European Journal of Educational Management

: The highlighted local and international perspectives of school-based management (SBM) offer logical findings on its efficacy at the grassroots level. Despite some hindering factors, its impact along leadership and governance, curriculum and learning, accountability and continuous improvement, and resource management are commendable. After methodical scrutiny of data, this paper concludes that the improvements in schools triggered by SBM are responsiveness to the needs and challenges of schools; contextualization of curriculum; improvement of physical facilities and linkages; and stakeholders’ awareness and involvement to school’s programs, projects and activities (PPAs). Principals likewise implemented SBM in their respective schools by holding SBM planning with its stakeholders. In fact, the different programs and projects implemented in schools include SBM crafting and planning; implementation, monitoring, and documentation of student learning activities; and clean-up drive and transparency board installation. Researchers, therefore, recommend that responsiveness of SBM to the needs and challenges of schools; contextualization of curriculum; improvement of physical facil ities and linkages; and stakeholders’ awareness and involvement to school PPA be extensively maximized. Eventually, sound partnerships between schools and external stakeholders be cultivated.


Introduction
School-based management (SBM) has predominantly been grounded on reinforcing the support system of the department of education (DepEd) by refining the educational planning and management by members of the academe.SBM was initially piloted between 2003 and 2005 in 23 districts participating in the third elementary education project (TEEP) supported by the World Bank.The project provided funding for the school infrastructure, training, curriculum development, and textbooks.SBM has presented an integrating framework for attaining school-level project inputs and instituting capacity for education planning and program implementation beginning in the school year 2001-2004(Estremera, 2021a)).In effect, Leroy (2002) posits that SBM has been in existence in our educational system for quite number of years, although existing for numerous decades in the educationa4l systems of other countries.To specify, a manager whether he works in a business or a hospital, in a government agency, or a labor union in a university or the army, is the first to acquire the right things done.Management relates to all organizations.Its analysis is facilitated by a valuable and unblemished organization of knowledge.There are managerial roles like planning, organizing, staffing, leading, and controlling.It is indispensable to all organizations, applicable to small or large organizations, to profit and non-profit enterprises, manufacturing, and service industries (Sunaengsih et al., 2019).

International Perspectives of SBM
In 2003, Qatar initiated a reform to further improve its education system dubbed collectively as Education for New Era Reform anchored primarily on four ideologies.These have to do with independence, accountability, diversity, and choice.Along this metamorphosis, there had been public schools which were transformed into independent schools and offered ample resources for the said purpose.According to the study of Alrasheedi and Almutawa (2022) who explored reform's efficiency by means of an interpretive paradigm, the findings reveal that the reform obtained the most funding from top officials, hence contributing to speedy implementation of the initiative.This in turn resulted to the schools' personnel inefficiency in adjusting to the changes.Consequently, those accountable for the implementation retreated and diverted from school's liberation in terms of instruction and administration functions (Alrasheedi & Almutawa, 2022).To supplement, the execution of SBM in Indonesia was prompted by the circumstance that Indonesian school patrons have been fraught with the status of national academic performance for the last two decades redounding to the economic catastrophe in the late 1990s, which spurred intense economic and societal challenges (Ministry of Education, 2001;Mulyasa, 2004;Nurkolis, 2005).On this account, the Indonesian Ministry of National Education, instituted a Komisi Nasional Pendidikan (KNP) or Commission of National Education in February 2001.The KNP functioned until 74 December 2001 with duties, among others (i) convey policy recommendations to foster a better quality education; and, (ii) deliver feedback to the government with respect to educational reorganization.In fact, it was anticipated that the tangible results of the accentuated Commission would form part of a systematically restructured Indonesian education.One of the endorsements of KNP was to institute educational councils at district section and school councils for school units (Ministry of Education, 2001).To highlight another international perspective of SBM, Arar and Nasra (2020) crafted a model to scrutinize how school-based management unswervingly and indirectly (through motivation) correlates to school efficiency of 300 teachers in Israel.The outcomes reveal that there has been a noted positive correlation among all features of self-management (decision-making, resource and personnel management, availability of resources, and organizational structure) likewise school efficacy at large.Moreover, the findings also imply complete relevance along the areas of resource management, personnel and organizational structure, and school efficiency through incentive (Arar & Nasra, 2020;Davidescu et al., 2020).In Korea, SBM has been deemed as an operative process of augmenting participatory decision-making, financial transparency, and community involvement (Kiragu et al., 2013).It was likewise concluded that the efficient employment of SBM necessitates time management knowledge and support from the government, educational specialists, and foreign aid organizations.In fact, in a study of Tansiri and Bong (2018), result shows that for schools' personnel, there are notable improvement along professional growth since they were sent to inservice training, involved in the decision-making process and discussions, and had been encourage to pursue postgraduate studies.Along establishing sound school-community ties, several initiatives had been exerted such as forming and authorizing school committee, constant rounds and brainstorming with schools committee by the end of semester, encouraging parents to establish rapport with their children every quarter, cultivating healthy relationships with external stakeholders for potential partnerships and active involvement, and fostering the principles of transparency in school management for the most part.As for Hongkong perspective, Cheng and Chan (2000) accentuated that the execution of SBM reform has been considered an intricate procedure initiating vicissitudes not just in structures and political dealings but likewise in social collaborations and cultural components in both school and system parts.The nonexistence of multi-perspectives in the examination of school reforms poses a tight drawback on understanding the impact of SBM.As for Cheng and Chan (2000), it was anticipated that the investigation of the Hong Kong case can offer a worthwhile picture of the application of multi-perspectives to trigger development of school-based management leading to some refinements as well as cull-out valuable implications for school reorganizations in both local and international settings (Estremera, 2021a).

