126

GNOSI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Theory and Praxis

Volume 4, Issue 3, June - December, 2021
ISSN (Online): 2714-2485

School-Based Management Practices as Predictors of School

Performance in Public Elementary Schools amid the Pandemic

Raymund D. Capacite
San Julian Central Elementary School,
Brgy. 06, San Julian, Samar, Philippines.
Email: raymund.dcapacite@deped.gov.ph

(Received: May-2021; Accepted: Sept-2021; Available Online: Sept-2021)

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY-
NC-4.0 ©2021 by author (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

ABSTRACT

The CoVid-19 pandemic forced a majority of business sectors and government

institutions, including the Department of Education to a distance and virtual approach
on its mandates. However, it is highly expected that the quality of educational outcomes
should be continuously delivered among the stakeholders. Hence, a correlational
research design was employed to investigate the level of practice on school-based
management and the performance levels of 26 public central elementary schools via
secondary data collected from the Schools Governance Operation Division (SGOD),
specifically in the implementation of distance education during the school year 2020-
2021. The data were analyzed using mean, percentage, Pearson R, and multiple
regression analysis at a .05 level of significance. Findings revealed a better level of
practice and a good level of performance concerning school-based management (SBM)
among participating schools. Likewise, a significant relationship and predictability
among the two variables were established, suggesting the influential nature of school-
based management in improving the schools’ performance outcomes. Hence, it
recommends the benchmarking and implementation of outstanding school-based
management practices amid the pandemic across all schools.

Keywords: School-Based Management; Predictors; School Performance; Quality; Access;

Efficiency.

INTRODUCTION
Quality, most especially in decision-making, has been a common goal among academic
communities for years. Scholars like Stone, Bruce, and Hursh (2007), Andrew 2010,
Nzuanke and Ajimase (2014), Cabardo (2016) and Andrew-Essien (2021) emphasized
the need to align every educational system’s framework to the needs of learners and the
society and the acquisition of 21st-century skills among students to meet the desired
goals and outcomes of the school. Other variables may be considered when effective
 127

learning is not occurring, but the focus will always be on how “schools adopt and
implement the school-based management system” (Cabardo, 2016, p. 3). In addition,
Grauwe (2004) and Edge (2000) mentioned poor teaching-learning experience,
teachers’ incompetence, and mismanaged school governance by school heads as factors
affecting the acquisition of quality school performance.
According to Tapayan, Ebio, and Bentor (2016, p.3), “the implementation of
school-based management (SBM) is an institutional method to improve education by
transferring decision-making authority from state and district offices to individual
schools” and an integral part of the country’s Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda
(BESRA). The core principle of SBM is that the individuals who are directly involved in
and affected by the operations are the most qualified to coordinate, administer, and
improve the school system. According to Kadtong, Navarro-Parcon, and Basar-Monir
(2016), SBM gives administrators, teachers, and parents more authority over the
educational process by putting them in charge of the money, staff, and curricular
decisions. Professional responsibility replaces bureaucratic regulations in the SBM,
thereby empowering classroom managers and school heads to become catalysts of
change in their respective schools by improving their interpersonal skills and
administrative talents (Lapus, 2009). As a result, SBM is linked to public relations to
increase stakeholder involvement in school planning and implementation.
For quite some time, SBM is continuously being used in a handful of developing
nations worldwide. Australia and Victoria reported positive outcomes and development
in their respective education system through SBM adoption (Drysdale, Good, & Gurr,
2009). Brouwer and his colleagues (2015) specifically mentioned the giving incentives
which lead to better instruction and learning, school autonomy, and accountability.
Conversely, van der Werf, Creemers, and Guldemond (2001) noted parental and
community participation as instruments to create effective schools and improved
student achievements. Kadtong et al., (2017) identified issues confronting the country’s
education, particularly in public schools, such as high drop-out rates, poor educational
service, high repetition rates, and limited school holding capacity, which prompted the
implementation of several programs such as Brigada Eskwela and Every Child-a-Reader
program to name a few, that adhere to school-based management principles. The
Department of Education in 2015 strengthened the “roles of the School Governing
Councils and School Improvement Planning team which report accomplishments via
School Report Cards” (p.3). As observed by Cabardo (2016), SBM has become more
inclusive of the various realities of learning contexts and more responsive to increasing
the commitment and accountability of educational stakeholders in meeting the
performance outcomes of learners and improving schools’ potentials. All these outline
the relevance of SBM in improving the school system in terms of quality, access, and
governance.
Cabardo (2016) and Tapayan et al. (2016) have demonstrated that school-based
management can improve access to quality education and student achievement.
However, the type of SBM modernization that is implemented varies significantly by
continent and can take a long time to produce results. Furthermore, the effectiveness of
SBM is critically dependent on family involvement, popular support, and total
management (World Bank Group, 2016). Similarly, Bandur (2012) asserted that, despite
widespread agreement among schools that SBM can help them obtain autonomy,
adaptability, involvement, usefulness, reliability, satisfaction, governance density,
 128

