 1. School Leadership Level I (Standard) SH is designated SH is trained on basic competencies on instructional leadership (e.g., National Educators Academy of the Philippines (NEAP) -SMILE) SH is trained on SBM and LSB responsibilities Level II (Progressive) SH performs greater responsibility and accountability in school management SH exercises instructional leadership and management functions SH pursue continuing professional development SH as a resource on SBM (e.g., acts as mentor/coach) SH initiates: organizing stakeholders installing appropriate SBM systems (e.g., school improvement planning, budgeting and resource management, staffing, performance monitoring and reporting) SH co-operates with organized stakeholders SH manages SBM systems SH promotes/shares SBM experiences and leading practices to other schools SH creates critical mass of SBM champions SH has effective working relationship with LSB & SGC SH innovates and institutionalizes continuous school improvement process Level III (Mature) SH is fully accountable to stakeholders for school performance SH significantly influences student learning outcomes
SH is relieved of accounting / bookkeeping functions and devotes more attention to instructional leadership and supervision
SH act as fund manager and devotes more attention to instructional leadership and supervision
Page 1 of 8
Teachers improve teaching effectiveness Teachers mentor peers Teachers pursue continuing professional development
Parents assume responsibilities as partners in the learning process Students, teachers, and parents are adequately oriented on SBM Students, teachers, and parents understand their respective roles and responsibilities on SBM; and are organized for participation in SBM processes
Parents co-manage and co-monitor learning process Students, teachers, and parents support SBM Organized stakeholders introduce and coimplement programs supporting schoolwide improvement process
Parents are also held accountable for the performance and achievement of their children Students, teachers, and parents champion SBM Organized stakeholders pro-actively engage themselves in school governance and continuous school-wide improvement process
Page 2 of 8
Community leaders / Peoples Organizations (Pos) / Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) are oriented, organized, and mobilized to support SBM (e.g. school community partnerships at least within the classroom or selected interventions like Adopt a School program) External stakeholders understand their respective roles and responsibilities on SBM; and are organized for participation in SBM processes
Community leaders / POs / NGOs are fully enabled to provide institutionalized support community-wide programs to continuously improve learning outcomes (including ALS)
Organized stakeholders introduce and coimplement programs supporting the schoolwide improvement process Organized stakeholders champion SBM Organized stakeholders help create a community environment that supports basic education
Page 3 of 8
Participatory and knowledge-based SIP/AIP development and implementation that are responsive to community needs and performance feedback SIP/AIP meets Divisional/ Regional / National performance standards on learning outcomes Stakeholders are informed, consulted, and engaged in SIP/AIP formulation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation and are satisfied with school performance SIP/AIP implementation is benchmarked (with leading practices) and undertakes innovations and improvements Best practices are replicated
SIP/AIP formulation and implementation involve full and sustained engagement of stakeholders
SIP/AIP surpasses National / Regional / Divisional performance standards; Division/ Region / National plans and programs are based on SIPs/AIPs Stakeholders are informed, consulted, and engaged in SIP/AIP formulation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation and are jointly accountable for school performance SIP/AIP implementation is geared towards achieving exemplary performance and institutionalized benchmarking and continuous improvement processes Best practices are institutionalized
Stakeholders are informed, consulted, and engaged in SIP/AIP formulation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation SIP/AIP implementation is regularly tracked and reported with necessary corrective measures undertaken Best practices are identified, documented and shared among peers
Page 4 of 8
Level I (Standard) Resources and funds (MOOE) are linked to SIP/AIP targets and allocated to meet minimum educational cost requirements (e.g., per capita per student) A system of incentives and rewards (and positive discipline for underperformance) based on performance contract (between SGC and DepEd) is piloted to promote school improvement process
Level II (Progressive) Resources and funds are augmented with LSB and community contributions and allocated to meet desired educational outcomes A system of incentives and rewards (and positive discipline for underperformance) based on performance contract (between SGC and DepEd) is established with DepEd and stakeholder support to sustain school improvement process
Level III (Mature) Resources and funds are sustained by LGU1 and community partners through supplemental budget and community equity A system of incentives and rewards (and positive discipline for underperformance) based on performance contract (between SGC and DepEd) is institutionalized with DepEd and stakeholder support to sustain school improvement process
A system of technical assistance (policy A system of technical assistance (policy A system of technical assistance (policy support, institutional strengthening, support, institutional strengthening, support, institutional strengthening, and training) is installed for continuous and training) is strengthened for and training) is optimized for school improvement process continuous school improvement continuous school improvement process process
Provide desired ranges of total school budget LGU support ratios Page 5 of 8
MOOE funds made available to the school is recorded, optimally utilized, reported & accounted for
All resources and funds made available to the school is recorded, optimally utilized, reported and accounted for
Page 6 of 8
Level I (Standard)
Level II (Progressive)
School introduces transparency and accountability mechanisms Monitoring and Evaluation (M/E) systems is installed and operational (e.g. data and reports are used in continuing improvement) Major stakeholders (SGC, PTCAs, Schools Division Superintendent, Regional Office, LSB) are informed and participate in M/ E and reporting
Performance and results-based M/E Stakeholders and school jointly system is fully operational and utilized develop and implement multi-sectoral in planning and multi-dimensional M/E system with innovations All stakeholders fully participate in M/ E and reporting activities
Quarterly school performance (student Quarterly and annual school and teacher performance) is performance (e.g. SRC) are monitored monitored and evaluated by SGC and evaluated by community stakeholders Improvements in learning outcomes by Grade/Year level are monitored and evaluated by homeroom and tracked per student/subject
School performance is presented, published and validated through community satisfaction surveys. Improvements in learning outcomes are tracked for benchmarking with other SBM schools
Improvements in learning outcomes by Grade/Year level are monitored and evaluated on school-wide basis
Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8