Local Perspectives of SBM
The chief aim of the academic piece is to highlight the execution in the site of interest (Sorsogon City, Philippines) and, to some extent, link those with other SBM perspectives internationally like Qatar, Indonesia, Israel, Korea, and Hongkong to serve as a point of comparison and a confirmatory argument on the efficacy of SBM implementation at the grassroots level.In Philippines, it is a top-down policy aimed to assess the efficacy of schools along governance, partnerships, linkages, curriculum and instruction (Estremera, 2021a).According to Cabardo (2016), the Division of Davao del Sur for the school year 2014-2015, falls under moderate level of participation of the school stakeholders on the different schoolinitiated activities.It was likewise concluded that the level of involvement of the school patrons to the various school-led undertakings could have been significantly correlated to the level of SBM execution.Similarly, in Viggayan's (2017) perspective, SBM in the district of Isabela has been regarded as an epoch of transition of the duties and roles of school frontrunners or administrators such as principals, head teachers, officers-in-charge and teachers-in-charge who partake and lead primarily in school governance undertakings.As administrators, school heads are responsible for financial procedures, physical plant maintenance, student development, personnel growth, public affairs, school policy execution and refinement, synchronization of the instructional program, and other intangible school concerns (Alvarado et al., 2019).In truth, findings show that SBM promotes better understanding of the basic principles i.e., vision and purpose, structures, roles, and support system of school-based management.Harmonization among stakeholders emerged as the best step for an effective school-based management which is influenced by the participants' educational background, rank and position, and span of service.To present another local perspective of SBM, Khattri et al., (2012), highlights that SBM has an impact on students' performance in the Philippines.As a matter of fact, the findings of the study imply that the implementation of school-based management had a statistically significant, notwithstanding slight, positive result on average school-level evaluation scores in 23 school districts in the Philippines.It was suggested, meanwhile, that nations venturing on application of SBM developments stipulate their school-based management paradigm and principles of change unmistakably and advance mechanisms for arduous assessments concurrently.Such assessments should not just offer more precise approximations of the efficacy of the reforms, but similarly serve as an input to policy-related issues concerning design and operation of those modifications in various sociocultural settings.Thus, the scantiness of local studies along the sub-fields of SBM is the research gap that researchers want to fill.From this premise, research questions and assumptions originated as highlighted hereunder.
• What notable improvements in the school are brought by SBM reform as assessed by Principals and teachers along (i) leadership and governance (ii) curriculum and learning (iii) accountability and continuous improvement (iv) resource management?
• What preparatory SBM procedures are undertaken by principals and teachers in their respective schools?
• What relevant programs and projects implemented along SBM exploring the foregoing variables?
• What are the hindering factors of SBM implementation along the identified variables?
• There are different programs and projects implemented along the identified variables • At the school level of SBM practice, almost 90% of the school falls under level 1 which is the beginning level.
• Schools still need assistance and comprehensive orientation on the activities, programs, and projects to be implemented to maximally realize the target of the program implementation.
• There are hindering factors of SMB execution in the grassroots level.

Research Design
The descriptive design of the research was employed in this study to provide rich descriptive details about people, places, and other phenomena.This type of research is often associated with anthropology, sociology, and psychology, but researchers in other fields such as education and also use it (Estremera, 2021b;Estremera & Gonzales, 2021).The descriptive design involves extensive observation and note-taking, as well as in-depth narrative because it does not lend itself to in-depth analysis or hypothesis testing (Estremera & Estremera, 2018).However, a descriptive research design can serve as a first step that identifies important factors, laying a foundation for more rigorous research.This helped the researchers find out whether the SBM implementation is justified by their level of practice after focused-group discussion (FGD) of school heads through their supervisors in the respective districts.

