DECS, by size of employment, organizational structure, administrative operations, and budgetary appropriation, is a huge bureaucracy. At the time of the EdCom study, the DECS supervised and administered almost every aspect of education such that the extent of its responsibilities limited both its efficiency and effectiveness. The situation was further aggravated by the numerous agencies attached to it. The magnitude of its tasks exacerbated the inability of the DECS to develop its institutional capability in several areas of sector management.
Sabile (2007) reported that before 1994, DECS had the sole responsibility for policy planning, budgeting, formulation, program coordination, and implementation in all levels of formal and non-formal education in the Philippines. It also supervised all educational institutions in both public and private sectors.
On these issues, EdCom proposed the decentralization of the DECS structure to promote economy, simplicity, and efficiency. The decentralization was intended to benefit those in remote areas in terms of decision-making and the performance of certain functions, which do not have to be referred to the central office. The decentralization was also expected to enhance management capabilities and to make regional offices more responsive to local needs.
The enactment of the 1991 Local Government Code (LGC) and its implementation in 1992 was viewed as a pleasant development for the government to seriously transform the new decentralization thrust in the education sector into a concrete action as recommended by the EdCom.
Rimando (2004) affirmed that the first consequence of the DepEd’s strategy to decentralize was the birth of its program on School First Initiative (SFI), the precursor of the School Based Management (SBM). The program provides the opportunity to recognize all levels and structures of the department at the central, regional, and provincial or city division levels toward creating an appropriate environment with every public elementary and secondary school at the core of the learning process.
Over the past decade, most governments in the world with severe fiscal constraints were encouraged to adopt decentralization to improve efficiency, transparency, accountability, and responsiveness in their educational system—to help students reach higher levels of achievement.
These days, school decentralization in the Philippines is now making headway, progressing through the context of the SBM—a reform strategy that intimately operates within the framework of the Republic Act No. 9155, otherwise known as the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, a law culled from the decentralization policies of the 1991 LGC.
SBM and SBM Milestones
The SBM is the institutional expression of the decentralization of education to grass root levels—an empowerment model treating school heads as area managers and instructional leaders and not merely as education teachers or supervisors. It operates as an organizational mechanism within the school planning system and implementation processes to continually improve pupils’ achievements and teachers’ performances.
DepEd utilized the SBM as a continuing strategy in 2005 to replace the SFI program. In the early part of the year, around 30 percent of the 183 high schools in the National Capital Region (NCR) included in this study shifted to SBM and started to implement the SBM Milestones. Since then, SBM membership among the secondary schools in the NCR had constantly progressed, and by the end of 2005, 100 percent of the 183 schools adopted the SBM Milestones.
The SBM Milestones are guide points that describe the progression of the qualities or standards of its essential elements and components. The SBM Milestones include: (1) accountable person to lead the SBM, trained, enabled, and designated; (2) stakeholders organized or mobilized; (3) organizational support system installed; (4) School Improvement Plan/Annual Improvement Plan (SIP/AIP) prepared; (5) SIP/AIP budget approved; (6) SIP/AIP implemented; (7) SBM budget executed/SBM fund managed; (8) performance monitored/evaluated and reported; (9) report and feedback utilized; and (10) systems/structures/outcomes improved.
Ordinarily, each of the SBM Milestones works on quality dimensions that start from the basic up to the advanced and intermediate stages of continuous organizational improvement.
Findings
The study initially assesses the pilot stage implementation of the SBM practices in the secondary schools of the NCR and determines the significant effects of the implementation of the SBM and the principals’ school leadership experience on school performance.
The study reveals the following findings:
(1) The extent of compliance during the pilot phase implementation of the SBM Milestones in the basic stage is 69 percent; in the intermediate stage, 64 percent. However, for the advanced stage, the extent of compliance of the SBM Milestones is only 58 percent, just 8 percent above one-half of 100 percent.
(2) The extent of the initial implementation of the SBM Milestones in the interim is not sufficient to positively affect school performance. Time longer than two years may affect tangible and favorable marks.
(3) The extent of implementation in the basic stage as well as the intermediate stage implementation of the SBM Milestones were not influenced by the following indicators of principals’ school leadership experience: (a) school leadership, (b) instructional leadership—improving teaching and learning, (c) creating a student-centered learning environment, (d) professional development and human resource management, (e) parent involvement and community partnership, (f) school management and daily operation, and (g) personal integrity and interpersonal effectiveness.
However, the extent of the advanced stage implementation of the SBM Milestones was strongly influenced by two of the seven leadership indicators namely, instructional leadership—improving teaching and learning, and creating a student-centered learning environment. The strong influence of these two indicators may be due to the prolonged SBM initiatives up to the advanced stage that gives the school principal and professional staff members the widest possible latitude in sustaining efforts to continuously improve the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process.
(4) Effects of the principals’ leadership experience on school performance give the following: School leadership, parent involvement, and community partnership did not significantly affect participation rate, cohort survival rate, completion rate, graduation rate, dropout rate, and NAT rating. School leadership was too briefly exercised and focused more on reorganization and housekeeping issues during the pilot stage implementation of the SBM milestone hardly manifested significant influence on school performance. Similarly, the apathetic attitude of the parents toward the schooling of their children and passive roles of the community in education did not help improve school performance.
In creating a student-centered learning environment, it significantly influenced completion rate, graduation rate, and dropout rate. Professional development and human resource management strongly predicted only cohort survival rate and completion rate. Participation rate, dropout rate, and NAT rating were not significantly related to school management and daily operation and only the participation rate was strongly influenced by personal integrity and interpersonal effectiveness.
(5) The combined effect of the initial implementation of the SBM Milestones from the basic up to the intermediate and advanced stage and the briefly applied principals’ leadership experience did not affect school performance.
Conclusions
From the findings of the study, the following conclusions are declared:
(1) The limited compliance in the pilot stage implementation of the SBM Milestones temporarily restricted the extent of the decentralization of education as envisioned by the operation of the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001.
(2) The limited extent of the implementation of the SBM Milestones, from the basic up to the intermediate and advanced stages, is not sufficient to cause school performance to improve.
(3) The principals’ leadership experience taken alone or even when joined with the limited implementation of the SBM, does not influence school performance.
Sustained and full implementation of the SBM Milestones for a period longer than two years and a genuine principals’ role in ensuring student achievement through an unwavering emphasis on “leadership for student learning” may be required to improve school performance.
____________
Dr Danilo Mata Romero is the Makati Science High School Science and Technology Department Head Teacher III. He obtained his doctor of philosophy, major in educational administration at the University of the Philippines-Diliman in Quezon City as presidential scholar. He earned his master of science in teaching mathematics at De La Salle University in Manila. He graduated cum laude from the Technological University of the Philippines in Manila with a major in Physics education under the Theo Davis Scholarship program.
|