efficiency, and accountability, school stakeholders and school heads still encountered
difficulties and obstacles in implementing it.
Among the 13 schools’ divisions in the Eastern Visayas region, the schools
division of Eastern Samar has only two (2) Level III SBM-certified schools for the
elementary and 1 Level III SBM-certified school for secondary. This status is considered
low considering the region’s consistent campaign on SBM implementation and the
number of deserving schools based on overall performance in the two divisions. In an
assessment conducted by the regional office, most schools emphasize the need for
technical assistance to gather artifacts and organize school systems. Although some
school practices are aligned to SBM, the lack of proper documentation of such practices
was seen. Recognizing these premises and concerns, the researcher examined the level
of practice on the four parameters of school-based management as significant predictors
of the performance levels of public elementary schools in the school’s division of Eastern
Samar for the school year 2020-2021. An assessment of central elementary schools’
school-based management level of practice was made centralizing on leadership and
governance, curriculum and instruction, accountability and continuous improvement,
and management of resources. Conversely, the level of school performance based on the
SBM level of practice regarded access, efficiency, and quality as its indicators. Likewise,
the study presented a different perspective in the sense that it was positioned in a new
normal era of the educational system.
The results of the present study were directed to provide a better understanding
of the role of school-based management and practices in the implementation of distance
learning in the context of basic education. The researcher regarded this investigation as
a basis in recommending doable actions and programs to ensure the smooth flow on the
delivery of education amid the pandemic. Furthermore, the findings can explain the
certain impact of SBM practices on the holistic development of learners, continuing
professional growth of teachers, and the overall performance of DepEd-governed
schools.

METHODS
This study utilized a quantitative research approach, specifically, a correlational
research design through a survey method to describe, analyze, and interpret the data
gathered on the relationship between the level of school-based management practices
and school performance of learners among public elementary schools of Eastern Samar
Division for School Year 2020-2021. This method helped the researcher in determining,
analyzing, and defining the relationship between the variables included in this study and
in determining whether the identified variables have influenced one another, and
gauging if there is a significant relationship among variables of the study.
The sources of data were taken from the submitted SBM validation tool by the
District Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) Coordinators to the Schools Governance
and Operation Division (SGOD) duly-accomplished by the SBM Coordinator for Part 1
which tells about the SBM Practices focus on the Document Evaluation-Observation
(DOD) with a total weight of 100%. While Part II namely, School Performance was
accomplished by the school head/principal focus on the three (3) thematic areas such as
access which is on (1) enrolment with a corresponding weight of 45%, (2) quality which
focuses on achievement rate with a corresponding rate of 30%, and (3) efficiency which
tells about Drop-out rate, Cohort survival rate and Completion rate with a weight of
25%. Hence, there are no respondents to the study since it is secondary data that can be
 129

