Assessment of SBM Practice
Standard Level-Model Assessment
Source: BESRA Orientation Handout
August 22-25, 2007- Grand Regal Hotel
Lanang, Davao City
General Purpose:
There are four reasons why we have to monitor and assess SBM practices and the required support systems of school-based management (SBM) at different levels of the department:
1st. The need to continually improve the basic education delivery systems and strategies at the school level. (status and progress of SBM practice)
We have to be able to conclude that the schools are providing what is expected, responding appropriately to what the client needs and the programs are providing what is needed.
2nd. The need to continually improve the required SBM support systems and interventions (status and progress of SBM support programs & initiatives)
The assessment should be able to provide sufficient information as basis for determining areas for and process of interventions at the division and region level (SBM support level), and national level (policy and system support level).
3rd. To determine the effectiveness of school-based management practices and its support systems in the delivery of basic education services (school performance).
We should be able to conclude that SBM practices, with the supporting systems creates efficiency in the delivery of basic education services and are achieving the education/learning outcomes.
4th. To establish the results of investments applied to the implementation of and support SBM.
We have to be able to conclude if the efforts and investments applied to the implementation of and support to SBM merits replication/sustaining.
Assessment Framework
The articulated reasons for assessing SBM practices at the implementation and support levels, implies an assessment framework that includes the following elements:
Levels:
1. INPUT. The main objective of assessment at this level is to establish if the required/critical structures, processes, and skills are in place to move SBM forward.
2. PROGRESS. This level deals with information regarding movement of SBM implementers involved towards the continuum of Progressive to Mature Level of practice
3. RESULTS. This level of assessment should inform the institution whether the:
Objectives of the school-based management (stipulated in the “Framework And Standards For Effective School-Based Management Practice Towards Improved Learning Outcomes”) had been achieved, these include:
i. Empower the school heads to lead their teachers and students in a continuous school improvement process which will lead to higher learning outcomes;
ii. Bring resources including funds within the control of schools to support the delivery of quality educational services;
iii. Strengthen partnership with the communities and LGUs in order for them to invest time, money, and resources in providing a better school learning environment; and
iv. Institutionalize participatory and knowledge-based continuous school improvement process.
The impact of the SBM practice ultimately resulted in the attainment of desired education indicators (refer to SMEF / EFA targets).
For each level of assessment, the framework provides details on the evaluation questions related to a specific SBM Dimension of Practice, the information requirements that specifies what or how the question can be answered, the source of information which indicates the where one can possibly get the information required, Methodology for Analysis of the information requirements and the appropriate instrument to gather the data.
Timing and Use in Planning:
In order to be true to the developmental objectives of the assessment identified above, the assessment has to be administered vis-à-vis the development plan of the Division and Region related to the provision of technical assistance / management support initiatives (e.g. BESRA implementation and support initiatives).
Thus, the table below illustrates the synergy between the assessment and technical assistance (TA) actions:
Levels of Assessment Information Generated Suggested Timing of Assessment Suggested Use of Information in
Planning the TA
INPUT Status of schools in the Standard Level of Practice and the readiness to proceed in the Progressive Level.
Scan level analysis:
Average progress of practice across the six (6) SBM Dimensions (Level 1)
Number of schools achieving SBM Standard Practice (as a package).
Status of Progress in Each SBM Dimension (Level 1).
Focus level analysis:
Progress of schools each indicator per dimension
Areas of strength and improvement per indicator
Description of support requirement as articulated by the school (via the FGD). As baseline: Prior to planning of TA support
Ideally, administration of assessment should be done prior to the start of 3-yr. SIP implementation
Re-administration mid-way of the program support plan. Baseline
Identify the areas/systems that a school needs to establish to put SBM in full swing
Extent of support required per dimension / per indicator
Identify the area of and nature of support or technical assistance to provide (e.g. standards, guidelines, regional policies, descriptions/ criteria, financial and human resource requirements,
Identify the strategy in the provision of TA (e.g. direct training, general IEC, peer / supervisor coaching)
Identify sources of learning (schools) to serve as either models of practice or peer-coaching program.
PROGRESS Status of the schools in the “Progressive to Mature Level” continuum:
Number of schools in achieving SBM Level 2 and 3
Progress of school per SBM Dimension
Progress of schools in each indicator per dimension
Correlation of SBM Practice to annual results of the school. It is highly recommended that a check on progress is synchronized with the annual review of the Annual Improvement Plan (AIP) of the school and prior to the planning of the next AIP.
In some cases, the division/district/ cluster may opt to have a mid-year assessment depending on the discretion of the division management. Status of progress can serve as one of the basis to determine management strategies and programs to implement the next AIP of the school.
Identifies the strengths of schools which can input to the menu of resources/expertise available as models and/or coach
Input to the monitoring of school management and annual supervisory plan/s of the division/region.
Establish the extent and depth of TA to be provided to the school
The areas for improvement can inform the in-service training of school heads, stakeholders and division and region management.
RESULTS Aggregate results of progress
Trend of progress vis-à-vis achievement of desired results
At the end of the implementation of the SIP (3-years)
Milestones of EFA indicators Identify “Best Practices”
Re-program / re-strategize / re-configure the framework and standards for effective SBM Practice, including regional policies and guidelines in the implementation of SBM
Planning for “adoption” of models / programs from identified best practices.
Instrument for Data Gathering
The main tool to establish the information for the Input Level is a “readiness” checklist. This contains 28 questions regarding the six (6) dimensions of SBM Practices at Standard Level (Level 1) which were taken from the “Matrix of SBM Dimensions by Scale of Practice” of the “Framework and Standards for Effective School-Based Management Practice Towards Improved Learning Outcomes”. The questions were formed by synthesizing the practices in the matrix to 28 behavior statements and converting each into question form. Basically, each question asks if the school manifests a specific (required) SBM Standard Practice or not. Thus, each question has a list of indicators (characteristics of the practice) that must first be evident to say the SBM practice is in place. The checklist further qualifies the practice into 3 categories: a) Starting , if 59% of the indicators had been met); b) In-progress, if 60-79% of the indicators are achieved; and c) Practicing, if 80-100% of the indicators are all evident in the school.
Each SBM dimension is to be answered by a group of school stakeholders relevant to the dimension. Thus, the responses are considered as a group answer through consensus. The table below provides the list of SBM dimensions, the intended respondents for each dimension and the number of questions per dimension.
SBM Dimension Respondents Number of questions
SBM 1. School Leadership 1. School head
2. Assistant school head and/or head teacher/s 4 questions
SBM 2. Internal Stakeholders 1. Parent association representative
2. Teacher association chair
3. Head of student council 4 questions
SBM 3. External Stakeholders 1. Parent association representative
2. LGU/Barangay chair / representative
3. Chair of any other active groups involved in the school (e.g. NGOs, alumni association 4 questions
SBM 4. School Improvement Process 1. School head
2. Parent association representative
3. Teacher association chair
4. Head of student council 5 questions
SBM 5. School-Based Resources 1. School head
2. School budget officer
3. PTCA chair
4. LGU/Barangay chair / representative 7 questions
SBM 6. School Performance Accountability Same as SBM 4 and the LGU/Barangay chair / representative 4 questions
The checklist is also complimented by a focused group discussion (FGD) session to establish information regarding the articulated needs / support the school needs to achieve the indicators that had been marked as “Starting” and “In-progress”. The facilitator of the FGD session has to be very keen in clarifying whatever had been raised as issue and patient in probing the support requirements of the school.
Data Gathering
The administration of the checklist requires three meetings:
1st. School head’s orientation on the intent/objectives, structure and instructions of the checklist. The terminologies in the checklist as well as use of results should also be discussed very well with the school heads to ensure they are clear with the value of the exercise. An administrator of the checklist is required for this meeting. A district supervisor or cluster head can perform this function. (Time frame: 3 hours)
2nd. Dissemination of the sections of the checklist relevant to a group of stakeholders. This responsibility is performed by the school head. He/she needs to call for the various respondent-groups to explain the intent/objectives, structure, terminologies and instructions in the checklist. (Time frame: 3 hours for discussion and a day for respondents to respond, including checking for the documents)
3rd. Summarizing results per school, tallying of district/cluster results and FGD. The Administrator meets the school heads to help them summarize the results per school (summary form is provided with the checklist). Next, a tally board (prepared earlier) is to be filled up based on the results of the schools to derive the profile of the district/cluster. The FGD is then held, focusing on areas of improvement. The intent of having a district/cluster profile is to immediately generate a basis for planning technical assistance to the district/cluster of schools. (Time Frame: 3 hours)
Method of Processing and Analysis of Data
The process of assessment done was partly guided by the “Lines of Enquiry ” frame. This frame suggests that in understanding / monitoring specific areas of concern begin from a “scan” of both outcomes and provision of support (“getting the big picture”) and combining these findings, move to a more “focus” enquiry to probe and understand the areas of concern.
Following this line of thought, the processing and analysis of the data on the Assessment of SBM Practices followed the steps below:
1. Calculate the progress of all schools across the six SBM dimensions (Level 1 Practice)
2. Quantify the progress of all schools under each SBM dimension (Level 1 Practice) to narrow down the inquiry to a specific dimension. This provides a “big” picture of the status of school SBM practice (Level 1) where one can note the areas of progress and challenges.
3. Establish the degree of progress under each indicator of SBM Dimension (Level 1). This will give focused information on a specific SBM dimension of interest (e.g. an indicator to provide improve or area of technical assistance).
4. The results of the focused group discussion on a dimension of interest is then retrieved for correlation to the quantitative information to further give an idea of the specifics of technical assistance or resource requirement required to support the school/.s
