Pa ge 1 Pa ge 26 American Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Innovation (AJMRI) Levels of Perception on School-Based Management Implementation in San Luis National High School, Philippines Elisa T. Pepugal1* Volume 1 Issue 4, Year 2022 ISSN: 2158-8155 (Online), 2832-4854 (Print) DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajmri.v1i4.516 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Article Information ABSTRACT Received: August 22, 2022 Accepted: August 26, 2022 Published: August 28, 2022 The goal of school-based management (SBM) is to empower school personnel to improve, innovate, and foster ongoing professional development in schools. SBM was developed to make a fundamental change in educational practice. This study aimed to determine and evaluate the levels of perception on school-based management implementation in San Luis National High School, San Luis District-I, Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines. The study employed and utilized descriptive-correlational survey research design. Furthermore, the questionnaires were sent to the San Luis National High School teachers and the ran- domly chosen teachers who visited the aforementioned school to serve as study participants. Hence, it reveals that 64.15% (127 out of 198) of respondents are female and 35.85% (71 out of 198) are male. Based on the findings, a moderate descriptive rating for each di- mension of school-based management (SBM) implementation is indicated by an overall mean rating of 3.37 and a standard deviation of 0.637. Wherein, all scored higher than the minimum standard: leadership and governance, 3.66±0.729; curriculum and learning, 3.39±0.542; accountability and continuous improvement, 2.98±0.691; and management of resources, 3.43±0.607. Based on how the data was processed, the Pearson correlation is equivalent to 0.541 with a r2 of 0.365. The positive correlation coefficient of determination (r), which is comparable to the significance threshold of p< .05. The perception of school- based management (SBM) implementation among teachers in this regard was determined to be moderate. Additionally, it was discovered that the level of SBM implementation was exceeding the minimum standard. Keywords School-Based Management, Implementation, Perception, Dimensions, Standard 1 San Luis National High School, San Luis, Agusan del Sur, Philippines. * Corresponding author’s e-mail: elisa.pepugal@deped.gov.ph INTRODUCTION The school-based management program was created and designed to enhance transparency and accountability through two main channels: empowering the school community to identify educational priorities and allocating school maintenance and operating budgets to those priorities (particularly curriculum enrichment programs); and through the use of annual implementation plans and school report cards. However, no clear assumptions were made by the SBM program on the timetable during which student success increases were anticipated to occur. It’s also impossible to obtain systematic information on the extent of adoption and application of the main reforms’ provisions. Academic standards, school reform, and the teaching profession have all been hotly debated issues for many years. The National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) published the report “A Nation at Risk” in 1983 in an effort to better the future of education. School-Based Management (SBM) has been used in our educational system for a number of years, despite having been used in other countries’ educational systems for decades. It has been successful in helping schools in Thailand, the United States, Australia, Indonesia, New Zealand, England and Wales, and other countries realize their desired goals and outcomes. Some academics and researchers contend that parental and community involvement in schools has led to the improvement of educational institutions and student performance (Werf, Creemers, & Guldemond, 2000; Leroy, 2002). Th e goal of school-based management (SBM) is to transform educational practices and provide school workers the authority to improve learning environments and foster ongoing professional development (1987). It is intended to provide secondary schools with the tools they need to empower their key officials to make knowledgeable local decisions based on their particular needs in order to improve the educational system. This initiative is an important part of the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) (Tapayan, Francisco, & Bentor, 2016). The Philippines’ K–12 basic education program, meantime, was developed in response to the need to increase the graduates’ global competitiveness because the country’s prior ten-year basic education cycle had been deemed insufficient for further education and the job market. This has been the situation of abroad Filipino employees who have completed the ten-year basic education program but are not automatically regarded as professionals in other nations of the world (Brouwer, Brekelmans, Nieuwenhuis, & Simons, 2012). More so, in order to better emphasize the learner as the center of SBM practice, incorporate the diverse realities of learning contexts defined and uniquely occurring within specific geographic, social, cultural, economic, political, and environmental make-up of the modern society, and improve commitment of education stakeholders at all levels to their responsibilities and accountabilities in achieving the educational outcomes for children, SBM had been revised (Department of Education, 2012). The Department of Education (DepEd) has been putting into https://doi.org/10.54536/ajmri.v1i4.516 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 27 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 26-34, 2022 practice a number of projects, programs, and activities (PPA) that will achieve school-based management (SBM) and other solid philosophical and legal frameworks of the department, both now and in the past. Brigada Eskwela, Every Child A Reader Program, the School First Initiative, the Child-Friendly School System, Project