2013年-世界发展银行全球_Basic_Education_Public_Expenditure_Review_Phase_II___School_Based_Management_in_the_Philippines_An_Empirical_Investigation_54页_916kb

Summary of "School Based Management in the Philippines: An Empirical Investigation"

Core Content

This report, School Based Management in the Philippines: An Empirical Investigation, is a Public Expenditure Review (BEPER) conducted by the World Bank and AusAID to evaluate the impact of School Based Management (SBM) on student learning outcomes in the Philippines. It aims to support the implementation of the Basic Education Reform Agenda (BESRA) by providing empirical evidence on the effectiveness of SBM and its relationship with educational performance.

Main Contributions

1. Construction of the BEIS-NAT Panel Database:

   • A database was created for 38,000 public elementary schools and 7,200 public high schools over six years (2005–2010), covering over 2,500 variables.
   • This database is being provided to the Department of Education (DepED) for policy analysis.

2. Innovative Methodology for SBM Policy Analysis:

   • The study introduces a new approach to measuring SBM implementation, including improved data collection instruments and multivariate analysis.
   • It promotes the use of evidence-based methods for better policy design and implementation.

3. Empirical Insights on SBM and Learning Outcomes:

   • SBM is associated with improved school performance as measured by National Achievement Test (NAT) scores.
   • Schools that introduced SBM in 2006 showed a significant improvement in NAT scores by 2009.
   • The study highlights the importance of leadership skills in school principals for effective SBM implementation.
   • It also emphasizes the need for greater financial decentralization to schools.

Key Research Questions

1. SBM and Student Achievement:

   • Does SBM lead to improved student achievement?
   • What is the causal relationship between SBM and student performance?
   • How do different levels of SBM impact student learning outcomes?
   • Can SBM implementation be modified to enhance student learning?
   • How does time affect SBM implementation and its impact?

2. School Resources and Allocation:

   • How has the resource situation at the school level evolved?
   • What is the financial resource situation and how are SBM grants used?
   • What additional resources do schools mobilize besides DepED transfers?
   • What is the role of Local Government Units (LGUs) in supplementing school resources?
   • How can resource allocation be made more efficient and equitable?

3. Principal Leadership and SBM:

   • What is the relationship between principal leadership and SBM implementation?
   • How do principal personality and leadership styles affect school performance?
   • What is the level of political skills among principals?
   • What are the beliefs of principals and SGC members regarding SBM measures?
   • How do principal characteristics relate to the resource situation in schools?

Main Findings

1. SBM and School Performance:

   • Schools with SBM implementation showed better performance on the NAT, with a score differential of about 4 points (or 1/3 of a standard deviation) between SBM and non-SBM schools.
   • The policy to support SBM is considered beneficial for the Philippines.

2. Inequality in School Resources:

   • Inequality in school resources has increased over time, while inequality in student achievement has decreased.
   • This trend is attributed to the expansion of SBM to cover almost the entire basic education system during 2005–2010.
   • The e-BEIS system should include SBM data to monitor inequality over time.

3. Financial Decentralization:

   • Financial decentralization to schools has doubled, but school-level funds still represent only about 5% of total basic education spending.
   • Schools receive most of their resources from DepED, mainly through annual capitation grants for MOOE and occasional SBM grants.

4. SBM Grants and Local Resources:

   • SBM grant-receiving schools tend to receive more from LGUs, indicating a "fly-paper effect."
   • PTCA funds increase in the year following SBM grant receipt.
   • These findings are based on a small sample and require further investigation.

5. SBM Implementation Levels:

   • There is evidence of different levels of SBM implementation, with some validity in measuring its components.
   • Stakeholders do not prioritize participation and autonomy as the most important factors for school improvement.
   • SBM appears to work by enhancing teaching and learning practices, particularly through improved school improvement planning.

6. Principal Leadership and Personality:

   • Conscientiousness is a key personality trait associated with school performance.
   • Leadership skills, especially networking, are crucial for effective SBM implementation.
   • DepED should consider leadership skills in the appointment and promotion of school heads.

Policy Implications

• SBM Implementation:

  • There is a need to strengthen SBM implementation, especially in areas where it is not yet fully adopted.
  • The focus should be on enhancing the self-assessment tools and improving the clarity and validity of SBM indicators.

• Resource Allocation:

  • The pace of resource transfer to the school level should be accelerated.
  • Efforts should be made to improve the efficiency and equity of resource distribution.

• Professional Development:

  • Principals should be supported with professional development to enhance their leadership skills and understanding of SBM.
  • Training should emphasize networking, accountability, and strategic planning.

• Data and Information Management:

  • The BEIS-NAT database should be used to monitor SBM progress and resource allocation.
  • The use of indicators developed in this study can help track changes in school performance and inequality.

Conclusion

This study provides a comprehensive empirical analysis of SBM in the Philippines, highlighting its positive impact on student achievement and the need for further improvements in implementation and resource allocation. It underscores the importance of leadership skills, the role of LGUs in resource mobilization, and the necessity of a more robust data system for effective policy design and monitoring.