Research Context and Site
The present paper delved primarily on execution of SBM in the site of interest which is Sorsogon City Division, Philippines.Sub-indicators such as leadership and governance, curriculum and learning, accountability and continuous improvement, and resource management are the primary variables explored.In the study of Estremera and Gilbas (2022), the context of the study served as a guide to accordingly examine intervening variables such as the research locale and purposes of the conduct of the study.The highlighted fields of SBM form part of the primary roles of school leaders in the Philippines.It must be explored to serve as a feedback mechanism leading to some refinements and innovations to better serve the recipients of DepEd (Arenque, 2021;Pepugal, 2022).Sorsogon City division likewise implements SBM reform under the tutelage of the school governance organization division (SGOD).The site of interest is composed of four (4) districts for viz: Bacon East and West Districts, and Sorsogon East and West Districts yielding a total of 79 elementary schools.Thirteen schools are found in Bacon East District administered by 7 principals (one handling Integrated School) 3 head teachers, and 3 teachers-in-charge (TIC).Nonetheless, in Bacon West District, there are 19 schools administered by 16 school heads composed of 11 principals (one handling Integrated school and 3 of them handled clustered schools), 4 head teachers, and 1 TIC.Interestingly, Sorsogon East District is composed of 14 schools with 12 principals.As for Sorsogon West district, there are 21 schools managed by 19 principals (1 handling integrated school) 1 head teacher, and 1 TIC.For secondary schools, there are 12 schools except those who are handling integrated schools.These schools are also managed by 10 principals, 1 head teacher, and 1 TIC forming the 100 total number of the respondent schools locally.To ensure that the instrument will measure what it intends to measure, the drafted questionnaire was subjected to content validity to observe coherence between RQs as well as the anticipated responses of the participants (Estremera, 2021c;Estremera & Estremera, 2018).Validators are experts in the fields of school management, language and research at large.

Sampling & Data Gathering Procedures
To capture the essence of the study, researchers deemed purposive sampling most appropriate to cover the participants in the research locale that could contribute to the undertaking.In the study of Estremera (2021c), purposive sampling was used to select participants that could potentially contribute and offer the needed data.Thus, after the proposed title has been approved, researchers floated a permit letter to school leaders.Upon approval, researchers set informal interviews with the teachers on their perspectives relative to the execution of SBM and its potential school-level impact.
In the process, The TICs pledged their support to the researchers for the sake of contributing to the body of knowledge.
With the full enthusiasm and support of the school heads, researchers commenced to distribute the questionnaires to the purposively chosen respondents.It took five days for the researchers to retrieve the questionnaire from the school heads.
In fact, there was a 100% retrieval of the filled-out questionnaires from the respondents.After the retrieval of the questionnaire, researchers collated the data and prepared a copy to be submitted to the statistician for proper statistical analysis and interpretation.

Data Analysis
As accentuated earlier, the chief intention of this current piece of work is the contribution to the body of knowledge along educational management specifically along leadership and governance, curriculum and learning, accountability and continuous improvement as the main areas of concern of school leadership and management.Thus, in order to deduce accordingly the collated data and to come-up with logical findings, descriptive analysis was considered most fitting.This is essential to determine the extent of efficacy of SBM, highlight the challenges faced by the implementers and formulate relevant policies and recommendations taking into consideration the perspectives at the grassroots level which will serve as an input for some refinements and program improvement.This descriptive analysis involves simple statistics such as frequency, percentage, mean and composite mean.Tabular and graphical presentations are necessary to better capture as well delineate the intervening variables.On the other hand, empirical analysis as exploited in the study of Estremera (2022), comprises the application of senses by the researcher/s to acquire observable data from the phenomenon being investigated.This encompasses, but are not restricted to, records, descriptions, conversations and other phenomenological procedures to highlight the essence of the study.This may necessitate photo examination as well as verbatim dialogue which are contextual in nature (Estremera, 2021c(Estremera, , 2023)).In fact, to ensure reliability of analyzing data, the researcher sought the expertise of the graduate school statistician for re-checking of statistical results to ensure its alignment to the framed RQs of the study.Analyzed data was also thoroughly reviewed by the authors concerned to uncover misalignment and inconsistency of ideas.The data shows that the most considerable improvement through SBM is the claim that, respondent schools become more responsive to the needs and challenges as substantiated by 38 respondents.This is followed by a supposition that learner needs that are catered due to contextualized curriculum developed through SBM with 32 respondents and ranked 2nd; 3rd in rank is the improvement along physical facilities, linkages, and stakeholder's awareness and involvement to school PPA with agreeable 31 respondents.It is followed by increased/improved academic performance ranked 4th, the strengthened collaboration of school and community are both ranked 5th, and the alignment of SIP, APP, and AIP to the school program, making it doable and sustainable all fall under ranked 6th.Notably, continuous professional development and smooth school operation completed the list of improvements done through SBM and leadership and governance.To supplement, concerning curriculum and learning improvements, the foregoing data reveals that the most considerable progress in this area is the achievement on curricular and co-curricular contest to the national level as revealed by 57 respondents.This is vital in the educational system since the purpose of a school is to focus on achieving goals.This is followed by having a zero non-reader and improvement in students' academic performance both with 51 respondents tied at rank 2.5.The utilization of a contextualized and localized curriculum and the balanced and improved reading program are both claimed by 50 respondents with a rank of 4.5.Furthermore, along accountability and continuous improvement, it presupposes that the strong collaboration of different stakeholders for constant improvement of the school is the most improvement done through SBM and accountability and continuous Improvement with 57 amenable respondents.It is followed by responsible workers and stakeholders with high regard for accountability with 51 respondents and is ranked 2nd.Having supportive and participative school personnel, parents, students, and other stakeholders emerged 3rd with 50 respondents.Others fall under efficient and transparent financial resources management of MOOE and school funds, updated SIP and transparency board, conduct staff training and development aligned to pupils' needs such as SLAC and FGD, and assigning coordinatorships and tasks according to expertise.