WATCH (We Advocate Time Consciousness and Honesty), and the Adopt-A-School Program are some of these PPAs (Cabardo, 2016). However, the effect of SBM on educational quality, including student outcomes, is still a hotly debated topic in today’s world. Some researchers contend that SBM improves educational outcomes (Gertler, Patrinos, & Rubio-Codina, 2006), whereas others assert that SBM degrades educational quality, particularly in the least effective schools (Bardhan, 2002). The discussion of SBM quality is complicated and inflexible due to the variety of SBM approaches and the environments in which they are used. The variety of decentralization strategies and components that collectively make up “School-Based Management,” as well as the institutional and sociocultural contexts in which they are used, make evaluation of SBM challenging. However, certain research conducted recently have discovered a link between SBM changes and enhanced educational procedures and outcomes in the school setting (Skoufias & Shapiro, 2006; Sawada & Ragatz, 2005; Gunnarsson, Orazem, Sanchez, & Verdisco, 2004; Eskeland & Filmer, 2002). Withal, the usefulness of SBM in improving student achievement and academic performances, however, lacks a strong empirical foundation. According to a recent analysis of the empirical literature on SBM since 1995, just 14 studies used rigorous techniques to evaluate the impact of SBM, and only six of those studies indicated improvements in students’ test results (Barrera-Osorio, Fasih, & Patrinos, 2009). So, it begs the question of what effect SBM reorganization is having on teachers’ worklife. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine and evaluate the levels of perception on school-based management implementation in San Luis National High School, San Luis District-I, Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines. Statement of the Problem This study aims to evaluate and determine the levels of perception on school-based management implementation in San Luis National High School, San Luis District-I, Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines. Specifically, this study seeks to answers the following questions: 1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of: 1.1 Age 1.2 Gender 1.3 Length of Years in Service 1.4 Level of SBM Implementation of the School Assigned 2. What are the levels of perception of the respondents on the implementation of School-Based Management in San Luis National High School, Division of Agusan del Sur in terms of the following: 2.1 Leadership and Governance 2.2 Curriculum and Learning 2.3 Accountability and Continuous Improvement 2.4 Management of Resources 3. What plan of action may be greatly developed to further improve the implementation of School-Based Management (SBM) in San Luis National High School, Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines? Null Hypothesis As basis whether to negate or confirm the hypothesis, the following null hypothesis was formulated: H01: There is no significant relationship between the levels of perception on school-based management (SBM) implementation in San Luis National High School, San Luis District-I, Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines. Conceptual Framework Conceptual framework of the study on the levels of perception of the respondents to the school-based management (SBM) implementation in San Luis National High School, San Luis District-I, Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines. Figure 1: The Schematic Framework of the Study. Scope and Delimitation of the Study The study focused on determining and evaluating levels of perception regarding school-based management implementation in San Luis National High School, San Luis District-I, Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines. The assessment involved only selected autonomous secondary teachers in Agusan del Sur Division, Philippines, thus limiting the generalizability of the results of this study to a certain teachers’ perception. LITERATURE REVIEW In recent years, there has been intense criticism of the quality of education in the United States. There have been numerous definitions of the role that schools play in the education of our country’s youth. As a result, the expectations for educators are shifting, and the function of the teacher appears to be in an evolutionary stage. Policymakers are under pressure from current reform movements to push teachers to raise academic standards for kids and hold instructors to higher standards in order to improve the nation’s education (Pipho, 1986). An important necessity in education today is to evaluate schools from a much wider perspective. Related literature and studies from past years were studied to put the study https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 28 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 26-34, 2022 into context. Simply focusing on “life adjustment,” “relevancy,” responsibility, or fundamental education will only serve to prolong outdated concepts and structures that need to be changed. Reconstructionist need to be more radical in their efforts to alter current social institutions, like the school, in order to make them more receptive to the needs of people (Ozonon and Craver, 2008). However, current research has revealed that SBM improvements are linked to enhanced educational outcomes and procedures (Skoufias & Shapiro, 2006; Sawada & Ragatz, 2005; Gunnarsson, Orazem, Sanchez, & Verdisco, 2004; Eskeland & Filmer, 2002). Nonetheless, there is little solid data to support SBM’s ability to improve student performance. Only 14 research used rigorous methodologies to evaluate the impact of SBM, and only six of those studies indicated favorable outcomes on children’ test scores, according to a recent analysis of the empirical literature on the subject published since 1995. (Barrera-Osorio, Fasih, & Patrinos, 2009). Eleven research from Latin America are country-specific, one is from Kenya, and two use data from various nations. There is no East Asian empirical evidence available. Restructuring