obtained from the SGOD Office or the District/School. Since the Philippine
Accreditation System for Basic Education (PASBE) Validation Tool is already
accomplished and submitted to the District Office by the School Head/Principal and
from the District Office it is submitted to the School Governance Operation Division
(SGOD). This secondary data will be collected with the help of the District M and E
Coordinators or the Division SBM Coordinator under the SGOD Office.
After collecting and organizing the needed information. The data were analyzed
as follows. The secondary data showing participating schools’ school-based
management practices and the performance of the public elementary schools were
descriptively analyzed using mean, standard deviation, and averaged percentage were
used. The nature of the relationship and the testing of possible significant relationships
between the levels of school-based management practices and school performance of
public elementary schools of Eastern Samar Division was made through the Pearson
Product – Moment Correlation test (Pearson r). Lastly, the multiple linear regression
analysis was utilized to determine which among the SBM Management Practices can
strongly predict SBM Performance when all other factors were held constant.
Finally, this research was conducted in compliance with established research
ethics guidelines. Participants’ consent was provided along with the google forms, and
permission was granted to use their data. Benefits of the research especially to the
participants were outlined and credit to their participation was acknowledged.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Level of SBM practice of public central elementary schools
Table 1 shows the mean level of practice on the four parameters of School-based
Management of public central elementary schools in the schools division of Eastern
Samar for the school year 2020-2021. Taken per indicator, the highest mean rating was
found in leadership and governance (𝑥̅ = 1.82, SD=.76), while Management of
Resources (𝑥̅ = 1.57, SD=.66) got the lowest mean rating among the four parameters of
SBM practice. However, all the four indicators have shown a unified “Better” level of
SBM practice (𝑥̅ = 1.95, SD=.50). This suggests that the four SBM parameters stated in
this study are manifested and observed on all occasions and indicators stated are felt
and occurring in the school.
The general result supports the findings of Rutherford and Jackson (2006), and
Adams and Gamage (2008) highlighting the roles of principals, specifically
transformational leaders for the effective implementation of School-Based Management.
In addition to that, the effectiveness of school management practices is evident in the
flexibility shown by teachers especially in managing learners and the development of
video-based learning resources (Hardman, et al., 2009). Interestingly, Dejene (2019)
found out that the instructional process in the modularized program is below the
expectation, where instructions are predominately teacher-centered and practicing
continuous testing in which students sat for tests and quizzes frequently with no written
and/or oral feedback. Hence, the overall findings imply that constant monitoring and
implementation of best practices of the schools in terms of School-Based Management
are being implemented throughout the modular school year 2020-2021. This implies
that the success of the schools is determined by how school leaders exercised their
authority in managing their institutions, amid the pandemic.
 130

Table 1. Level of SBM practices of public elementary schools

Standard
Parameters of SBM Mean Interpretation
Deviation
Leadership and Governance 1.83 .76 Better
Curriculum and Learning 1.65 .67 Better
Accountability 1.63 .76 Better
Management of Resources 1.57 .66 Better
Over-all Rating 1.95 .50 Better
Legend: Good (0.50 – 1.49), Better (1.50 - 2.49). Best (2.50 – 3.00)
Level of school performance of public central elementary schools in terms
of access, quality, and governance

Table 2 below presents the summary of the school performance of the central schools
in the Division of Eastern Samar regarding access, efficiency, and quality. As shown in
the table, access with a weighted value of 45%, specifically on enrolment, has a -9.20%
performance interpreted as “Marginal”. Meanwhile, the performance of central schools
in terms of Efficiency with a weighted value of 25% reveals that in terms of drop-out
rate, the schools have a -.7.30% performance and are interpreted as “Marginal”. In
comparison, on cohort-survival rate interpreted as “High” with 15.30% of performance
and completion rate, the central schools have 16.44% performance and are interpreted
as “High”. Moreover, in terms of quality, particularly on MPS, data shows that the
central schools have 1.80% performance and is interpreted as “Marginal”. The result
further shows that the weighted rating of -2.3 for access, 3.25 for efficiency, and 0.54 in
quality, respectively, has an overall school performance of 1.49 and is interpreted as
good in terms of school performance of public central schools in the Division of Eastern
Samar.
Similarly, according to Sabio and Sabio (2013) “the biggest challenge for
distance education is to aid government to attain the enrollment rates” (p.59).
Wilhelm (2010) explained that when teachers and school administrators begin taking
ownership, they also gain ownership of the solutions developed as a team on problems
of poor performance. As shared leadership becomes the norm for the school, student
outcomes improve dramatically. This implies that achievement gaps are addressed
when schools continue to look for improvements in learner’s performance. Most
importantly, schools should critically look into their learners’ participation and
achievement rates and provide opportunities for learners who find modular distance
education quite difficult to manage.