Figure 3. SBM Improvements along the Identified Variables
Interestingly, on matters pertaining to resource management, respondent school heads have properly allocated funds based on priorities guided by SIP/AIP/APP and conducted IGP with 65 respondents.Landed second in this area is wellkept records of liquidation of school funds with 62 respondents.The school has enough funds for its programs and improves physical facilities due to the community's resources both with 60 respondents and with a rank of 3.5.The other improvements have to with intensified the implementation of ASP, BE, mobilization, and other linkages; updated inventories of school properties, well-kept records of liquidation of school funds; the school practiced proper utilization and management of school resources; updated transparency board and submitted accomplishment reports; and, regular monitoring, evaluation, and monitoring processes and resource management and collaboratively clarified by the school and community.To supplement, Figure 3 also presents the involvement of concerned stakeholders in the planning as the first activity spearheaded by the SBM implementers in school as conjectured by 74 respondents.This simply indicates that the respondent school heads are proactive leaders since they recognize the need for consultations with their respective stakeholders.The respondent school leaders appreciate the school's need for collective support; thus, the need to consult and plan with their stakeholders is essential.This is followed by an advocacy raising awareness to all stakeholders as substantiated by 70 respondents.Ranked 3rd is to encourage collaborative efforts of all the stakeholders as manifested 65 respondents.Other activities of SBM implementation are giving awards and recognition to performing individuals and stakeholders for motivation and proper consultation to staff and community; monitoring and evaluation are done every phase of implementation; played as the support system of each member with the assigned task; and, Figure 4 communicates the preparatory SBM procedures undertaken by principals and teachers in their respective schools.The data indicates that most of the respondents have crafted and planned the SBM thoroughly as their primary activity.This was received by the division office and communicated to stakeholders with proper documentations and evaluated mid-year and year-end as hypothesized by 40 respondents.

Figure 4. Preparatory SBM Procedures
They also make sure that training plans are included in the SBM with 36 respondents and ranked 2nd.To add, ranked 3rd among the activities involve are improvements of organizational chart of the school and designating internal stakeholders with detailed roles and responsibilities as claimed by 30 respondents.This is followed by enhancing the directory of school and community leaders with their respective updated contact information with 28 respondents and is ranked 5th along with posting a copy of different hotline numbers of the authorities (barangay LGU, PNP, BFP, DSWD, RHU) ranked 6th.These findings are further underpinned by the verbatim transcription undertaken by the researchers in the site of interest.
Extract 1 In our case sir, we begin school improvements by first inviting our external stakeholders for a planning conference so that they can also provide input to the logistical requirements of whatever projects that we want to implement in our school.This also serves as a way to foster sound school-community relations.
As for the curriculum and learning, data presupposes that 62 respondent schools have documented student-led learning activities as their programs and projects implemented ranked 1st.This is followed by creating a self-directed learning program with 57 respondents, and implementing approved student-initiated activities with 49 respondents ranked 3rd.
Other curriculum-related activities done through SBM are digital ELLN, YTR, Oplan Basa, creating workbooks and activity sheets, reading programs (reading Barkadahan), and PHIL-IRI.In addition to these activities are creating documents on the implementation of activities related to increasing stakeholders' awareness and commitment to child protection; documentation report/certificates of participation in workshops to localize the curriculum; and, state of the school address (SOSA).Extract 2 below satiates some of the results along curriculum and learning transcribed during the interview phase.

