See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341368245

IMPROVING THE SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

THROUGH PROJECT ReVaMP SBM

Conference Paper · May 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23451.28966

CITATIONS READS

0 701

1 author:

Ryan Lopez Race

Department of Education (Philippines)
180 PUBLICATIONS   4,944 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Learning Continuity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ryan Lopez Race on 14 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 IMPROVING THE SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH

PROJECT ReVaMP SBM

By

RYAN L. RACE
Senior Education Program Specialist
Division of San Pablo City
[email protected]

ABSTRACT

Purpose

This action research aims to improve the School-Based Management (SBM) implementation
in the Division of San Pablo City through Project ReVaMP SBM (Rectifying the Validation and
Mentoring Process in School Based Management).

Design/methodology/approach

In order to develop appropriate solutions to the loopholes in the division's SBM validation
process, an analysis of its current SIPOC (Supplier, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customer) was
conducted. A deployment flowchart was then constructed to identify "storm clouds. A Root-
Cause Analysis using the Why-Why Diagram was done. Solutions were then developed for
each of the root causes, and implementation plan was crafted. Finally, implementation of the
solutions was carried out.

Findings

It was revealed that the division SBM validation process did not comply with the standard.
Schools did not conduct self-assessment, no coordination-meeting was done prior to
validation, there was only one validation team for the whole division, and the guidelines were
unclear for the school SBM implementers. As a result, only 85% of the schools were validated
in SY 2017-2018, which took almost 10 months to finish.

Research limitations/implications

This research dealt with a local problem in SBM validation. Other divisions with similar
problem may replicate the problem solving process utilized in this study to solve their own.

Originality/value

This study improved the SBM implementation in the division by standardizing its process,
developing a standard assessment tool with suggested MOVs, and organizing seven validation
teams. As a result, 100% of the schools were validated which took only 5 months to finish.

Keywords: School-Based Management

1
CONTEXT AND RATIONALE

School–Based Management (SBM) is a strategy to improve education by transferring

significant decision-making authority to individual schools (R.A. 9155). It provides principals, teachers,
students/pupils, parents and the community, greater control over the education process by giving
them responsibility for decisions about the budget, personnel and the curriculum.

It is therefore of paramount importance to keep track of the schools’ levels of SBM practice
for the provision of relevant technical assistance, and/or the development of enabling mechanisms
for the sustainability and replicability of existing best practices.

However, during the validation in SY 2017-2018, which took more than 10 months to finish,
12 schools were not fully validated. That is, only 85% (67 out of 79) schools were validated as against
the standard of 100%.

The Division of San Pablo City, in its desire to continuously improve itself to better serve its
stakeholders embarked on improving the process through Project ReVaMP SBM (Rectifying the
Validation and Mentoring Process in School-Based Management).

STRATEGY

Project ReVaMP SBM is an intervention to improve the SBM implementation in the Division
of San Pablo City through the identification of the root causes of the problems, establishment of a
systematic self-assessment process, equitable and consistent provision of technical assistance, using
standardized assessment tool, creation of a pool of SBM TA providers and validators, proper
coordination among validators, and timely recognition of SBM best implementers.

ACTION RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This research aims to improve the SBM implementation in the Division of San Pablo City
through Project ReVaMP SBM. Specifically, it sought answers to the following questions:

1. What are the root causes of not being able to validate 100% of the schools in the division in
terms of their SBM level of practice during SY 2017-2018?
2. What are the solutions to address the root causes of not being able to validate 100% of the
schools in the division in terms of their SBM level of practice during SY 2017-2018?
3. What are the effects of Project ReVaMP SBM in the division SBM validation process?
4. What are the lessons learned in the implementation of Project ReVaMP SBM?

ACTION RESEARCH METHODS

a. Participants and/or other Sources of Data and Information

The main participants in this action research were the division TA and validation
teams, which included 1 Chief Education Supervisor, 10 Education Program Supervisors,
10 Public School District Supervisors, 9 Education Program Specialists, 1 Planning Officer,
and 4 Project Development Officers; school heads, and school SBM teams. Historical data
on the SBM levels of practice, data from the Enhanced Basic Education Information
System (EBEIS), self-assessment scores, and validation scores were used.

2
b. Data Gathering Methods

In order to develop appropriate solutions to the loopholes in the division's SBM

validation process, an analysis of its current SIPOC (Supplier, Inputs, Process, Outputs,
Customer) was conducted. A deployment flowchart was then constructed to identify
"storm clouds" or problems encountered in each step. A Root-Cause Analysis using the
Why-Why Diagram was done to determine the underlying root causes of the problem.
Solutions were then developed for each of the root causes, and implementation plan was
crafted. Finally, implementation of the solutions was carried out.