using school-based management (SBM) aims to involve teachers and other people who interact closely with students in decision-making processes. As S. pointed out According to Conley (1991), “school-based management, a type of shared governance and one of the most active areas of policy experimentation, may be a potential vehicle for enhancing teacher participation”. SBM has been a crucial feature of school restructuring among the reform movements and asks for “participatory policy-making and administration at the individual school building itself ” (Goldman, Dunlap & Conley, 1993). Accordingly, a quality education system’s fundamental tenets include: being relevant to students’, communities’, and society’s needs; fostering students’ ability to gain knowledge and the necessary 21st-century skills; and being successful in fulfilling each school’s targeted goals and outcomes (Stone et al., 2007). When effective learning is not occurring in schools, quality is not the only thing preventing children from attending. When this occurs, a number of things may be considered as causes, including poor teaching-learning experiences provided by teachers, having incompetent faculty on the rosters of teachers, improper management of the educational system by school heads, poor leadership potential, and misguided governance of the school administrator (Grauwe, 2004). Everything will depend on how schools accept and use school-based management (Edge, 2000). Furthermore, the devolution of decision- making power to schools is known as “school-based management.” To raise academic achievement, school administrators, instructors, and students collaborate with local government representatives, business owners, and other stakeholders at the school level. In the context of SBM, decentralization refers to the transfer of responsibility for planning school improvement, raising, assigning, and managing resources down to the school sites from the central, regional, and division levels (DepEd Order NO. 230, series 1999). Gamage and Zajda (2005), made the strong point that the idea of local community participation and partnership in school-based management (SBM) is a major concern in school reforms where decentralization and delegation of authority occurs at the school level thus empowering the school community to perform the majority of the functions previously performed by the central region or the district. The individuals who are closest to the students, teachers, school administrators, parents, and members of the community are best equipped to identify the approaches that will best serve the requirements of their individual learners. The theory underlying SBM holds that effective education requires not only physical input, such as classrooms, teachers, and textbooks, but also incentives that promote better instruction and learning, as noted by Brouwer, Brekelmans, Nieuwenhuis, and Simons (2012). They emphasized that institutional incentives, which may be divided into three categories: choice and competition, school autonomy, and school responsibility, are what influence learning outcomes. The dynamics of the school have actually changed as a result of SBM policies, and principal leadership has improved student learning by fostering conditions that are supportive of teaching and learning (Sanzo et al., 2011). This reaffirmed Crum and Sherman’s (2008) findings, which emphasized the fact that parents became more involved and/or teachers modified their approaches. The SBM initiative implemented in randomly chosen schools “had large positive effects on student test scores,” these effects being the result of “a combination of smaller class sizes, more teacher incentives, and greater parental oversight.” Duflo, Dupas, and Kremer (2007) also provided strong evidence for the impact of SBM in their randomized experiment in Kenya. METHODOLOGY Research Design This study employed and used descriptive-correlational survey research design. A descriptive research design is employed, according to Calmorin (1996), when a study focuses on the current situation and seeks fresh truth. It is only helpful when the data to be obtained relates to the current situation, offering the value of facts and concentrating attention on the most crucial items to report. On the other hand, correlational design is useful in supplying information on which scientific judgment is based when identifying the link between two variables using correlation analysis, based on the calculated and examined data. The method of descriptive-survey was used in this investigation. The questionnaire was the primary tool used to collect data for the study, and the measuring processes and data analysis rigorously adhered to those of surveys or descriptive research. https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 29 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 26-34, 2022 Research Locale The study focused on teachers’ levels of perceptions on SBM implementation and included the teachers at San Luis National High School as well as one hundred and ninety-eight (198) other fiscally autonomous secondary teachers in the Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines. Sampling Design and Techniques The study was used and employed purposive sampling design. Purposive sampling is used to choose a sample that the researcher believes, based on prior knowledge and understanding of the sample respondents, will offer the data needed in the study, according to Fraenkel and Wallen (1993) and Birion and De Jose (2000). In this research, the ability and knowledge of the teachers in San Luis National High School and selected random secondary teachers within the Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines, were examined. To determine the levels of perception on school-based management (SBM) implementation, the researcher-made questionnaires are being developed and to be administered to the sample respondents. Moreover, the selected teachers are based on the premise that these schools and teachers have maintained sets of practices in school-based management