Extract 2
Curriculum aspect concerns internal stakeholders mostly.For this, we craft intervention projects along literacy and numeracy specifically for those students who are lagging behind in terms of reading proficiency and functional numeracy.
Pertaining to accountability and continuous improvement, 53 respondents confirmed that clean-up drive is the most common program implemented in the respondent schools.Brigada Eskwela with 44 respondents ranked 2nd.Earthquake drill spearheaded by the Bureau of Fire and the Philippine National Police with 43 respondents ranked 3rd.Ranked 4th, however, is Adopt-A-School program with 39 respondents and followed by an articulation of accountability assessment framework as answered by 37 respondents ranked 5th among the sub-indicators.In fact, other programs and projects implemented along accountability and continuous improvement are repair/construction of school facilities, fire drills, hazard mapping, accountability check, and periodic performance assessment of stakeholders' participation.Furthermore, as far as resource management is concerned, creating a transparency board/information board -the tool to avoid untoward mistrust among school employees as substantiated by 42 respondents rank 1st.This is followed by an inventory of materials and equipment of the school with 29 agreeable respondents ranked 2nd.Meanwhile, the engagement procedure to identify and utilize partnerships with stakeholders for improving resource management ranked 3rd.To concretize, included on resource management programs and projects are liquidation reports, utilization of other financial resources/grants/assistance/donations based on SIP/AIP/SRC, deed of donations, participation of stakeholders, human resources, filling-in of vacancies, & inventory forms.Moreover, figure 5 delineates the relevant projects, programs and activities implemented along with SMB implementation in the site of interest.The results show that most of the respondents have crafted and planned the SBM thoroughly as their primary activity.This was received by the division office and communicated to stakeholders with proper documentations and evaluated mid-year and yearend with agreeable 40 respondents.They make sure that training plans are included in the SBM with 36 respondents ranked 2nd.Moreover, ranked 3rd in the activities that the school heads have mostly done is improving the organizational chart of the school and designating internal stakeholders with detailed roles and responsibilities and signed with conformity both agreed by 30 respondents and ranked 3.5.This is followed by enhancing the directory of school and community leaders with their respective updated contact information with 28 respondents ranked 5th.
Posting a copy of different hotline numbers of the authorities (barangay LGU, PNP, BFP, DSWD, RHU) obtained the sixth spot.To complete the list, other activities implemented by the school through SBM are learning and development need analysis form for school leaders, with a summary and action plan based on the identified needs of teachers; presented the list of SIP monitoring team and creating a shortlist of identified school partners is also evident.As to curriculum and learning, it shows that 62 respondent schools have documented student-led learning activities as their programs and projects implemented.This is followed by creating a self-directed learning program with 57 respondents, and implementing approved student-initiated activities as claimed by 49 respondents.Other curriculum-related activities done thru SBM are digital ELLN, YTR, Oplan Basa, creating workbooks and activity sheets, reading programs (reading Barkadahan), and PHIL-IRI.In addition to these activities are creating documents on the implementation of activities related to increasing stakeholders' awareness and commitment to child protection; documentation report/certificates of participation on workshops to localize the curriculum; and State of the School Address (SOSA).Other curricular activities are action plans, accomplishments, documentation reports, supervisory plan, instructional supervision report, culture mapping results, LAC sessions, updating of School Report Card (SRC); creation of quality assurance review team for CG's, LM's, and TG's.Finally, the last set of curricular activities are assessment tools and database assessment results, enrollment by type of learners BEIS/SF1, report on the analysis of assessment results, and documentation report/certificates of participation on workshops.Pertaining to accountability and continuous improvement, 53 respondents claimed that clean-up drive is the most common program implemented in the respondent schools.Brigada Eskwela with 44 respondents and ranked 2 nd .Earthquake drill spearheaded by the Bureau of Fire and the Philippine National Police with 43 respondents obtained the third spot.In fourth is the Adopt-A-School program claimed 39 respondents and followed by an articulation of accountability assessment framework as answered by 37 respondents ranked 5th.The other programs and projects implemented along with accountability and continuous improvement are bayanihan, repair/construction of school facilities, fire drill, hazard mapping, accountability check, and periodic performance assessments with stakeholders' participation.As far as resource management is concerned, creating a transparency board/information board ranked the 1 st. .This is followed by an inventory of materials and equipment of the school as claimed by 29 respondents ranked 2 nd .To supplement, engagement procedure to identify and utilize partnerships with stakeholders for improving resource management ranked 3 rd as verified by 27 respondents.Other initiatives have to do with financial transparency through liquidation reports, utilization of other financial resources/grants/assistance/donations based on SIP/AIP/SRC, deed of donation, active participation of stakeholders, creation and filling-in of vacancy, and physical inventory.In the context of the study, figure 5 is indicative of the commendable leadership and management prowess of all SBM implementing schools ensuring that relevant guidelines are well-executed in the best interest of its recipients.

Figure 6. Hindering Factors of SBM
Figure 6, conversely, captures the different programs, projects and activities associated to SBM execution by the respondent schools.According to 81 respondents, the most hindering factor is the limited technical know-how or competence of the programs and projects implementer ranked 1st.This could have been attributed to the fact that guidelines and principles of various programs and projects likewise evolve in order to keep pace with the trend.Besides, the onslaught and emergence of various technologies nowadays affect the implementation of a program/project.Another projected challenge is the overlapping of activities as manifested by 69 respondents ranked 2nd.Delayed approval and processing of documents needed for programs with 68 respondents ranked 3rd.Garnered the fourth spot is sourcingout and motivating stakeholders to support programs and projects as answered by 6 respondents.Lack of fund intended for the programs and projects; programs and projects identified are not that manageable; and, lack of commitment on the part of the implementer have been categorized fifth to seventh, respectively.