Table 2. Level of school performance in terms of access, efficiency, and quality

Parameters of School
Percent Performance Interpretation
Performance
Access (45%)
Enrolment -9.20% Marginal
Efficiency (25%)
Drop-out Rate -7.30% Marginal
Cohort Survival Rate 15.30% High
 131

Completion Rate 16.44% High

Quality (30%)
MPS 1.80% Marginal
Over-all School
1.49 Good
Performance
Legend: Good (0.50 – 1.49), Better (1.50 - 2.49). Best (2.50 – 3.00)
Test of the significant relationship between the level of practice on school-
based management parameters and the school performance of public
central elementary schools

Table 3 shows the results of the correlation analysis made to answer the third objective
of the study. The Pearson product-moment of correlation popularly known as Pearson r
was used to ascertain the significant relationship that exists between the School-Based
Management Practices and School Performance. As presented in Table 3, all of the
parameters for School-Based Management manifest a significant relationship with the
parameters of School Performance. All the parameters for SBM practices such as
“Leadership and Governance”, “Curriculum and Instruction”, “Accountability and
Continuous Improvement”, and “Management of Resources” exhibited significant
relationship with the school performance on enrolment, drop out, cohort, completion,
and Mean Percentage Score (MPS). Surprisingly, three (3) parameters of SBM practices,
namely leadership and governance (r= 1.00), curriculum and learning (r= 1.00), and
accountability (r=1.00) have manifested a perfect positive correlation with school
performance in terms of enrolment, drop-out rate, and cohort, respectively. Meanwhile,
most of the SBM practices parameters have exhibited moderately positive significant
relationships while only one has shown a low positive correlation. From these findings,
there is ample and sound justification to reject the null hypothesis. Hence, there is a
significant relationship between the level of practice on School-Based Management and
the level of school performance of public central elementary schools in the school’s
division of Eastern Samar. There is enough evidence that school-based management is
significantly linked to better school achievement.
Gamage (2006) and Dempster (2000) agreed that SBM practices have an impact
on student outcomes. Furthermore, the conclusions made by Blank (2004, p.3) that
“School-Based Management can positively impact student learning by establishing a
working connection between schools and diverse community entities” backed up the
findings of the present investigation. He went on to say that forming collaborations that
connect school, family, and community resources are inextricably linked to student
achievement because it leads to the provision of services and support that address the
students’ various needs. Sheldon and Voorhis (2004) support this idea, stating that
“public and parenting style to school-based management programs can strengthen
schools’ quality delivery of education, and student’s academic achievements” (p.5).
The overall findings suggest the influential nature of school-based management in
improving the schools’ performance outcomes. Furthermore, it implies that outstanding
management can contribute to the effective delivery of distance education in the
country.

Table 3. Test of the significant relationship between the level of practice on school-
based management parameters and the school performance of public central
elementary schools
 132

Criterion Predictive Interpretati

r p value Decision
Variables Variables on
Leadership and
1.000 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Governance
Curriculum and
.653 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Enrolment Learning
Accountability .754 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Management of
.640 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Resources
Leadership and
.652 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Governance
Curriculum and
Drop-out 1.000 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Learning
rate
Accountability .765 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Management of
.583 .002 Reject H0 Significant
Resources
Leadership and
.751 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Governance
Curriculum and
Cohort .762 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Learning
survival
Accountability 1.000 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Management of
.817 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Resources
Leadership and
.668 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Governance
Curriculum and
.822 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Completion Learning
Accountability .840 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Management of
.852 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Resources
Leadership and
Governance .674 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Curriculum and
MPS Learning .677 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Accountability .610 .001 Reject H0 Significant
Management of
Resources .430 .028 Reject H0 Significant
α = .05
Predictability of school-based management parameters to the level of
school performance of public central elementary schools
The last set of analysis answers the final objective of the study. The multiple linear
regression was used to establish which among the parameters of SBM Practices can
best serve as a predictor of the school performance.
 133