The data gathering method in this action research included the use of Microsoft Excel
worksheet obtained from the previous SBM coordinator for the previous levels of
practice. Schools were also required to answer the online self-assessment form. The
content of the Google form followed the indicators in the assessment form contained in
DepEd Order No. 83, s. 2012. The DepEd San Pablo SBM Validation Tool was used to obtain
scores in the 4 principles, and data on the Performance Indicators from the schools. The
form is composed of 5 parts. The first part is for the 4 principles. In it, self-assessment and
validated scores, remarks, cumulative and weighted scores, subtotal for the Principles,
and significant findings/suggestions are included. The second part is for the Learning
Outcomes. Data for school years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 on Enrollment
Rate, Dropout Rate, Completion Rate, Cohort Survival Rate, and NAT/QAR MPS; percent
of decrease/increase, average, equivalent scores, weighted scores, and subtotal for the
Learning Outcomes are included. The third part are the computations for the total score
of the Principles (40%), Learning Outcomes (60%), and final ratings. And the fourth part is
for the assessment of the School Head on the conduct of the validation. It is composed of
four indicators which the School Head had to answer with a “YES” or a “NO”. The
indicators are: 1) Validation Team Leader introduced to the school head and other
concerned school personnel the members of the validating team, and oriented them on
the validating procedures. 2) Validation Team conducted validation of SBM artifacts and
practices using the DepEd San Pablo SBM Assessment Tool, with reference to the
submitted self-assessment data of the school. 3) Validation Team conducted an exit
conference with the school head and other concerned school personnel discussing the
results of the validation, and gave necessary technical assistance. and 4) Validation Team
Leader gave copy of the signed DepEd San Pablo SBM Validation Form to the school head.

After the validation of all the schools, the final levels of practice were then compared
to the previous validation results; data for SY 2017-2018 and SY 2018-2019 in terms of the
percentage of validated schools, and number of months taken to validate all the schools,
were also compared.

3
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND REFLECTION

A. RESULTS

Figure 1. Previous SIPOC of the Division's SBM Validation Process

Figure 1 shows the previous SIPOC of the division SBM validation process. The process
included four steps starting from the issuance of memorandum on the conduct of validation,
validation proper of the four principles and giving of technical assistance, computation of the
Performance Indicators or the Learning Outcomes, and finally the issuance of SBM level of practice
certificates.

Figure 2. Previous Deployment Flowchart

Figure 2 shows the previous deployment flowchart of the division SBM validation process.
Three storm clouds were identified. It was observed that schools received low validation scores,

4
mostly level 1, and some level 2; that the validation took almost 10 months to finish, and the
computation for the performance indicators or learning outcomes (60%) was not completed.

Figure 3. Root-Cause Analysis

Figure 3 shows the root-cause analysis using the Why-Why diagram for the problem
statement. It came out that guidelines were unclear to the SBM implementers which could be a reason
of their low validation scores; that their failure to self-assess was the reason of the incomplete
computation of the performance indicators; and that the cause of the 10-month validation was that
there was only 1 validation team for the whole division.

Table 1. Solutions to Root Causes

Root Cause Solution

Unclear Guidelines  Develop an assessment tool with
suggested MOVs
 Regular provision of technical assistance
Failure to Self-Assess Require schools to conduct self-assessment prior
to the validation proper
Only 1 validation team Organize validation teams assigned to each
district

Table 1 shows the solutions to the root causes of the problem. For the unclear guidelines, an
assessment tool with suggested MOVs will be developed. This is in response to the clamor of school
SBM implementers for the clarification of artifacts as evidences for the indicators. They shall also be
regularly provided with technical assistance. For the failure to assess, schools will be required to
conduct self-assessment prior to the validation proper. An online self-assessment form will be
developed for this purpose. And for the only 1 validation team, seven validation teams shall be
organized, one for each of the seven districts.

5
 Figure 4. Improved SIPOC

Figure 4 shows the improved SIPOC for the SBM validation process. It starts with the self-
assessment of the schools, coordination-meeting, issuance of memorandum, validation proper, and
finally the issuance of certificates (level of practice and recognition). The provision of technical
assistance is done before, during and after the validation.

Figure 5. Improved Deployment Flow Chart

Figure 5 shows the improved deployment flowchart of the SBM validation process. Self-
assessment shall be done by the school SBM implementers, validation teams shall conduct the
coordination-meeting and the validation proper, the SDS shall issue the memorandum, and the SBM
coordinator and the SDS shall issue the certificates for the level of practice and recognition.