Notable Improvements brought by SBM
Taking into account the results, there have been notable improvements brought the SBM execution in schools along the explored variables.In fact, implementing schools are able to establish and sound school-community ties, improved the academic performance of the students, physical facilities modernization, and teachers' professional development.Thus, it is clear that through leadership and governance, respondent schools have maximized the advantages of SBM in their levels (Estremera, 2021a).It has also developed the quality of education as one of the objectives of SBM implementation with the active involvement of external stakeholders (Arenque, 2021;Pepugal, 2022).This is linked to the perspective of Mythili (2019) who conjectures that good governance is a procedure by which network governance may effectually be adopted in the education structure that is operationalized through leadership to realize higher and quality pursuits.To add, data may likewise imply that respondent schools have maximized the usefulness of the tool and excellently executed such.The schools' achievement in a national contest justifies how successful the school is in its curricular and cocurricular activities with the help of perfectly crafted SBM.Be that as it may, respondent schools still struggle as to how they can effectively tap the community and ask for their participation in every school event and, in the long run, foster a sound school-community tie (Kiragu et al. 2013).As to resource management, the data explains that schools' budget was effectively allocated based on the planned activities and priorities as reflected in their SIP/AIP/APP (Supriadi et al. 2021).This collaboratively prepared plan offers a clear path/direction on how a leader spends the school budget based on COA's regulations on fund utilization.Most significantly, the above findings are in consonance with the principles of the participative theory of school leadership and management where subordinates are considered essential in the decisionmaking process to achieve a common goal (Wang et al., 2022).

Grassroots Level Execution of SBM
The findings reveal that the respondent school heads have involved their stakeholders during SBM planning.It is also confirmed that stakeholders play a big part in SBM planning and implementation since they are the schools' overseers.Hence, the need for school management's plans to be relayed to the stakeholders/community is an effective method for successfully implementing the foregoing reform.Collaboration between school and district promotes a healthy relationship and strong ties that link both conduit groups (Khattri et al., 2012;Viggayan, 2017).

Programs & Projects Implemented
From the empirical investigation, results may indicate that the school heads have fulfilled their roles of ensuring that the school's program and projects to be implemented are well-planned by the concerned school staff and stakeholders (Cabardo, 2016;Estremera, 2021a).In effect, most of the school heads' priority projects and programs are categorized under ensuring that student-driven activities are well implemented and properly documented for future references.Contextualized curriculum materials are likewise devised for the students to explore and relate to the lesson being presented.The respondent schools also focused on their learners' growth, enhancing their abilities and showcasing their skills.Conversely, the initiated projects encompass disaster preparedness and mitigation measures are incorporated in SBM.Collectively, the culture of transparency among school heads of the respondent schools is cultivated by having a bulletin board/transparency in the school where liquidation of the school expenses and excellent allocation of funds are reflected.

Hindering Factors
Despite the laudable boons side of SBM in the research locale, there have still been noted hindering factors claimed by the school administrators.The need for the school heads' actual training as far as SBM is concerned emerged one of the challenges and a hindering factor.This could probably be so since SBM is a top-down policy of DepEd Philippines where every school is bound to implement due to being a centralized agency.This resulted perhaps to the difficulty in initiating reforms and changes in the school and collaborating with external stakeholders such as politicians, GOs, NGOs, etc., just to generate full support.This is directly linked to the perspective of Cheng and Chan (2000) who accentuated that the execution of SBM reform has been considered an intricate procedure initiating vicissitudes not just in structures and political dealings but likewise in social collaborations and cultural components in both school and system parts.

Conclusion
From results and discussion, this study has formulated several philosophical conclusions (i) the improvement in the school brought by SBM is the responsiveness of SBM to the needs and challenges of the school, contextualization of curriculum, and improvement on physical facilities, linkages, and stakeholder's awareness and involvement to school PPAs; (ii) principals implemented SBM in their respective schools utilizing SBM planning with its stakeholders, advocacy campaign regarding the plan, and encouraging stakeholders to join the collaborative efforts; (iii) the different programs and projects implemented are SBM crafting and planning, student learning and activities monitoring, implementation, and documentation, clean-up drive, and transparency board; and, (iv) the hindering factors in the implementation of programs and projects are limited technical capabilities of the program and project implementer, overlapping activities, and delayed approval of SBM application.

Recommendations
Considering the conclusions, researchers recommend that (i) responsiveness of SBM to the needs and challenges of the school, contextualization of curriculum, and improvement on physical facilities, linkages, and stakeholder's awareness and involvement to school PPA be extensively maximized; (ii) the strong partnerships between the school and other stakeholders be strengthened to promote school programs and activities; (iii) formulation of groups/committees that will spearhead the different activities especially those student-driven programs be created to ensure its success; and, (iv) SBM-related enhancement programs be conducted to further improve school heads' competence.For future researches and to enrich the findings of this paper, other approaches of providing philosophical answers may be exploited like phenomenology and ethnography to capture empirical data of SBM implementation.Correlational method of inquiry to determine practically the relationship between SBM implementation and its relevance to professional development of teachers and academic performance of students are also recommended to be investigated as parallel studies.