As can be seen in Table 4, enrolment and cohort both showed strong significant
regression results to three (3) out of four (4) SBM practices parameters.
Looking closely at enrolment, leadership and governance got the highest beta
score of 906 points followed by accountability by about 3.9 points. An opposite
result can be observed in terms of cohort status. The results entail that an increase
in leadership and governance and accountability will positively impact the
enrolment status of the school. This implies that students can realize how the
schools value their attendance by improving the school system and showing
transparency at all times. This result is aligned to Drysdale, Mulford, and Gurr’s
(2006) findings of the leadership and support of principals, leading to the
enhancement of quality education for students. Only curriculum and instruction got
a positive significant beta result of 201 points in terms of drop-out rate. This entails
that improving the teachers’ instruction and the curriculum itself would allow the
decrease of drop-out rate among public central schools. This implies the need for
inclusivity among schools by offering programs for children with special needs and
other effective modes of instruction that will cater to the needs of the students.
In terms of completion rate, management of resources (β = 4.312) and
curriculum and instruction (β = 4.408) are both significant positive predictors. This
implies that the availability and proper management of resources and the use of such
materials to instruction allow the full completion of students from kindergarten up
to Grade 6. Unfortunately, none of the four parameters of school-based management
significantly predict the mean percentage score – performance of public central
elementary schools in the school’s division of Eastern Samar. Similarly, Goddard
(2001) found that faculty members’ collective efficacy perceptions were not a
significant predictor of student achievement, nor was it significantly related to
school socioeconomic status or minority concentration. In contrast, Griffith(2004)
posited that the higher levels of school staff job satisfaction are significantly
associated with smaller achievement gaps between minority and non‐minority
students.
In general, all parameters of SBM practices have the strong potential to
predict school performance in terms of enrolment, drop-out rate, cohort survival,
completion rate but low moderate correlation with the Mean Percentage Score
(MPS). The results imply the need to ensure school accountability in improving the
schools’ enrolment status and the cohort survival of the students. Finally, the school
head must ensure that students capture all the necessary competencies required by
constantly reviewing school programs and learning continuity plans for the coming
school years.
 134

Table 4. Predictability of school-based management parameters to the level of school

performance of public central elementary schools using Multiple Regression
Analysis
Criterion Predictive p- Interpretatio
β Decision
variables Variables value n
Leadership & 906.32
.000 Reject H0 Significant
Governance 4
Curriculum &
-1.794 .087 Retain H0 Not significant
Enrolment Instruction
Accountability 3.851 .001 Reject H0 Significant
Management of
-2.299 .032 Reject H0 Significant
Resources
Leadership &
-.941 .358 Retain H0 Not significant
Governance
Curriculum & 200.9
.000 Reject H0 Significant
Drop-out Instruction 80
Accountability .840 .411 Retain H0 Not significant
Management of
.271 .789 Retain H0 Not significant
Resources
Leadership &
-2.147 .044 Reject H0 Significant
Governance
Curriculum &
-1.794 .087 Retain H0 Not significant
Instruction
Cohort
505.69
Accountability .000 Reject H0 Significant
0
Management of
-2.299 .032 Reject H0 Significant
Resources
Leadership &
-.341 .737 Retain H0 Not significant
Governance
Curriculum &
4.312 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Completion Instruction
Accountability .143 .888 Retain H0 Not significant
Management of
4.408 .000 Reject H0 Significant
Resources
Leadership &
1.937 .066 Retain H0 Not significant
Governance
Curriculum &
1.779 .090 Retain H0 Not significant
MPS Instruction
Accountability .370 .715 Retain H0 Not significant
Management of
-.734 .471 Retain H0 Not significant
Resources
α = .05
 135

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This study investigated the predictability of the school-based management practices to
the performance levels of 26 public elementary schools in the schools’ division of
Eastern Samar for the school year 2020-2021. Based on the findings of the study, the
following conclusions were drawn. The participating schools performed a better level of
practice in the four parameters of school-based management for the school year 2020-
2021, especially in terms of leadership and governance. This only shows the efforts
made by the whole school systems of the chosen locale in the delivery of quality
education amid the pandemic. Furthermore, they have shown an aggregate good level of
school performance with marginal rating in terms of access and quality compared to
efficiency.
Results from the correlational analysis highlighted the importance of regular
monitoring and evaluation of schools’ practices to better explain school performance
since the SBM implementation is directly influential to school performance. Finally, the
regression analysis between SBM practices and school performance has revealed
predictors that strongly influence school performance. Notably, leadership and
governance, and accountability are significant predictors of enrolment rate and cohort
survival rate. Meanwhile, curriculum and instruction and continuous learning,
respectively are predictors of drop-out rate and completion rate. While the management
of resources has the potential to predict enrolment rate, cohort survival, and completion
rate. Hence, the following recommendations are offered. The SBM practices such as
leadership and governance, curriculum and instruction, accountability and continuous
improvement, and management of resources shall be emphasized by all stakeholders to
improve significantly its practices. Public elementary schools shall consider outstanding
practices on School-based Management which yield higher performance. Future
researchers shall focus their studies on other factors that could affect the performance of
schools in general.