6
 Table 2. Solution Implementation Plan

Objectives Activities Time Frame Resources Needed Expected

Manpower Materials Budget Output
Gather self- -Construction November- SEPS and Bond Php1,000 -Online
assessment of Online Self- December EPS II- papers, responses
data from Assessment 2018 SMME, printer, ink, through
schools Form PSDSs equipment Google Form
for the
-Transferring internet -Accomplished
of Self- connection DepEd San
Assessment Pablo SBM
scores on the Validation
SBM Form with the
Validation self-
Form assessment
scores.
-Distribution
of SBM
Validation
Form to PSDSs
Conduct -Conduct of January CID and Bond Php3,000 -Terms of
coordination- coordination- 2019 SGOD papers, ink, Reference
meeting meeting of the personnel meals
members of -Schedule of
the validation Validation
team to
discuss about -DepEd San
the their terms Pablo SBM
of reference, Assessment
schedule of Tool with
validation, and Suggested
assessment MOVs
tool to be
used; and a
revisit of the
provisions of
DO No. 83, s.
2012.
Issue -Issuance of February SEPS and Bond Memorandum
memorandum Memorandum 2019 EPS II- paper, ink, on the conduct
for the SMME, equipment of SBM
conduct of SDS, ITO for the validation
SBM internet
validation. connection
Conduct -Conduct of March-May Validation DepEd San Php -Accomplished
validation of validation 2019 Teams Pablo 10,000 DepEd San
proper of the compose Pablo SBM

7
 SBM Level of schools’ self- d of CID Validation Validation
Practice assessment and SGOD Forms Forms
scores using personnel
the D-O-D
(Documentary
Analysis,
Observation,
and
Discussion)
approach
Issue -Issuance of March- SEPS and Bond Php200 -Issued
certificates Level of August EPS II- papers, ink, certificates
Practice 2019 SMME printer,
Certificate to computer -Accomplished
the school SBM Level of
within 1 Practice
month after Certificate
the validation; Issuance Log
and giving of Sheet
certificate of
recognition to
schools which
achieved Level
III (Advanced)
of practice.
*Provision of SBM technical assistance is a regular agendum of SDO personnel whenever a school visit is
done.

Table 2 shows the solutions implementation plan for the identified root causes. To serve as
basis for the validation, schools were required to accomplish a self-assessment form from November
5, 2018 to January, 2019. The online form not only included the self-assessment per indicator in the
four principles (Leadership and Governance, Curriculum and Learning, Management of Resources, and
Accountability and Continuous Improvement), but also the data on the Performance Indicators or
Improvement in Learning Outcomes (Enrollment Rate, Dropout Rate, Completion Rate, Cohort
Survival Rate, and NAT/QAR MPS). This step is new in the field since there was no self-assessment
scoring required of the schools before the validation proper. Respective PSDSs of the schools were
then given a copy of the self-assessment scores as basis for their provision of technical assistance. On
January 18, 2019 a coordination-meeting among the members of the seven SBM validation teams was
conducted. It was a significant deviation from the previous setup wherein only 1 team, mostly from
the School Governance and Operations Division, served as validators for the whole division. It was
attended by 80% of the validators, the remaining 20% were either attending seminars or on-leave. But
they were, nevertheless, informed of what transpired during the coordination-meeting. The teams
assigned to their members their respective principles to validate. One member was also assigned to
validate the data in the Performance Indicators. One significant output from the coordination-meeting
was the assessment tool to be used in the validation. Suggested Means of Verification (MOVs) were
included in the assessment tool to serve as guide for the school SBM implementers. The assessment
tool was validated by the members themselves, and was immediately given to the PSDSs to be
distributed to the schools for their information and guidance. On February 26, 2019, a memorandum
was issued for the conduct of SBM validation starting March 4 of the same year. The validation proper

8
lasted for almost 5 months, ending in July. Certificates of Level of Practice were given to the schools
within 1 month after the onsite validation. Schools which obtained Level 3 of Practice received a
Certificate of Recognition from the Schools Division Superintendent during a Management Committee
(MANCOM) meeting. It must be noted that all the activities were accomplished even without getting
the budgetary allocation as stated in the implementation plan.

Graph 1. Comparison of the Lengths of Time Spent in SBM Validation, SY 2017-2018 and SY 2018-
2019

Lengths of Time (in months)

Spent for SBM Validation, SY
2017-2018 and SY 2018-2019

10
5
SY 2017-2018 SY 2018-2019

Graph 1 shows that there was a reduction of 50% on the length of time spent in validating all
the schools in the division, from 10 months to only 5 months.

Graph 2. Percentages of Validated Schools, SY 2017-2018 and SY 2018-2019

Percentages of Validated Schools, SY

2017-2018 and SY 2018-2019

100%

85%
SY 2017-2018 SY 2018-2019

Graph 2 shows that 100% of the schools were validated on their SBM level of practice for SY
2018-2019 as compared to the 85% validated schools in SY 2017-2018.