Limitations
This study is limited only to highlight variables using descriptive statistics.It is suggested that correlation or variance statistics be used to accordingly present the essence of SBM execution.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Research Site Accentuating the Respondent Schools (Wikimedia Commons, n.d.) Research Instrument Guided by the framed RQs, researchers collaboratively came-up with a questionnaire to serve as primary tool to gather data.In effect, the survey questionnaire covers the following parts: (a) Significant improvements through SBM along with Leadership and Governance; Curriculum and Learning; Management Resources; and Accountability and continuous improvement; (b) SBM Implementation on different respondent schools; (c) different programs and projects implemented along SBM, and (d) Hindering and facilitating factors in the implementation of programs and projects along SBM.To ensure that the instrument will measure what it intends to measure, the drafted questionnaire was subjected to content validity to observe coherence between RQs as well as the anticipated responses of the participants(Estremera, 2021c;Estremera & Estremera, 2018).Validators are experts in the fields of school management, language and research at large.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Combination of Descriptive and Empirical Analysis Findings Figure 3 captures the improvements done through SBM as assessed by principals and teachers along (a) leadership and governance (b) curriculum and learning (c) accountability and continuous improvement (d) resource management.The data shows that the most considerable improvement through SBM is the claim that, respondent schools become more responsive to the needs and challenges as substantiated by 38 respondents.This is followed by a supposition that learner needs that are catered due to contextualized curriculum developed through SBM with 32 respondents and ranked 2nd; 3rd in rank is the improvement along physical facilities, linkages, and stakeholder's awareness and involvement to school PPA with agreeable 31 respondents.It is followed by increased/improved academic performance ranked 4th, the strengthened collaboration of school and community are both ranked 5th, and the alignment of SIP, APP, and AIP to the school program, making it doable and sustainable all fall under ranked 6th.Notably, continuous professional development and smooth school operation completed the list of improvements done through SBM and leadership and governance.To supplement, concerning curriculum and learning improvements, the foregoing data reveals that the most considerable progress in this area is the achievement on curricular and co-curricular contest to the national level as revealed by 57 respondents.This is vital in the educational system since the purpose of a school is to focus on achieving goals.This is followed by having a zero non-reader and improvement in students' academic performance both with 51 respondents tied at rank 2.5.The utilization of a contextualized and localized curriculum and the balanced and improved reading program are both claimed by 50 respondents with a rank of 4.5.Furthermore, along accountability and continuous improvement, it presupposes that the strong collaboration of different stakeholders for constant improvement of the school is the most improvement done through SBM and accountability and continuous Improvement with 57 amenable respondents.It is followed by responsible workers and stakeholders with high regard for accountability with 51 respondents and is ranked 2nd.Having supportive and participative school personnel, parents, students, and other stakeholders emerged 3rd with 50 respondents.Others fall under efficient and transparent financial resources management of MOOE and school funds, updated SIP and transparency board, conduct staff training and development aligned to pupils' needs such as SLAC and FGD, and assigning coordinatorships and tasks according to expertise.
, monitoring, and evaluation of programs, projects, and activities (PPAs).In the context of the study, figure 3 denotes that there have been considerable improvements in the site of interest brought by SBM realized through collaborative leadership of both internal and external stakeholders.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Programs, Projects and Activities Implemented Questionnaire) PART A: Participants DataPlease indicate the needed data in this part for reference..Leadership and Governance -the school implemented the following activities _____ 1. Crafted SIP received by the Division Office and communicated to stakeholders with proper documentations and evaluated mid-year and year-end _____ 2. List of SIP Monitoring Team _____ 3. A shortlist of identified school partners is available._____4. A copy of the school's organizational chart is present._____ 5. Designation papers of internal stakeholders with detailed roles and responsibilities and signed with conformity _____ 6.A directory of school and community leaders with their respective updated contact information is available._____7. Copy of hotlines/contact numbers at least of the following government offices -barangay LGU, PNP, BFP, DSWD, RHU-is posted visibly._____8. Learning and Development Needs Analysis Form IPCRF/OPCRF for school leaders with summary and Action plan based on the identifies need of teachers _____ 9. Inclusion of training plans in the AIP/PPMP _____ 10.Others (Please indicate on the space provided) Action plans, accomplishment, documentation reports on the implementation of programs and projects that address learners' needs (submitted & received by the district/ SDO) _____ 7. Documentation report/Certificates of participation in workshops to localize the curriculum _____ 8. Culture mapping results _____ 9. Local heritage matrix _____ 10.Contextualized curriculum matrix