and can be easily reached by the researcher. Research Instrument In this study, two-part questionnaires that were created and redesigned by researchers are used. The study instrument’s first section asks about the respondents’ demographic profile. Part II is a researcher-restructured questionnaire adapted from the Department of Education Revised School-Based Management Assessment Tool based on DepEd Order No. 83, s. 2012.This tool evaluates the four (4) SBM implementation dimensions based on the Revised SBM Manual. More so, assesses and evaluates the levels of perception on school-based management (SBM) implementation. Data Gathering Procedure With approval, questionnaires were sent to the San Luis National High School teachers and the randomly chosen teachers who visited the aforementioned school to serve as study participants. Following the recovery of the questionnaires, data analysis and interpretation were carried out perfectly. Statistical Treatment of Data The results of this investigation were treated, analyzed, and interpreted using the following statistical methods: (a) Mean and Standard Deviation, Frequency and Percentage. The research issues of the study were addressed using these statistical techniques. (b) Regression analysis with a 5% level of significance and Pearson Product Moment Correlation (Pearson r). Respondents’ Rights, Ethical Protection and Consideration Addressing and prioritizing the ethical consideration of respondents’ rights and ethical concerns involved three different points of view. Originally provided to protect the subjects’ (the study’s dependent variable) identities. This problem was solved by gathering all the data pertinent to the evaluation. By approving a consent or waiver form, the instructors’ respondents formally consented to take part in the survey. Once the study is over, the researchers will also remove the collected data. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The demographic profile of the respondents in terms of: age, gender, length of years in service, and level of school-based management (SBM) implementation of the school assigned. This chapter presents the results and discussions of the data based on the research questions of the study. It includes the levels of perception on school-based management implementation in San Luis National High School, San Luis District-I, Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines. Table 1 shows the demographic profile of the secondary teachers in San Luis National High School in the Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines, particularly of those selected teachers who visited the aforementioned school. It reveals that 64.15% (127 out of 198) of respondents are female and 35.85% (71 out of 198) are male. This implies that the majority of the respondents to the study are female. Moreover, it reveals that 5.05% (10 out of 198) of the respondents were 51 to Table 1: The demographic profile of the secondary teachers in the Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines. Demographic Profile Variables Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Age 20 to 30 years 50 25.25 31 to 40 years 89 44.95 41 to 50 years 49 24.75 51 to 60 years 10 5.05 60 to up years 0 0 Gender Male 71 35.85 Female 127 64.15 Length of Years in Service 0 to 5 years 10 5.05 6 to 10 years 71 35.85 11 to 15 years 66 33.33 20 to 25 years 49 24.75 26 to up years 2 1.02 Total 198 100 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 30 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 26-34, 2022 60 years old, 24.75% (49 out of 198) were 41 to 50 years old, 25.25% (50 out of 198) were 20 to 30 years old, and 44.95% (89 out of 198) were 31 to 40 years old. Thus, this implies that the majority of the respondents were 31 to 40 years old, which is an appropriate age for getting more experience at school and school involvement. Based on the findings, it was greatly indicated that 35.85% or (71 out of 198) got the length of years in service at 6 to 10 years, whereas 33.33% (66 out of 198) was 11 to 15 years. In Table 2, it illustrates the level of school-based management (SBM) implementation of the school assigned. It was explicitly indicated that among the study’s participants, only a few had answers or responses to this statement designed by the researchers. A total of 33 respondents who provided their input on this statement variable had a level of SBM implementation of 14.64% (level 1), whereas the level 2 for SBM implementation had a level of 2.02%. Furthermore, at level 3, the school-based management implementation had no corresponding percentage based on the conducted assessment. Sur in terms of the following dimensions: leadership and governance; curriculum and learning; accountability and continuous improvement; and management of resources. Table 3 summarizes the findings of the teachers’ perceptions of SBM implementation. As shown in the table, an overall mean rating of 3.37 with a standard deviation of 0.637 denotes a moderate descriptive rating for the level of perception on each dimension of the SBM implementation. The results suggest that there is still a need for the schools to be encouraged to achieve more development and graft on SBM implementation. This implies that the stated indicator of the level of perception on school-based management (SBM) is manifested and observed in some dimensions; therefore, it should be explicitly monitored and occurring in the school premises. Furthermore, a high descriptive rating was found in the indicators of leadership and governance and management of resources, such as: the school development plan is updated by the school community to make it more accessible and relevant to changing demands, issues, and opportunities; and establishing a community-developed resource management system that motivates stakeholders to behave appropriately, with mean ratings of 3.83 for both indicators, respectively. Moreover, a moderate rating for the level of perception of school-based management (SBM) was found in the four (4) indicators, namely, leadership and