Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The district office will generally continue to recruit potential employees, screen job applicants, and maintain information on qualified
applicants from which the schools fill their vacancies. The district office may also specify curricular goals, objectives, and expected
outcomes while leaving it up to the schools to determine the methods for producing the desired results. Some districts leave the choice of
instructional materials to the schools, whereas others may require schools to use common texts.
Each school determines how to spend the lump sum allocated by the district in such areas as personnel, equipment, supplies, and
maintenance. In some districts, surplus funds can be carried over to the next year or be shifted to a program that needs more funds; in this
way, long-range planning and efficiency are encouraged.
In some districts, the management council makes most school-level decisions. In other districts, the council advises the principal, who then
makes the decisions. In both cases, the principal has a large role in the decision-making process, either as part of a team or as the final
decisionmaker.
It is important to have a written agreement that specifies the roles and responsibilities of the school board, superintendent and district office,
principal, and SBM council. The agreement should explicitly state the standards against which each school will be held accountable. James
Guthrie (1986) states that each school should produce an annual performance and planning report covering “how well the school is meeting
its goals, how it deploys its resources, and what plans it has for the future.”
Training in such areas as decision-making, problem solving, and group dynamics is necessary for all participating staff and community
members, especially in the early years of implementation. To meet the new challenges of the job, principals may need additional training in
leadership skills.
In summary:
Members of the school community must also beware of expectations that are too high. According to the AASA/NAESP/NASSP task force,
districts that have had the most success with SBM have focused their expectations on two benefits–greater involvement in making decisions
and making “better” decisions.
WHERE HAS SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT BEEN IMPLEMENTED?
Hundreds of school districts across the country have experimented with aspects of SBM.
School-Based Management (SBM) System will focus efforts in 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:
Strengthen the support systems of DepED, three Regional Offices, selected Divisions and schools for School Based Management through
improved educational planning and management.
Development of 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 activities.
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
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.
This sub-component offers a mechanism for insuring quality in the critical systems, processes, outputs, and outcomes of DepED at various
management levels to bring about improved learning outcomes, continuous school improvement and better technical and management
services. It is supported by the interlocking processes of monitoring and evaluation that systematically provide educators timely information
useful for planning and for making decisions and adjustments.
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/schools to improve access. The approach is to determine and pilot appropriate support options for basic education. It
specifically aims to:
Pilot test numbers of effective initiatives directly undertaken by the Target Access Schools and Community Learning Centers to
improve access.
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.
Develop and pilot test support systems/mechanisms at the regions to facilitate policy compliance, effective programs delivery and
ensure quality assurance and accountabilities.
The UIS shall consist of integrated databases, automated processes and technologies that are to be implemented on enhanced organizational
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.
The instrument contains INDICATORS regarding the six (6) dimensions of SBM Practices
Each INDICATOR has REQUIRED EVIDENCES as proof of the level of SBM practices
Each SBM DIMENSION is to be responded to by a different group of school stakeholders. (Thus, responses to be considered as
group answer through CONSENSUS )
1.School Leadership 31 35 47
2.Internal Stakeholders 23 28 36
3.External Stakeholders 34 15 18
4.School Improvement Process 31 27 25
5.School-Based Resources 18 15 20
1. School Leadership School head, asst to the SH, master teacher, dept. head
2. Internal Stakeholders Parent assoc. Representative, teacher assoc. Chair, head of student
council
5. School-Based Resources School head, person in charge of School funds, SGC chair /rep, PTCA
chair/reps, LGU
6. School Performance School head, parent assoc rep, teacher assoc chair, head of student
Accountability council, SGC chair, LGU / Brgy.