per learning area _____ 11.Inventory of localized and indigenized teaching and learning materials _____ 12. Organized School Level Learning Resource Evaluators _____ 13.Evaluation tools for localized Learning Resources _____ 14.Composition of a School Project Team with Terms of Reference _____ 15.Learning resource needs assessment _____ 16.Summary of assessment results _____ 17.Documentation of school assemblies and meetings _____ 18.State of the School Address [SOSA] _____ 19.Updated School Report Card (SRC) _____ 20.All SF 9 (Report Cards) are signed by the parents _____ 21.Learners' profile with anecdotal records _____ 22. Creation of Assessment Review Team with terms of reference _____ 23.Evidence of Reviewed assessment tool/s on written work such as Sample pupils/students' portfolio with specific rubrics; Sample pupils' students' journals with rubrics and Other written work like reaction or reflection paper, students' research, etc. _____ 24.Evidence of Reviewed assessment tool/s on Performance tasks such as Culminating activities, Simulation and Actual performance of task/s _____ 25.Evidence of Reviewed assessment tool/s on Quarterly examinations with TOS _____ 26.School advocacy program on child protection related concerns _____ 27.Documents on the implementation of activities related to increasing stakeholders' awareness and commitment to child protection _____ 28.Workbooks, Activity Sheets _____ 29.Documentation of student-led learning activities _____ 30.Approved Students-Initiated Activities _____ 31.Portfolio of self-directed learning programs C. Accountability and Continuous Improvement _____ 1. List of accountable persons: internal stakeholders SH, Teachers, Learners, recognized school organizations, Non-teaching personnel and External stakeholders', SGC, Community leaders, LGU, elders, recognized associations in the community a.Terms of Reference/List of roles and responsibilities/job description b.Written Designations of accountable persons based on applicable rules and regulations (as The school articulates the accountability assessment framework with basic components, including implementation guidelines to the stakeholders.a.Minutes of consultative meeting M & E tools and mechanisms used to Track: 1. School performance 2. SGC/GPTA operations 3. Resources utilization b.Documentation/presentation of SRC and accomplishment reports in School assemblies c.Annual report of performance review _____ 4. The school with the participation of stakeholders articulates an accountability assessment framework with basic components including implementation guidelines.a.Letter to the Stakeholders b.Memorandum: Organizational Meeting of the Different Committees c. Documentation d.Prepared Assessment Criteria e. Prepared Assessment Tool f.Prepared Implementing Guidelines and Implementation Plan in Gantt Chart _____ 5. School initiates periodic performance assessments with the participation of stakeholders.a.A periodic report on school performance and assessment review b.Report of SRC presentation D. Management of Resources _____ 1. Physical Inventory -Educational Facilities (classrooms, buildings, toilets, ancillary facilities, furniture,) Site Development plan, _____ 2. Human Resources -PSIPOP, Plantilla Item for Teaching/Non-teaching personnel, SF 4, Updated Form 7, Student record/e-BEIS/TNA _____ 3. Financial Resources -MOOE, SOB, APP, WFP, Liquidation reports, Utilization of other financial resources/grants/assistance/donations based on SIP/AIP/SRC, Deed of Donation _____ 4. Material Resources/Equipment -Inventory of books, TGs, LGs, CGs, IMs, (laboratory, sports, Agri.Tech-VOC, etc.) _____ 5. Transparency Board, Information Board _____ 6. BAC Secretariat _____ 7. Stakeholders are invited to participate in the development of an educational plan in resource programming and the implementation of an educational plan.a.Properly documented meeting with stakeholders on planning and resource programming b.School Improvement Plan with support of stakeholders and Annual Implementation Plan with documentation on: • meeting w/ stakeholders on planning and resource programming • Project Work Plan and Budget Matrix _____ 8. Stakeholders support judicious, appropriate and effective use of resources.•Meeting with stakeholders allocating funds for school activities supported with resolutions, proposals, and vouchers with documentation.•APP/WFP duly approved by SDS • Donations, Brigada Eskwela Financial Report/SBFP (BE Forms) • Monthly Financial Liquidation Report • Approval of ASB, AIP, WFP _____ 9. Stakeholders are invited to participate in the development and implementation of the monitoring, evaluation, and reporting process on resource management.a.Letter of invitation received by stakeholders for monitoring and evaluation on resource management contained in the SIP/AIP/MOOE/APP/SOB. • Notice of meeting • Attendance • Minutes of meeting • Documentation b.School Report Card c. Crafted/adapted M&E templates for PPAs _____ 10.An engagement procedure to identify and utilize partnerships with stakeholders for improving resource management is evident.•There is a School Focal Person/team for Partnership Engagement • School list of prospective partners/donors.•Conduct stakeholders' summit w/ documentation _____ 11.For IUS • Uses manual operations in recording & reporting financial reports 2. Directions: Which of the following items have been done by the principal in implementing SBM? Please put check (/)._____Holding SBM orientation among school stakeholders _____ Organizing SBM Team responsible for each principle _____ specifying rules and functions of every SBM team/member _____ utilizing SRC as a mechanism to inform stakeholders about the SBM level of practice _____ crafting assessment tools that verify effective SBM Implementation 3. Please check (/) on the Programs and Projects that have implemented in your school via SBM along: A