governance; curriculum and learning; accountability and continuous improvement; and management of resources. Many academics claim that the traditional leadership style is no longer employed in managing and leading schools. Teachers and school administrators must now develop their leadership skills to become transformational (Adams et al., 2008; Hoy et al., 2008; Yukl, 2006; and Huber, 2004). In order for schools to be successful, administrators and teachers must effectively regulate each student’s rules and behavior. These are the statement variables under the 4 indicators who plainly attained the moderate ratings, such as, developing an implementation plan in collaboration with school and community stakeholders; developing a Table 2: The level of school-based management (SBM) implementation of the school assigned in the division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines Level of SBM Implementation of the School Assigned Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Level 1 29 14.64 Level 2 4 2.02 Level 3 0 0 The levels of perception of the respondents on the implementation of school-based management in San Luis National High School, division of Agusan del Sur in terms of: leadership and governance, curriculum and learning, accountability and continuous improvement, and management of resources. The levels of perception of the respondents on the implementation of school-based management at San Luis National High School in the division of Agusan del Table 3: Levels of perception of the respondents on the implementation of school-based management (SBM). Indicators of School-Based Management Mean SD Descriptive Rating A. Leadership and Governance 1. Developing an implementation plan in collaboration with school and community stakeholders. 3.50 0.785 Moderate 2. Developing sustainable programs designed to satisfy the need to prepare and advance each community leader. 3.69 0.635 High 3. Building a leadership network and addressed school-community wide learning issues. 3.52 0.678 High 4. The school development plan is updated by the school community to make it more accessible and relevant to changing demands, issues, and opportunities. 3.83 0.835 High 5. Reviewing, monitoring, and evaluating SIP. 3.75 0.712 High B. Curriculum and Learning 1. Developing a curriculum that is relevant to life and society. 3.43 0.408 Moderate 2. Developing a curriculum that meets the development needs of all type of learners. 3.04 0.582 Moderate 3. Cultivating values and environments that protects all learners. 3.69 0.635 High 4. Developing materials and processes for creative thought and revolving issues. 3.73 0.701 High https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 31 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 26-34, 2022 5. Incorporating learner and community-friendly methods that are fun, healthy, inclusive, and accessible. 3.14 0.408 Moderate 6. Monitoring of learning systems by the stakeholders with the aid of suitable tools. 3.33 0.516 Moderate C. Accountability and Continuous Improvement 1. Achieving targets identified on a collaboratively designed performance accountability network. 2.91 0.771 Moderate 2. Defining the functions and obligations of responsible and accountable persons and collective bodies. 3.09 0.833 Moderate 3. Improving accountability framework to keep management process and structures flexible enough to respond to changing needs and demands of learners. 3.11 0.777 Moderate 4. Facilitating participatory performance evaluation. 2.84 0.344 Moderate 5.Developing standards and tools for feedback systems and evidence-based data collection and validation approaches and procedures for transparent assessment and evaluation. 2.99 0.729 Moderate D. Management of Resources 1. Establishing a community-developed resource management system that motivates stakeholders to behave appropriately. 3.83 0.835 High 2. Strengthening and maintaining a relationship across a network and linkage management framework for better resource management. 3.75 0.712 High 3. Bringing stakeholders together regularly for planning and resource allocation. 3.40 0.518 Moderate 4. Conducting routine resource inventories by the learning supervisors, facilitators, and community representatives for resource distribution and mobilization. 3.17 0.448 Moderate 5. Observing regular evaluation of resource-management process by learning administrator, facilitators, and group members. 3.01 0.523 Moderate OVERALL 3.37 0.637 Moderate Legend: SD; Standard Deviation; and Interpretation Scale: below-1:50 Very Weak, 1.6-2.5 Weak, 2.6-3.5 Moderate, 3.6-4.5 High, 4.6-Above Very High curriculum that is relevant to life and society; developing a curriculum that meets the development needs of all types of learners; incorporating learner and community- friendly methods that are fun, healthy, inclusive, and accessible; monitoring of learning systems by the stakeholders with the aid of suitable tools; defining the functions and obligations of responsible and accountable persons and collective bodies; improving the accountability framework to keep management processes and structures flexible enough to respond to changing needs and demands of learners; facilitating participatory performance evaluation; facilitating participatory performance evaluation; developing standards and tools for feedback systems; conducting routine resource inventories by the learning supervisors, facilitators, and community representatives for resource mobilization; and observing regular evaluation of resource-management process by the learning administrator, facilitators, and group members with mean ratings of 3.50, 3.43, 3.14, 3.17, and 3.01 respectively (Table 3). Table 4: Levels of schools in the implementation of School-Based Management (SBM). Indicators of School-Based Management Mean SD Descriptive Equivalent Leadership and Governance 3.66 0.729 Exceeding the Minimum Standard Curriculum and Learning 3.39 0.542 Exceeding the Minimum Standard Accountability and Continuous Improvement 2.98 0.691 Exceeding the Minimum Standard Management of Resources 