REFERENCES
Abulencia, A. A. (2013). School-based management: a structural reform intervention.
Center for Linkages and Extension. Philippine Normal University.
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),
pp. 214-228.
Andrew, E. H. (2010). Mixed Media Visual Effect in Stage Scenography. West African
Association for Common Wealth Literature and Language Studies:
WAACLALS, 3, 37-50.
Andrew-Essien, E. (2021). Art As a Dependable Driving Force In New Age
Marketing. PINISI Discretion Review, 5(1), 9-20.
Blank, M. J. (2004). How community schools make a difference. Educational
Leadership, 61(8), 62-65.
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 and Action in Education, 8(1), 81-94.
De Grauwe, A. (2005). School-based management (SBM): Does it improve quality. EFA
Global Monitoring Report.
 136

Deming, W. E. (2009). Quality control and continuous improvement. quality,

productivity and competitive position. Pearson Education.
https://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2471/2530411/11e/C07.pdf.
Drysdale, L., Goode, H., &Gurr, D. (2009). An Australian model of successful school
leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(6), 697.
Edge, K. (2000). Decentralization and School-Based Management (SBM). World Bank.
Gamage, D., & Sooksomchitra, P. (2006). Decentralisation and school-based
management in Thailand. In Decentralisation and privatisation in
education (pp. 151-167). Springer, Dordrecht.
Gamage, D., & Zajda, J. (2005). Decentralisation and school-based management: A
comparative study of self-governing schools models. Educational Practice and
Theory, 27(2), 35-58.
Kadtong, M. L., Navarro-Parcon, M., &Basar-Monir, L. (2016). School-Based
Management in the Operations and Performance of Public Elementary
Schools. Proceedings Journal of Education, Psychology and Social Science
Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3139808
Kadtong, M. L., Unos, M., Antok, T. D., &Midzid, M. A. E. (2017). Teaching performance
and job satisfaction among teachers at region XII. Proceedings Journal of
Education, Psychology and Social Science Research, 4(1).
Lapus, J. A. (2009). Department of Education School-Based Management: A primer.
Meralco Complex, Pasay City.
Nzuanke, S. F., & Ajimase, A. A. (2014). Youth Language as a Transnational
Phenomenon: The Case of French in Nigeria. LWATI: A Journal of
Contemporary Research, 11(4), 87-110.
Rutherford, D., & Jackson, L. (2006). Setting up school partnerships: some insights
from Birmingham’s Collegiate Academies. School Leadership and
management, 26(5), 437-451.
Schön, D., & Argyris, C. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and
practice. Reading: Addison Wesley, 305(2). DOI:10.2307/2525281
Sheldon, S. B., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2004). Partnership programs in US schools: Their
development and relationship to family involvement outcomes. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(2), 125-148.
Stone, J.E., Bruce, G. S., & Hursh, D. (2007). Effective schools, common practices:
twelve ingredients of success from Tennessee’s most effective schools. Virginia:
Education Consumers Foundation.
Tapayan, H. N., Ebio, F. M., & Bentor, C. 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), 558–574.
Van der 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.
Watkins, J. M., & Cooperrider, D. (2000). Appreciative inquiry: A transformative
paradigm. OD practitioner, 32(1), 6-12.
Wilhelm, J. D., & Wilhelm, P. J. (2010). Inquiring minds learn to read, write, and think:
Reaching all learners through inquiry. Middle school journal, 41(5), 39-46.
World Bank Group. (2016). Building Better Learning Environments in the Philippines.
World Bank.