9
B. REFLECTION

This action research aimed at improving the validation process in the Division of San
Pablo City through the implementation of Project ReVaMP SBM. Its main targets were 1)
validate the SBM level of practice of 100% of the schools in the Division of San Pablo City
during SY 2018-2019, and 2) reduce the length of time spent in the validation of all the
schools in the division. Through a systematic problem-solving strategy involving problem
identification, root-cause analysis, and solution development and implementation, both
targets were achieved.

Problem-solving of this nature required the participation and cooperation of all

interested parties, which in the present study included school SBM implementers, and
SDO personnel (OSDS, CID, and SGOD). The information obtained through the self-
assessment responses of the participants gave direction to the SDO personnel on the kind
of technical assistance to be provided, while the coordination-meeting among SDO
validators and TA providers developed in them a common purpose, and consistency in the
validation process.

Risks are inevitable in every project implementation. Among the risks in Project
ReVaMP were the unavailability of validators, and the unavailability/incompleteness of
data of the schools in their Performance Indicators. True enough, such risks were
encountered during the process. Through proper risk management, controls were
developed and implemented. The effects of the unavailability of validators was mitigated
by importing available validators from other teams, and through adjustment of the
schedule; while the unavailability/incompleteness of data of the schools in their
performance indicators was controlled by informing schools in advance to prepare the
needed MOVs and equipment (access to the EBEIS), and allowing them to submit the
MOVs even after the onsite validation.

The period of validation (March to May) posed a significant threat to the process.
Those months were when end-of-school year activities (Moving-Up/Completion and
Graduation ceremonies) were held, teachers were busy accomplishing school forms,
summer INSETs were prepared and conducted, Brigada Eskwela activities were also
prepared and conducted, and SDO personnel were busy for the 2nd external audit for its
ISO certification. For such reasons, the next SBM validation (SY 2019-2020) will be
scheduled earlier, probably November 2019 to January 2020.

As an institution that ensures the delivery and management of quality basic

education, DepEd San Pablo City is committed to continually improve itself through
constant review and adjustment of its processes. This is not yet the end of Project ReVaMP
SBM, as its implementation shall continue and undergo revisions and adjustments to be
even more relevant and responsive for the further improvement of the division’s SBM
implementation.

10
ACTION PLAN

Objectives Activities Time Frame Resources Needed Expected

Manpower Materials Budget Output
Conduct an -Conduct of September SEPS and Meals Php48,000 -Accomplished
SBM SBM 2019 EPS II- attendance
Conference. conference SMME, sheets
where SBM SGOD
booths will be Chief, -Narrative
displayed, SDS, report on the
resource ASDS, CID conduct of the
speakers from Chief, activity
the Regional PSDSs,
Office will be EPSs
invited to
discuss about
SBM
guidelines and
expectations,
school SBM
Best Practices
will be
presented, and
awards to
outstanding
and innovative
SBM practices
will be given.
Gather self- -Online October SEPS and Bond Php1,000 -Online
assessment gathering of 2019 EPS II- papers, responses
data. self- SMME, printer, through
assessment PSDSs ink, Google Form
equipment
data in
for the
preparation internet
-Accomplished
for the SBM connection DepEd San
validation Pablo SBM
Validation
Form with the
self-
assessment
scores.
Conduct -Conduct of October CID and Bond Php3,000 -Finalized
coordination- coordination- 2019 SGOD papers, terms of
meeting of meeting of personnel ink, meals reference,
SBM SBM schedule of
validators. validations to validation,
discuss about tools to be
their terms of used, assigned
reference, schools and

11
 assignment of principles to
principles to validate
the members,
assigned
district to
validate, tools
to be used,
and schedule
of validation.
Issue a -Issuance of a October SEPS and Bond -A
memorandum. memorandum 2019 EPS II- paper, memorandum
on the conduct SMME, ink, on the conduct
of SBM ITO, SDS equipmen of SBM
validation for t for the validation for
SY 2019-2020. internet SY 2019-2020
connectio
n
Conduct onsite -Conduct of November SBM -DepEd Php10,000 -Accomplished
SBM SBM validation 2019- validation San Pablo SBM validation
validation. to the assigned January team SBM form
schools 2020. members Validation
compose Forms
d of CID
and SGOD
personnel
Give -Issuance of November SEPS and Bond Php200 -Issued
certificates. Level of 2019- EPS II- papers, certificates
Practice February SMME, ink,
Certificate to 2020. Records printer, -Accomplished
the school Section computer SBM Level of
within 1 Practice
month after Certificate
the validation; Issuance Log
and giving of Sheet
certificate of
recognition to
schools which
achieved Level
III (Advanced)
of practice.
*Provision of SBM technical assistance is a regular agendum of SDO personnel whenever a school visit is
done.

REFERENCES

DepEd Order 83, s. 2012. “Implementing Guidelines on the Revised School-Based Management (SBM)
Framework Assessment Process and Tools (APAT”.

Republic Act 9155. “Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001”.

12

View publication stats