3.43 0.607 Exceeding the Minimum Standard OVERALL 3.37 0.637 Exceeding the Minimum Standard The ratings for each school’s level of School-Based Management (SBM) implementation at San Luis National High School, San Luis District-I, Division of Agusan del Sur, are summarized in Table 4. The overall descriptive equivalent of exceeding the minimum standard with a mean of 3.37±0.637, as shown in the table, indicates that the SBM supply or condition is extensive and performing extremely successfully. This suggests that, in terms of the overall level of SBM implementation, schools have done so quite successfully and functionally. Furthermore, it suggests that everyone involved is cooperating to strengthen the institution as a whole. Taken individually, the following indicators all scored higher than the minimum standard: leadership and governance, 3.66±0.729; curriculum and learning, 3.39±0.542; accountability and continuous improvement, 2.98±0.691; and management of resources, 3.43±0.607. According to Bandur (2008), schools can improve system environments and foster healthier school climates by implementing School-Based Management (SBM), which offers better teaching and learning settings where instructors are more motivated to raise student success levels. Withal, as an emphasized by Cranston (2001), schools should constantly be prepared to connect with community stakeholders in order to facilitate any shortcomings in the plant facilities and resources of the schools. The majority https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 32 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 26-34, 2022 of people agree that schools cannot function in isolation from the community, and that community ties should be strengthened in order for schools to advance and achieve their objectives (Allawan, 2012). Studies conducted in recent years have shown that school-based management (SBM) has significantly improved student achievement and school performance and concurred that SBM influences the enhancement of student results (Gamage, 2006; Dempster, 2000). Additionally, these findings were corroborated by the findings of Blank (2004), who found that through fostering connections between schools and various community organizations, school-based administration can help students learn better and improve the learning process. Creating partnerships between families, communities, and schools, he continued, is intimately tied to raising student performance levels since doing so results in the delivery of services and assistance that cater to the diverse needs of the kids. According to Sheldon and Voorhis (2004), community and parental attachment enhance school- Table 5: The significant relationship between the respondents’ perceptions of the implementation of school- based management (SBM) at the aforementioned school was tested. Variation df SS MS F Significance F p-Value Between the Group 1 21.4952 21.4952 197.71** 1.70** 0.005 Within the Group 197 12.5401 0.7883 Total 198 34.0353 22.28352 Legend: Pearson r = 0.541; r2=0.365: P-Value is < .00001. The result is significant at p < .05. based management, which lends credence to this theory. The substantial correlation between the respondents’ perceptions of the adoption of school-based management (SBM) at the aforementioned school was displayed in Table 5. Based on how the data was handled, the table’s Pearson correlation is equal to 0.541 with a r2 of 0.365. The table also displays the values of the correlation coefficient of determination and the variability of the scores around the regression line, with r being positive and about equivalent to the significance threshold of p<.05. As a result, it amply demonstrates a moderate linear correlation as well as a significant association between the variables. The outcome also demonstrates that the computed F-value, which is higher than the tabular F-value, for the correlation coefficient at the 5% level of significance was 197.71**. It is further demonstrated that there is a significant link between the variables by the p-value of 0.005, which is less than = 0.05. Therefore, there is sufficient data to rule out the null hypothesis. As a result, there is a substantial correlation between the degree of school-based management implementation and the perception of the teaching staff and the instructors who visited the aforementioned school. The stakeholders at the various school facilities were more engaged the more SBM was used by the school administrators. According to research by Bandur (2008), San Antonio & Gamage (2007), Anderson (2006), and Cranston (2001), SBM is an effective strategy for giving local school stakeholders more control and responsibility over decision-making. Summary This study was conducted to determine and evaluate the levels of perception of school-based management (SBM) in San Luis National High School, San Luis District-I, Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines. The respondents of the study were the teachers of the aforementioned school and the teachers who visited the said school during the benchmarking activity. The descriptive-correlation research design was utilized in this study. The questionnaire was the primary tool used to collect raw data for the study. The demographic profile of the secondary teachers in San Luis National High School in the Division of Agusan del Sur, Philippines, particularly of those selected teachers who visited the aforementioned school, it reveals that 64.15% (127 out of 198) of respondents are female and 35.85% (71 out of 198) are male. This implies that the majority of the respondents to the study are female. The results indicate that a moderate descriptive rating for each dimension of school-based management (SBM) implementation is indicated by an overall mean rating of 3.37 and a standard deviation of 0.637. The findings imply that further encouragement for schools to design and work on SBM implementation is still required. Moreover, the ratings for each school’s level of School- Based Management (SBM) implementation at San Luis National High School, San Luis District-I, Division of Agusan del Sur, are summarized in Table 4. The overall descriptive equivalent of exceeding the minimum standard with a mean of 3.43±0.637. Also, it indicates that the SBM supply or condition is extensive and performing extremely successfully. Hence, the indicators for leadership and governance (3.66±0.729), curriculum and learning (3.39±0.542), accountability and continuous improvement (2.98±0.691), and resource management (3.43±0.607) all achieved higher scores than the minimal standard. The table’s Pearson correlation is equivalent to 0.541 with a r2 of 0.365 based on how the data was handled. The correlation coefficient of determination (r), which is positive and roughly similar to the significance criterion of p<.05. The table also shows the values of the scores’ variability around the regression line. The result also shows that the computed F-value for the correlation coefficient at the 5% level of significance was 197.71**, which is greater than the tabular F-value. Thus, school- based management and resources can be incorporated https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 33 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 26-34, 2022 with administrative management wherein several management reforms could be instituted to make schools become an arena of honesty, trust, and confidence, which would result in worthwhile endeavor and exemplary performance. CONCLUSION The following inferences are made based on the study’s findings: School-based management (SBM) strategies are a part of enhancing the educational system. It greatly aids in achieving the DepEd’s thrust, mission, and goals. It serves as an evaluation of the roles, responsibilities, and obligations of school heads as outlined in Republic Act 9155. The ability of the principal and teachers to address the various concerns, challenges, gaps, and priorities the school is addressing is also measured. It reveals factors that must be prioritized in order to improve performance. In this regard, the teachers’ perception of the implementation of school-based management (SBM) was found to be moderate. Additionally, the level of SBM implementation was found to be exceeding the minimum standard. Lastly, the level of perception of the teachers can be significantly impacted by the level of SBM implementation in the aforementioned school. RECOMMENDATIONS The following actions are advised in light of the findings and conclusions presented above: 1. The aforementioned school may improve the level of school-based management implementation in order to improve the level of incisiveness and participation of teachers, school stakeholders, and other school-initiated activities and action plans. 2. The school would broaden its vision and objectives to encompass the community and use technology into the teaching and learning process. Although parents may not be directly involved in planning, administering, or assessing school activities that are directly related to students’ learning activities, school authorities may establish good relationships with them. Collaboration has a history of moving communities forward. 3. Additionally, to inform the many stakeholders of the information and the value of school-based management, seminars and conferences may be held at the school level. Additionally, this will assuage any contrasting opinions about what school-based management is. 4. To cover a larger range, more study addressing school-based management (SBM) implementation and the degree of perception of school administrators and teachers has to be done. Future research on the following issues is advised, including openness and accountability methods, duties of a school leader to teachers, and external stakeholders in school reform. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge with utmost gratitude to the following people who never doubted in helping the study successfully. • To Mr. Jeffry M. Saro, LPT, MSci.Ed-Ongoing, the study’s statistician and research consultant. He offered comments that were beneficial and shared his knowledge of how to interpret data. Additionally, he offered advice that inspired the author to conduct and complete the study. • To Mr. Michael S. Pareja, Principal II, the principal of San Luis National High School, San Luis District-I, Division of Agusan del Sur, for his positive response to this research project and for giving inspiration to all the teachers in the said school. • To Mrs. Annie C. Silabay, the Division SBM Coordinator of Agusan del Sur, Caraga Region. • To the family of the author for their unconditional love and support, both emotional needs and being an inspiration. • To the Almighty God for giving her wisdom, strength, guidance, protection and blessings bestowed on her. Conflict of Interest and Funding The author does not have any contending interests in the study. The study was personally funded and explicitly initiated by the researcher. REFERENCES Adams, D., & Gamage, D.T. (2008). A Study of Leadership Effectiveness in a Large VET Institution in Australia. International Journal of Educational Management, 22(3), 214- 228. Allawan, F.D. (2012). School’s Community Partnership Practices and Stakeholders’ Involvement in Digos City Division. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Southern Philippines AgriBusiness and Marine and Aquatic School of Technology, Matti, Digos City. Bandur, A. (2008). A Study of the Implementation of School-Based Management in Flores Primary Schools in Indonesia. Published Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Newcastle, Australia. Retrieved August 15, 2013, from http://goo.gl/3wiz1n. Bardhan, P. (2002). Decentralization of Governance and Development. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 185–205. Barrera-Osorio, F., T. Fasih, & Patrinos, H.A. (2009). Decentralized decision-making in school. The theory and evidence on school-based management. Washington, D.C. The World Bank. Birion, J.C. and DeJose E.G., (2000). Glossary of Statistical Terms for Statisticians, Researchers and Beginners. Quezon City: Rex Book Store, Inc. Brouwer, P., Brekelmans, M., Nieuwenhuis, L., and Simons, R. J. (2012). Community Development in the School Workplace. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(4). 403-418 Cabardo, J. R. O., (2016). Levels of Participation of the School Stakeholders to the Different School-Initiated Activities and the Implementation of School-Based Management. Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 8(1). 81-94 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Pa ge 34 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri Am. J. Multidis. Res. Innov. 1(4) 26-34, 2022 Calmorin, L. and M. Calmorin. (1996). Method of Research and Thesis Writing (2nd ed.). Quezon City: Rex Book Store. Conley, D. T. (1991). Restructuring Schools: Educators Adapt to a Changing World. Trends & Issues Series, Number 6. A Series of Papers Highlighting Recent Developments in Research and Practice in Educational Management. Publication Sales, ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon, 1787 Agate Street, Eugene, OR 97403. Conley, S. (1991). Chapter 6: Review of research on teacher participation in school decision making. Review of research in education, 17(1), 225-266. Cranston, N.C. (2001). Collaborative Decision-Making and School-Based Management: Challenges, Rhetoric and Reality. Journal of Educational Inquiry, 2(2), 1-24. Dempster, N. 2000. Guilty or Not: The Impact and Effects of Site-Based Management on Schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(1), 47-62. Duflo, E., Dupas, P., & Kremer, M. (2007). Peer effects, pupil-teacher ratios, and teacher incentives: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in Kenya. Garcia, M., & Cerado, E. (2020). Developing an evidence- based evaluation tool for continuous improvement program of the Department of Education. American Journal of Educational Research, 8(7), 502-507 Edge, K. (2000). Decentralization and School-Based Management (SBM). Eskeland, G. and Filmer, D. (2002). Does Decentralization Improve Learning? Autonomy and Parental Participation in Argentine Schools. The World Bank. Washington D.C. Fraenkel, J.R. and Wallen, N.E. (1993). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw – Hill Book Company. Philippine Copyright 1994 by National Book Store, Inc. Gamage, Davide T. and Zajda, J. (2005). Decentralization and School-Based Management: A Comparative Study of Self-governing School Models. International Journal of Educational Practice and Theory, 27(2), 35-58. Gertler, P., Patrinos, H. and Rubio-Codina, M. (2006). Empowering Parents to Improve Education: Evidence from Rural Mexico. Impact Evaluation Series No. 4, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 3935. World Bank Publications. Goldman, P., Dunlap, D. M., & Conley, D. T. (1993). Facilitative power and nonstandardized solutions to school site restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(1), 69-92 Gunnarsson, Louise V., Orazem, P., Sanchez, M., and Verdisco, A. (2004). Does School Decentralization Raise Student Outcomes? Theory and Evidence on the Roles of School Autonomy and Community Participation. Iowa Stata University Department of Economics Working Paper Series 04005. Grauwe, A. (2004). School Based Management (SBM): Does it Improve Quality. Data accessed and retrieved August 13, 2013, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ Hoy, W.K. & Miskel, C.G. (2008). Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Huber, S.G. (2004). School Leadership and Leadership Development: Adjusting Leadership Theories and Development Programs to Values and the Core Purpose of School. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(6), 669-684. Leroy, R.C. 2002. School-Based Management in Haiti: Committee Members’ Perceptions of Benefits, Disadvantages, Constraints, and Facilitators. Retrieved August 15, 2013, from http:// goo.gl/IyjVTU. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Institute for Educational Research (1987). Comprehensive Study on Development of Educational Conditions. Pipho, C. (1986). Kappan special report: States move reform closer to reality. The Phi Delta Kappan, 68(4), K1-K8. Sanzo, Karen Leigh, Whitney H. Sherman and Jennifer Clayton (2011). Leadership Practices of Successful Middle School Principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(1). Sanzo, Karen L., Steve Myran and Jennifer K. Clayton (2011). Building Bridges Between Knowledge and Practice: A University-School District Leadership Preparation Program Partnership. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(3). Sawada, Y., & Ragatz, A. B. (2005). Decentralization of education, teacher behavior, and outcomes. Incentives to improve teaching, 255. Skoufias, E., & Shapiro, J. (2006). Evaluating the impact of Mexico’s quality schools program: the pitfalls of using nonexperimental data. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (pp. 4036). Simon, H. A. (2012). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan. Stone, J.E., Bruce, G.S. and Hursh, D. (2007). Effective Schools, Common Practices: Twelve Ingredients of Success from Tennessee’s Most Effective Schools. Virginia: Education Consumers Foundation. Retrieved on August 15, 2013, from http://goo.gl/YKtlPU. Tapayan, H. N., Francisco F. E., Claire., Bentor T. S., (2016). Impact Of School-Based Management Level of Practices Among Secondary School Implementing Units on The K To 12 Program Implementation in Leyte Division, Philippines. International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology, 5(5). Werf, G., Creemers, B., & Guldemond, H. (2001). Improving Parental Involvement in Primary Education in Indonesia: Implementation, Effects and Costs. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 12(4), 447-466. Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6th Ed). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Zajda, J. (2004). Decentralization and Privatization in Education: The Role of the State in education. International Review of Education, 50(3 & 4), 199-221. https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajmri